Do we have to listen to stupid arguments?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Wanting to give a man a position of such importance - what's essentially the apex of sociopolitical power, fame, responsibility, and influence, being the executive of the world superpower, commanding a state and military with nigh-absolute freedom to wield ultimate authority and sheer might across the globe - solely because he lacks any filter between mind and mouth (like a well-adjusted adult should have) and is not only unafraid, but childishly eager to express his irrational, hate-filled, feeble-minded, unreasonably-prejudiced thoughts and opinions acting as a poison within our society... is something I personally find incomprehensibly immature, irresponsible, inhuman and reckless.

In regard to my own actions and behavior: I feel obligated to deliberately not afford any respect, consideration, or even intellectual acknowledgement to certain pernicious societal undercurrents.

Honestly, it was best summed up two centuries ago:

With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.

[Dakini]

Uh, he's expressing his views just fine and that's definitely not what he said.

He was pointing out how, in response to me telling you that race isn't scientifically meaningful, you decided you had to trot out the argument that black people are inferior.

Actually he brought up the black inferiority thing. He was using it as an example of things people should not say in a university setting. With due respect Doctor, (Can't think of a name said you have a PhD so I will call you doctor unless this is not the case) I was not arguing that blacks are inferior, but instead saying that as an opinion, it is arguable to some degree that it should not be censored if said diplomatically. Perhaps my communication skill is bad as I took 2 exams and did a paper today, but that is what I was trying to say.

Don't call me Doctor unless you're going to give me an extra heart, a sonic screwdriver and a TARDIS, it's fucking annoying and you probably don't do it to the other people with PhDs on this forum.

And I think you need to learn that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, nor is it the right to a venue and an audience. You can speak all you want, but nobody has to listen to you and often, people will tell you to shut the fuck up.

I mean, if you're a student in a class and you keep interrupting class to talk about how black people are criminals, you're probably told to shut the fuck up. People aren't there to listen to you and your stupid arguments, they're there to listen to the professor teach them something. Nobody owes you an explanation or a dialogue.

[Jumalariik]

Actually he brought up the black inferiority thing. He was using it as an example of things people should not say in a university setting. With due respect Doctor, (Can't think of a name said you have a PhD so I will call you doctor unless this is not the case) I was not arguing that blacks are inferior, but instead saying that as an opinion, it is arguable to some degree that it should not be censored if said diplomatically. Perhaps my communication skill is bad as I took 2 exams and did a paper today, but that is what I was trying to say.

Don't call me Doctor unless you're going to give me an extra heart, a sonic screwdriver and a TARDIS, it's fucking annoying and you probably don't do it to the other people with PhDs on this forum.

And I think you need to learn that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, nor is it the right to a venue and an audience. You can speak all you want, but nobody has to listen to you and often, people will tell you to shut the fuck up.

I mean, if you're a student in a class and you keep interrupting class to talk about how black people are criminals, you're probably told to shut the fuck up. People aren't there to listen to you and your stupid arguments, they're there to listen to the professor teach them something. Nobody owes you an explanation or a dialogue.

Sorry Dakini. I didn't know actually that others had PhDs, or at least other people I've talked with. (please don't think I was being sarcastic)

Well, I agree with you. That said, in the video I linked to CToAN, the people protesting the talk did not seem to be supporting free speech. Going to talks you disagree with and yelling at the people there is not supporting free speech. Part of free speech is that you allow public forums and talks to be public and free.

I meant no disrespect in calling you Doctor, if I knew others who had PhDs, I'd call them Doctor too.

[Dakini]

Don't call me Doctor unless you're going to give me an extra heart, a sonic screwdriver and a TARDIS, it's fucking annoying and you probably don't do it to the other people with PhDs on this forum.

And I think you need to learn that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, nor is it the right to a venue and an audience. You can speak all you want, but nobody has to listen to you and often, people will tell you to shut the fuck up.

I mean, if you're a student in a class and you keep interrupting class to talk about how black people are criminals, you're probably told to shut the fuck up. People aren't there to listen to you and your stupid arguments, they're there to listen to the professor teach them something. Nobody owes you an explanation or a dialogue.

Sorry Dakini. I didn't know actually that others had PhDs, or at least other people I've talked with. (please don't think I was being sarcastic)

Well, I agree with you. That said, in the video I linked to CToAN, the people protesting the talk did not seem to be supporting free speech. Going to talks you disagree with and yelling at the people there is not supporting free speech. Part of free speech is that you allow public forums and talks to be public and free.

I meant no disrespect in calling you Doctor, if I knew others who had PhDs, I'd call them Doctor too.

The people who were protesting have the right to free speech too, you know.

[Jumalariik]

Sorry Dakini. I didn't know actually that others had PhDs, or at least other people I've talked with. (please don't think I was being sarcastic)

Well, I agree with you. That said, in the video I linked to CToAN, the people protesting the talk did not seem to be supporting free speech. Going to talks you disagree with and yelling at the people there is not supporting free speech. Part of free speech is that you allow public forums and talks to be public and free.

I meant no disrespect in calling you Doctor, if I knew others who had PhDs, I'd call them Doctor too.

The people who were protesting have the right to free speech too, you know.

Sure, Im perhaps not even saying what they did should have been stopped. I just think that from their point of view what they did was bad. Further, would you not agree that their speech infringed on Milo's?

[Grinstead]

Do I have to listen to you?

[Minoa]

I question whether I should even have to put up with politics in the first place if I can enjoy a calm life without any problems.

[Jumalariik]

I question whether I should even have to put up with politics in the first place if I can enjoy a calm life without any problems.

On a different topic, i really light your photos.

[Dakini]

The people who were protesting have the right to free speech too, you know.

Sure, Im perhaps not even saying what they did should have been stopped. I just think that from their point of view what they did was bad. Further, would you not agree that their speech infringed on Milo's?

meh.... I mean, that asshole has his own platforms to speak where he can speak to people who want to listen to him (though his articles are often ghost-written so...), being denied one venue because the people there didn't want to hear what he had to say doesn't mean that he is prohibited from speaking freely in general.

[Jumalariik]

Sure, Im perhaps not even saying what they did should have been stopped. I just think that from their point of view what they did was bad. Further, would you not agree that their speech infringed on Milo's?

meh.... I mean, that asshole has his own platforms to speak where he can speak to people who want to listen to him (though his articles are often ghost-written so...), being denied one venue because the people there didn't want to hear what he had to say doesn't mean that he is prohibited from speaking freely in general.

But they didn't all not want to hear him. In fact, most people wanted to watch the talk or at least were not protesting it. He is an asshole, but he has the right to say what he wants, doesn't he?

[Dakini]

meh.... I mean, that asshole has his own platforms to speak where he can speak to people who want to listen to him (though his articles are often ghost-written so...), being denied one venue because the people there didn't want to hear what he had to say doesn't mean that he is prohibited from speaking freely in general.

But they didn't all not want to hear him. In fact, most people wanted to watch the talk or at least were not protesting it. He is an asshole, but he has the right to say what he wants, doesn't he?

So do the protesters.

[Jumalariik]

But they didn't all not want to hear him. In fact, most people wanted to watch the talk or at least were not protesting it. He is an asshole, but he has the right to say what he wants, doesn't he?

So do the protesters.

Well, with due respect, they aren't saying anything. They are intruding on an assembly of people and making the assembly go slower. They don't try to have a debate or dialogue, they just shout. What they did, though not inherently illegal, is certainly a form of free speech violation. They were trying to prevent the assembly.

[Dakini]

So do the protesters.

Well, with due respect, they aren't saying anything. They are intruding on an assembly of people and making the assembly go slower. They don't try to have a debate or dialogue, they just shout. What they did, though not inherently illegal, is certainly a form of free speech violation. They were trying to prevent the assembly.

Usually when discussing freedom of speech, this includes freedom of expression, not just talking and not just words. Speech and expression isn't just debating and it isn't just initiating a dialogue. Do you think that the speaker was going to start a dialogue or a debate? He was just going to talk.

If you're going to complain that the protesters were disrupting his speech, you can't really use the argument that they were violating his right to speak freely without insisting on violating the protesters right to do the same.

[New Edom]

Well, with due respect, they aren't saying anything. They are intruding on an assembly of people and making the assembly go slower. They don't try to have a debate or dialogue, they just shout. What they did, though not inherently illegal, is certainly a form of free speech violation. They were trying to prevent the assembly.

Usually when discussing freedom of speech, this includes freedom of expression, not just talking and not just words. Speech and expression isn't just debating and it isn't just initiating a dialogue. Do you think that the speaker was going to start a dialogue or a debate? He was just going to talk.

If you're going to complain that the protesters were disrupting his speech, you can't really use the argument that they were violating his right to speak freely without insisting on violating the protesters right to do the same.

The problem with their actions is that it goes both ways. It's discourteous, and that may seem an old fashioned way to see it, but the thing is, if it's just a free for all then ultimately it won't be a debate, just a contest of strength. That unfortunately seems to be all a lot of pepole want these days.

I think more government by coalition would be better. I think it would be better if there were more cooperation between people, which is going to become more and more ncessary. Some of the stuff being shouted down doesn't even make any sense.

[Esternial]

I think more government by coalition would be better. I think it would be better if there were more cooperation between people, which is going to become more and more ncessary. Some of the stuff being shouted down doesn't even make any sense.

As a Belgian I can only endorse this message.

Since most often we tend to have coalitions or no government at all.

[Neu Leonstein]

Do I have to listen to you?

Obviously not. But then, I don't run around proclaiming that my opinion is being oppressed when you don't either. But these days, entire political mass movements are based on the idea that "elites"/"establishment" not working to implement simplistic, emotionally-driven policy proposals (i.e. stupid arguments) is sufficient reason to try and break the system altogether.

[Grinstead]

Do I have to listen to you?

Obviously not. But then, I don't run around proclaiming that my opinion is being oppressed when you don't either.

I don't claim my opinion is being oppressed?

[Neu Leonstein]

I don't claim my opinion is being oppressed?

No. At least I didn't see you do it. But I was speaking in general terms - there are people who think that if their opinions are not taking seriously, the reason is some sort of oppressive PC culture, rather than that maybe their opinions are a bit stupid (i.e. inconsistent with fact). They are the people whose arguments I was talking about in the OP.

I don't consider myself among those people, so whether or not you listen to my opinion is pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand...