ok B1rd you really annoy me here so i'll take my time to take this trainwreck apart. This will also be my last post on this. Hopefully, the points i raise will be strong enough so it doesn't matter when you get the last word with your inevitable response later on.
if clinton had won by a hair there would have been no backlash, despite the left wing media's persistent dishonesty throughout the election cycle.
And both sides keep lying. The left lies about Trump's stances, the right lies about what the left wants. Nobody has to fear consequences, even though it clearly harms everyone.
Look up the Flynn-effect if you want. This is an irrelevant argument and i do not care in the least about it.
if anything, a monarch is more comparable to a corrupt CEO with a lot of power in an unregulated system where he has full control over his company and can exploit the market however he wants. Like a super rich and influential business owner in a third world country. This is super ironic, because the analogy works more against you than it works for you, but you don't even realize it.
i don't think you're naive. i also don't think that you're stupid, far from it actually.
i think you're delusional, and that's far worse because it can't be easily corrected by talking you out of it, like it could work for naivety.
if you take anything from this post, that'd be great. But i won't get my hopes up.
have a good night.
(also, the reason why i didn't capitalite my i's, is because my i key is broken. They're all copy pasted ;_;)
B1rd wrote:
I already told you how you were wrong about free speech, but you didn't understand my point at all. Free speech relates to ideas only. It does not refer to lying that causes people serious harm. You could talk someone into commiting murder but that has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech doesn't cover things like this and it never did.
SPOILER
if you don't believe me then maybe you will believe John Steward Mill, one of the most influental thinkers in the 19th century, who (among others) shaped the conception of liberty. There are resources you can find over wikipedia, either on his page or on the freedom of speech article, but take it that the working definition of freedom of speech is: ''the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.''
Lying is allowed under the definition of freedom of speech. if it is your idea that the patient does not have cancer, then telling him that is exerting your freedom of speech. However, Freedom of speech is limited by our government, which means that even though telling the patient a lie falls under freedom of speech, it is still being punished.
This is how it should be. if you say things that can have grave consequences, your words should be subject to great scrutiny.
if joe from across the street says that creationism is true, let him. if joe is running for president, then just no.
Let's take a break here and look at what limits are being imposed on the freedom of speech:
Back to our friend John Steward, who says: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
This maxim is known as the ''no harm principle'', one of the most universally agreed upon ethical principles. All of the restrictions on freedom of speech follow this principle.
My argument is: News sections that are telling lies violate the no harm principle and should be penalized, just like all the other things that are outlawed because they are bad. Spreading misinformation is something that has serious consequences.
Freedom has been characterized as this great awesome thing, but this is not at all true. Freedom isn't great on its own, and it surely is not what makes America great.
Lying is allowed under the definition of freedom of speech. if it is your idea that the patient does not have cancer, then telling him that is exerting your freedom of speech. However, Freedom of speech is limited by our government, which means that even though telling the patient a lie falls under freedom of speech, it is still being punished.
This is how it should be. if you say things that can have grave consequences, your words should be subject to great scrutiny.
if joe from across the street says that creationism is true, let him. if joe is running for president, then just no.
Let's take a break here and look at what limits are being imposed on the freedom of speech:
- - libel
- slander
- obscenity
- pornography
- sedition
- incitement
- classified information
- copyright violation
- trade secrets
- non-disclosure agreements
- the right to privacy
- the right to be forgotten
- public security
- perjury
Back to our friend John Steward, who says: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
This maxim is known as the ''no harm principle'', one of the most universally agreed upon ethical principles. All of the restrictions on freedom of speech follow this principle.
My argument is: News sections that are telling lies violate the no harm principle and should be penalized, just like all the other things that are outlawed because they are bad. Spreading misinformation is something that has serious consequences.
Freedom has been characterized as this great awesome thing, but this is not at all true. Freedom isn't great on its own, and it surely is not what makes America great.
B1rd wrote:
I don't care if the press announced there was no war in Syria, they would be a laughing stock if they did because there is a freedom of information. What you want to do is reduce the freedom of the press and potentially create a situation where the media is controlled by the government. Again you completely fail to comprehend my point that having the government control something like the media is a horrible idea because it can never be trusted to do the right thing.
SPOILER
Syria was an extreme example, but what about a conservative newschannel telling its viewers that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) allows taxpayer-funded abortions for everyone? (which is a lie)
You don't realize that most lies aren't obvious nowadays. Even about Syria, a clever newscaster could just obfuscate the issue to paint a different picture. Of course he won't say ''there is no war'', but he could still tell lies about the war to make people believe things about the war that are not at all true in order to influence their vote in the next election. The point was: There is nothing to prevent this from happening, and yes people fall for it en masse all the time, on both sides of the political spectrum.
Because nobody gives a shit about facts. You even denied that facts exist beyond obvious empirical truths like ''the sky is blue''. if relatively intelligent people like you can't even distinguish between fact and opinion, what does that say about the effectiveness of the democratic process?
i accredit this development to the media, politicians and the educational system blurring the line between facts and opinions for decades, and probably decades to come.
You don't realize that most lies aren't obvious nowadays. Even about Syria, a clever newscaster could just obfuscate the issue to paint a different picture. Of course he won't say ''there is no war'', but he could still tell lies about the war to make people believe things about the war that are not at all true in order to influence their vote in the next election. The point was: There is nothing to prevent this from happening, and yes people fall for it en masse all the time, on both sides of the political spectrum.
Because nobody gives a shit about facts. You even denied that facts exist beyond obvious empirical truths like ''the sky is blue''. if relatively intelligent people like you can't even distinguish between fact and opinion, what does that say about the effectiveness of the democratic process?
i accredit this development to the media, politicians and the educational system blurring the line between facts and opinions for decades, and probably decades to come.
Most people don't care. Most of the time there is no backlash. As i said above, its only getting worse. The only reason why there was a backlash this time is, because they got undeniably refuted by trump taking the election home. Like saying ''the sky will be blue tomorrow'', but then it suddenly turns bright red. Of course there is a backlash.B1rd wrote:
The reason why the press can get away with what it does it because people some people don't care. They are happy with lies that sound good rather than the truth. This isn't the fault of the company, it's the fault of the consumer. Yet there was a large backlash against the left wing MSM over all their obvious lies over the election cycle, and alternative media sites such as Breitbart have exploded into popularity. This is how things work. You don't need the government to interfere and if it did it would be extremely detrimental.
if clinton had won by a hair there would have been no backlash, despite the left wing media's persistent dishonesty throughout the election cycle.
And both sides keep lying. The left lies about Trump's stances, the right lies about what the left wants. Nobody has to fear consequences, even though it clearly harms everyone.
B1rd wrote:
Now onto the free market, basically your entire text centers around the fact that like I said, you can't personally envision how things would work so you fall back to the simplistic line of thought that 'the government must control it'. You think that if the government disappeared, then all the services offered by the government would disappear to. When you take a rock out of a riverbed, water goes and fills the place where it used to be.
SPOILER
You seriously answer my economic points with:
''When you take a rock out of a riverbed, water goes and fills the place where it used to be.''
lets make some examples here to clearly illustrate how the free market does not regulate itself.
And believe me, these things have been happening all the time, and ARE currently happening in places that aren't as regulated. What's your answer to this? ''Things will fall into place''. ''People will find a way''
Don't accuse me of being naive for not believing in the completely free market. You are the one that is naive when you think that insanity like taking away all governmental control would work out.
Your beliefs about economics are ridiculous.
''When you take a rock out of a riverbed, water goes and fills the place where it used to be.''
lets make some examples here to clearly illustrate how the free market does not regulate itself.
- - A company uses Chlorofluorocarbon instead of alkanes, because that's cheaper. This will never regulate itself because it is not visible to the customer.
- 3 companies form a cartel to control the oil price countrywide. Being the only companies that have access to the distribution infrastructure, no other company can just come in and compete with them. Even if they do come in and build their own pipes, the 3 powerful companies will just offer super low prices wherever the new company settles down, to prevent customers from switching. Eventually the new company gets forced out of business and is bought up by the other 3. They can just set whatever prices they want. They also have the option of sharing their unfair profits with the oil-suppliers, to assure loyalty, making it impossible for anyone to just come in and compete.
- A company claims that their product does not contain lead. it does contain lead! Since there is no control mechanism in place, and of course no regulation, it is only found out when the damage is already done. Since there is no regulation that says they can't do that, there also won't be any repercussions other than no more customers. The company has done a lot of profit by saving all the costs related to filtering iron out. They can use that to move to a move to a different business.
- 161 factory workers die in a fire because the factory wasn't required to install sprinklers and expensive fireproof doors
And believe me, these things have been happening all the time, and ARE currently happening in places that aren't as regulated. What's your answer to this? ''Things will fall into place''. ''People will find a way''
Don't accuse me of being naive for not believing in the completely free market. You are the one that is naive when you think that insanity like taking away all governmental control would work out.
Your beliefs about economics are ridiculous.
The average iq is so low because these people don't receive any sort of formal education. i can assure you that the average iq was just as low before everyone started going to school. if these countries had functioning governments, the average iq would shoot up over the decades as well.B1rd wrote:
The things that separates the first world and third world is the IQ of the population. You can't have a functioning democracy if the average IQ is 80 or below. A lot of European countries are starting to look like third world countries because they have taken a lot of third world immigrants. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the type of government.
Look up the Flynn-effect if you want. This is an irrelevant argument and i do not care in the least about it.
B1rd wrote:
Creationism should be taught in schools. Not in all schools, but whichever schools deem to teach it. You're not forced into sending your child to a school that teaches certain things. Unlike what you want, which is all schools to be forced to teach something that could very well be ideological indoctrination.
SPOILER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac
people should watch this. is Freedom of religion something that should be protected in every case? When the children from this video grow up and have children on their own, is it their ''decision'' to send their own children to the same camp?
if schools did this (and they do, in some places), they have failed their purpose. The educational system has to educate, not indoctrinate. The goal of education is for people to grow up and become adults that can make decisions on their own.
indoctrination achieves the opposite and hence should be outlawed, just like scientology is outlawed in Germany.
it is factually wrong, it uses dishonest and harmful methods and people need to be protected from it.
Teaching things that are factually wrong is not education, it's simply spreading misinformation. The opposite of what you want. People need to learn the most accurate description of reality for them to be able to make accurate predictions about reality. This is why unaccurate descriptions about reality have no place in school.
people should watch this. is Freedom of religion something that should be protected in every case? When the children from this video grow up and have children on their own, is it their ''decision'' to send their own children to the same camp?
if schools did this (and they do, in some places), they have failed their purpose. The educational system has to educate, not indoctrinate. The goal of education is for people to grow up and become adults that can make decisions on their own.
indoctrination achieves the opposite and hence should be outlawed, just like scientology is outlawed in Germany.
it is factually wrong, it uses dishonest and harmful methods and people need to be protected from it.
Teaching things that are factually wrong is not education, it's simply spreading misinformation. The opposite of what you want. People need to learn the most accurate description of reality for them to be able to make accurate predictions about reality. This is why unaccurate descriptions about reality have no place in school.
Once you said that evolution and climate change aren't facts, it became very clear to me that you either can't distinguish between opinion and fact, or that there are ideological reasons for you to deny these facts. No matter which of the two it is, they both most likely run too deep for anyone to correct on this platform.B1rd wrote:
And just calling something a fact doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it is. It's a theory. And yes I know what theory means. And guess what, despite people being free to dissent, most people still believe that your theories are correct. So guess what, you don't need to silence harmful indoctrinating dissenting opinions for people to believe what they will.
you can't compare a monarchy to a modern government, that's ridiculous. A government consists of a shitload of people and multiple instances that exert power over each other. A monarch is one guy who can do basically what he wants. Nothing in a modern government comes even close to that.B1rd wrote:
It's funny how you try to make a point about how things were different back in the olden days yet couple paragraphs later you use what it used to be like then as an example to back up your point. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And it's also funny that you use back then as an example when most places were monarchies and the ruling classes had absolute authority over its citizens, it doesn't help your point that the powers of the government should be expanded.
if anything, a monarch is more comparable to a corrupt CEO with a lot of power in an unregulated system where he has full control over his company and can exploit the market however he wants. Like a super rich and influential business owner in a third world country. This is super ironic, because the analogy works more against you than it works for you, but you don't even realize it.
They do have armies in countries without governmental control, and they had armies in the past in europe. They will have armies again when you take away all control. Who currently prevents them from having armies? The government.B1rd wrote:
And yes I trust a businessman more than the government, typically businessmen don't have armies and a police force that actually can fuck people up. You're really showing your true colours as a typical left-wing bigot here by calling me 'crazy' because I repect people's rights like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and religious freedom. I wish there weren't a whole lot of people like you in my country, being useful idiots and giving up everyone's rights and freedoms on their behalf.
B1rd wrote:
Edit: I mean, the ulterior motives of the government have even been proven by such things as wikileaks, yet despite all the evidence both past and present you refuse to believe that the government abuses its power.
SPOILER
Power will always be abused. At least democratic governments have mechanisms to prevent power abuse. You US is pretty corrupt and known for being imperialist, but the countries in the EU (say Germany) are operating with a minimal amount of exploitation for the power they have. i would even claim that the ratio between power and abuse is better than it ever has been before in the history of humanity.
i concede that it won't be perfect. But you leaving it up to people that mostly care about money is far worse. FAR WORSE.
you call me naive, so let me tell you something. You say i am blind for trusting the government like that.
i don't trust the government. But i know that thanks to regulations and the government's protection, we live in the safest time since the dawn of humanity. Power is super scary when someone other than yourself yields it, but yielding it correctly can make a lot of things better. What you suggest is just letting things fall into place on it's own. That won't work. it just doesn't. We saw the consequences in the past, we can see them now, and we can predict what would happen in the future.
i concede that it won't be perfect. But you leaving it up to people that mostly care about money is far worse. FAR WORSE.
you call me naive, so let me tell you something. You say i am blind for trusting the government like that.
i don't trust the government. But i know that thanks to regulations and the government's protection, we live in the safest time since the dawn of humanity. Power is super scary when someone other than yourself yields it, but yielding it correctly can make a lot of things better. What you suggest is just letting things fall into place on it's own. That won't work. it just doesn't. We saw the consequences in the past, we can see them now, and we can predict what would happen in the future.
i don't think you're naive. i also don't think that you're stupid, far from it actually.
i think you're delusional, and that's far worse because it can't be easily corrected by talking you out of it, like it could work for naivety.
if you take anything from this post, that'd be great. But i won't get my hopes up.
have a good night.
(also, the reason why i didn't capitalite my i's, is because my i key is broken. They're all copy pasted ;_;)
