Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

Okay, so you are for censorship. Any speech not covered by the umbrella of “just cause” ought to be censored.

The concept of “just cause” is vague. Certainly, it means different things to different people. The most important meaning will be the one chosen by the authorities which control the police forces. It’s going to be abused and misused.

Freedom of speech means that people can say things which are misogynist, homophobic or antisemitic. (Or they are perceived as such by the listener, rightly or wrongly.)

No. I am not for censorship.

I am against the type of freedom of speech I named and it would be to a judge to put gag orders on those who would discriminate without a just cause.

If a judge could find a just cause then he should not issue a gag order.

If speech is censored, then the public could not learn what the public/legal standards are that a judge would show.

Let all have free speech, with sanctions where legally appropriate.

Regards
DL

I think I answered this with my last.

Hate is good if well aimed. You mention issues where the aim is off the mark and a judge would make that clear for all the population.

Regards
DL

Somehow you manage to convince yourself that you do not support censorship, although everything you write indicates that you do. I guess the concept of “just cause” makes you feel good about censorship.

Indeed.

I am all in for free speech but not for free lying.

Free lying is presently being allowed. Do you think it should be when it creates victims of our most vulnerable and gullible?

youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Regards
DL

How do you know that it is intentional lying rather than being misinformed or ignorant?

The problem with this is you did think some kinds of communication should be stopped, for example racism. But racists do not think they are lying. And neither do most of the theists you hate. They are believers.

Seriously.

youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Regards
DL

What they think is not as important as what they can prove or risk being accused of slander.

Every time someone says something of the Gods, it is a lie.

God is unknowable.

Regards
DL

So you think that everyone who speaks about gods ought to be censored.

Interesting. :-k

I ask you a general question about how lying would be detected and what to do about human errors. You cherry pick televangelists in response.

I don’t think ‘slander’ is what you mean, but in any case, this is the case right now. You can accuse them of lying or spreading falsehood. They have free speech and so do you. So I am not sure if you mean they should be censored or not.

That is simply not the case. Unless you are arguing that there are no theists.

How does one prove God does not exist?

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely ‘assumptive’ and useless.

Another counter to
“How does one prove God does not exist?”
is that the idea of God is a non-starter, moot.

Note my thread,
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility

Following your logic, what if one asked the following question:

  1. Do mind-independent objects and events which brains purportedly represent in the form of conscious experience of perceptual copies of these mind-independent objects and events exist?

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from the perspective of someone believing that there are mind-independent objects and events exists.
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is upon anyone believing in the existence of mind-independent objects and events to convert one’s assumption to fact first [i.e. prove mind-independent objects and events exist] else belief in mind-independent objects and events is assumptive and useless.

One can substitute ‘mind-independent objects and events’ with ‘other people’s consciousnesses’.

The existence of mind-independent objects and events and other people’s consciousness are ultimately a matter of faith, as there is no proof these exist. They’re in the same boat as God.

It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.

Asking you to demonstrate the truth of your assumption is not a request or demand for you to accept another position. It is precisely what it is: a request for you to defend your assertion.

The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.

Precisely the answers I wish I had given. Danke.

The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.

Definition of Assumption;
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without proof.
vocabulary.com/dictionary/assumption

Point is why should I defend myself based on another’s assumption which is unproven and illusory.
If I assume you kill X and demand you prove you did not kill X, there is no obligation on your part to prove you did not kill X. Whatever I assumed, the onus is on me to prove without doubts you had killed X.

Many theists commit a range of evils and violence [ kill and commit genocide] in accordance to the commands and in the name of their God. Surely these theists has an onus to prove their God exists as real to support their acts? It is evil to throw the onus of proof to the non-theists so they can get away and continue with murders and other evils.

Agree.

The consciousness of other people and the existence of mind-independent objects purportedly represented by the brain in and translated into the objects and environments appearing to sensory perception are also ‘unproven and illusory’, given that the only existence that appears is the conscious experience of a single person. Yet most believe in the existence of other people’s consciousness and mind-independent objects in the external world. Given that the only existence that shows itself is experience in the form of the subjective experience of a particular person, the existence of everything other than a person’s own consciousness is a matter of faith, with any possibility or probability of their existence being merely the level of a person’s belief in the existence of something outside a person’s consciousness.

God is in the same boat as other people’s consciousness and mind-independent, external world objects. One must have faith in his existence. For those asserting that he does not exist, one can argue that this is a prejudice based on the fact that, though God is in the same boat as other people’s consciousness and mind-independent objects, the one making the assertion has a particular strong disbelief in the existence of God, and at the same time, believes in the existence of the former. Everything is ultimately about belief, disbelief, and the various strengths of belief and disbelief leading to estimations of the “likelihood” or “probability” of the existence of something that is not the consciousness of a person.

Some theists commit evil and violence in the name of God. Others are kind, empathetic people that wouldn’t harm a fly and are better persons because of their belief. Again, proving God exists is as simple as proving other people’s consciousness exist or that mind-independent external world objects exist.