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

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:52 am

Prismatic567 wrote:The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.
Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
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.
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.
The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:59 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.

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

Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?

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.

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.

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.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jun 24, 2018 2:24 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.
The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.


Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
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.
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.

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.
The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.
Agree.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:07 pm

Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:48 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.

Again, once you make an assertion, you get an onus.

Point is why should I defend myself based on another's assumption which is unproven and illusory.
Again, because you made an assertion.
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.
If Joe asserts there is a God, in a philosophy forum, in an academic setting, etc. someone noticing this can ask for justification and expect a response. If Jim asserts there is no God, the same onus arises there.

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.
Did you not read that agnostics and even other atheists may expect justiication for your statement in a philosophical discussion setting? The evil of theists HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. We were talking about an ontological issue. With attendant epistemological issues. What evil acts has philosophical graffitte committed?

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.
The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.
Agree.[/quote]
Except you clearly did not, and continued to disagree in the rest of your post above.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:03 am

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
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.

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.


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.
You are conflating too many points here.

Note,

    1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
    2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
    3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being
    4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?

1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
The existence of human beings is easy prove via empirical testings.

2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
There are epistemological issues re existence Other Minds.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Despite the contentions, I believe the supporting arguments for the existence of other minds
are more convincing than the skeptics' view.

However, there are loads of research from the psychology and other philosophical perspective to support the existence and knowledge of minds/consciousness other than one's own. Note

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, knowledge, etc.—to oneself, and to others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind


It is not exactly easy, but it is not impossible to prove and convince the existence of other minds as above.

3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being.
I have argued God is ultimately and has to be a non-empirical being, i.e. an ontological God. There is no way a non-empirical ontological God can be proven with empirical methods.

If anyone claims their God is an empirical being then bring proofs to show God is an empirical being like a human being or any other mind-independent objects?

4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?
There are no evidence a non-empirical objects has a 'mind' like a human mind or even those of animals.
Therefore God as non-empirical cannot have a mind like a human mind.

Again, proving God exists is as simple as proving other people's consciousness exist or that mind-independent external world objects exist.
Against the above points, there is no way you can prove God exists.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:20 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.

Again, once you make an assertion, you get an onus.

Point is why should I defend myself based on another's assumption which is unproven and illusory.
Again, because you made an assertion.

My onus is I have exposed the implication of an assumption is his assertion.

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.
If Joe asserts there is a God, in a philosophy forum, in an academic setting, etc. someone noticing this can ask for justification and expect a response. If Jim asserts there is no God, the same onus arises there.
Note the sequence,
    1. Joe assert there is a God.
    2. Then only can Jim asserts there is no God.

In the above case Joe's assertion takes priority and thus Joe has the onus to provide proofs for his claim. There is no priority and onus on Jim to prove his claim in this particular issue.

However I agree if Jim decide to take the initiative to kill off Joe's claim, then Jim has the onus to prove his case.
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.

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.

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

Except you clearly did not, and continued to disagree in the rest of your post above.

Note the focus should be on the primary claimant re God exists, not the secondary negating claim.

However, as an initiative and mentioned above;
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Greatest I Am,

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.


What purpose, positive purpose, does hate serve? It is a very strong emotion which can get way out of hand and do a lot of destruction.

Can you give me an example of when and how *hate is good*. For instance, a scenario?
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15190
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:17 pm

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:How does one prove God does not exist?


By taking a phrase like Freedom of Speech and equating it with a total lack of responsibility and consciousness toward whomever it addresses.

In other words, anything goes even if at some point it leads to the destruction of millions of Jews or African Americans or mentally ill or incapacitated children..........et cetera. We just NEVER learn do we?

God is not only dead but never existed in the first place.

We cannot stop a volcano from erupting but we can put a muzzle on lack of consciousness and stupidity.
I am all for allowing the censorship of hate speech. Perhaps those who are not do not understand the necessity for self-discipline and clear thinking.
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15190
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate spe

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:26 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:I am all for allowing the censorship of hate speech. Perhaps those who are not do not understand the necessity for self-discipline and clear thinking.
How would censorship lead to self-discipline? (wouldn't it undercut the possibility to some degree?) Can one not express anger and think clearly?
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users