If people had to explain why their ideas are necessarily valid, what percent of freedom of speech could legally continue to be exercised?
The justification here is that one person’s freedom of speech is not superior to another’s freedom of assembly. Therefore, uttering unreliable statements is intrinsically violating and should be prohibited.
This doesn’t mean freedom of speech is restricted. People can still say whatever they want. They just have to prepare or follow through on what they say. That way, audience members aren’t forced to assume a risk they don’t consent to assume.
Is this everywhere?
Who determines that the justification is satisfactory?
How do you prevent an infinite task, since justifications will include more assertions which can be challenged?
How do we prevent children from using such a requirement from creating endless work for their parents?
What politician could speak?
Well, if you say X is good because X causes Y. People can then ask, why is Y good? How do you know X causes Y? What else does X cause and does this offset the benefits of Y? So they you answer these questions and your answers can similarly be questioned?
How do parents demonstrate that it is better to go to bed at 830 than 900? To watch one hour of TV and not 2? To attend Catholic church and not Methodist? (I could go on) A lot of things are very hard to demonstrate. What are the criteria that show that an assertion (or rule) is valid or reliable?
There seem to be a number of sustainable lifestyles, but then, perhaps not. How do parents show they are making the right rules, which are based on assertions?
You’re not sure what it means to originate something?
Well, they explain how what they’re doing reflects who they are. People go to sleep on time so they can get their rest and rejuvenate for the next day of things they have prepared to do. People eat right so they can grow and maintain themselves optimally and properly. People don’t watch TV all day so their brains don’t fry from dissociation.
To originate something would be to create it. I am not sure what that would have to do with this context. If you mean the intransitive meaning of origninate - which seems closer to the topic - then you don’t have a something that is orginated as your sentence does.
But that does not make the claims regarding religion reliable. It merely explains why the parents go to this church and not that one. And it certainly wouldn’t justify, say, Jesus’ divine nature. Basically that rule would eliminate religion. No parent could tell a child most religious claims.
Right but notice how that does not discriminate between 830 and 900, which was my specific example. The phrase ‘on time’ would be tautological in context.
Sure, but there is support for all sorts of nutritional habits out there. How could parents demonstrate that their limit on, say, sugar, is a good one?
And again, that doesn’t deal with the issue. The kids would simply point out there are at school and do other things so they cannot watch TV all day. You havent justified the position. A lot of parental rules, decisions and assertions cannot be demonstrated to be correct. A parent would not be able to limit Ipod usage, since it hasnt been around long enough to demonstrate this limit or that one is the correct one. Parents use intuition all the time to make decisions and make assertions to their children.
I’m going to let others respond. This just doesn’t make much sense to me, but perhaps it will to others.
Origination is what’s necessary. Literally, things need an origin.
Why are we talking about religion?
You’re asking about hypothetical lifestyles. It would be prejudiced for me to answer that. I’m just providing the structure, not the context.
I’m not sure what the problem is with intuition. Radical empiricism looks at the effects, not causes, of what happens. It focuses on what’s possible, not what’s necessary.
The point is parents need to explain how it’s necessary for things to exist, and that practicing some lifestyles contradicts the sustainability of those very lifestyles themselves.
But note that I said that “I have to agree”.
Why would that be?
…Only because I conform to a standard of reasoning and logic.
When asking “Why”, one is asking for reasoning, not “the freedom to say whatever you want”.
If people are forced, against their will, to explain the reasoning behind their ideas, they will be forced not merely into reasoning, but into the ignorance of presumption due to their presumed axioms. “Necessarily true” is something that I and very few others can testify to. That would mean that almost no one would be allowed to speak at all.
Such is the effort of socialistic conquerors, “speak only what the King approves”. But seriously… what is the standard for reasoning, that which the King had proclaimed as “truth”, or that which logic cannot deny?
What if people could only speak Logic? What if they were incapable?
What if life isn’t yours to dictate.
This may sound a bit silly, but I was really stumped several years back when one of my kids figured out, at the age of 5, that the card game “go fish” was based on a naive honor system which invited cheating – she was pretty good at the trick as well as somewhat persistent in questioning why it was wrong. As a parent who generally encouraged independent thinking and cleverness, I’m not sure I handled that one well.