FJ, I already answered your post with my last two replies.
LK, I already answered your post with my last two replies in the other two threads that we’re having conversations in this morning.
I need coffee.
You still for some reason keep taking about exploiting children, and not free speech. But that’s a complete subject change. Someone who goes to prison for exploiting children isn’t going to prison because of their speech, but because they actually exploited actual children.
So I think your actual position in regards to the limits of free speech is still incredibly ambiguous.
Sit with my last two posts today and tell me if you see better by the end of it.
I don’t. It still seems like you are dragging the conversation into being about the act of exploiting a child, because that’s the word you keep using. But the act of exploiting a child isn’t a matter of free speech. An illiterate mute can exploit a child with no speech at all, so speech isn’t the issue.
Is this the speech you’re talking about? So not any specific act of literal exploitation of a real child, but instead a pedo sharing his opinion online about his own psychology, correct?
You believe that a pedo sharing that sort of opinion online should be silenced, and the reason you think that is because you think the spread of that idea might be dangerous to children in the long term?
That’s fair.
So there are ideas which shouldn’t be spread because of the harm they might cause. Is it just limited to sexual harm of children? What about sexual harm of adults? Or non sexual harm?
What if some people were spreading an idea that you knew to be false, that if enough people accepted, would result in the deaths of thousands, or millions, or extinction? Would any of those types of scenarios stack up against a pedophile expressing what he thinks about his own psychology?
signs “are you joking‽” in sign language
Do not shelter yourself against questions/ideas. Inoculate with answers/stronger ideas.
Making people shut up is not helping them think. It’s making their thoughts go underground and get worse in isolation. Ideas need to see the light of day/reason.
Truth always withstands the fire of reason, and love resonates.
Right, you’re saying all that, but you’ve also apparently expressed that that doesn’t apply to a pedophile expressing his views on his own psychology, which means that those values, while perhaps dear to you, are not absolute to you.
So if they don’t apply to this pedo, who or what else don’t they apply to?
Asking me to restate what you left out. Go reread what I said and don’t leave anything out.
What if a non pedophile expressed that same opinion about pedophiles? That it was an unchosen sexual preference? Should that speech be allowed, or censored? Should the person expressing that idea go to prison for saying that? Or is the punishment for saying an idea like that reserved for actual pedophiles?
Idk what this means.
You have to sit with ideas and let them percolate for a while. Asking me to restate what I already said over and over again is not gonna help you understand it better. It could be that there is life experience or something that you haven’t had yet that is not allowing the ideas to unlock in your brain.
I think it’s more that you’re just not being clear.
I know a fella who takes dilemmas/syntheses and presents one horn as if that was actually what the thinker thought. He can play it that way, though… good fodder for jokes later.
It’s pretty easy to be clear. Look:
“I believe in free speech absolutely, so I don’t think there’s any scenario where any government or any private organisation should censor or fact check any idea”
That’s a clear position
Or how about this
“I believe in free speech almost absolutely, so I don’t think there’s any scenario where any government or any private organisation should censor or fact check any idea, UNLESS it’s a pedophile saying he thinks it’s just a sexual preference”
That’s a clear position. Both of those have clear boundaries for when free speech should end. One is: no boundary. The other is: specifically at pedophiles, but no other scenario.
You have the option to be clear. Do you not want to?
I already stayed in my position clearly, you just keep misrepresenting it as if I didn’t.
So is it the second position in my post? Free speech absolutely in all situations except for pedophiles? That’s the clearest signal I’ve had in this conversation, but I’m not certain it’s your position.
You’re talking as if I’m misrepresenting your position on purpose, but I’m very purposely trying to do the opposite of that, trying to have a situation where you put it plainly so that I don’t have to try to interpret your words and risk getting it wrong. I would like to not have a misrepresented idea of your position, and I’m working pretty hard I think at getting there. I just need your help to get there.
It feels like you think I’m attacking you. I’m not.
I have no idea what these three ideas you are trying to choose between in the vote.
Do you?
Y/N/Y Everyone has a voice NOW!
T/F/T Disagree with those who agree with you! Tomorrow!
G/B/G Silence those who disagree with you! Yesterday!
What are the letters at the front eg “Y?N?Y” for example?
The only way I can answer what is “Democracy NOw!” is a really good news programme.
Yes/No/Yes (affirmation)
True/False/True (truth)
Good/Bad/Good (goodness)
It’s the three syntheses.