@jorgevy said:
@willpayton: actually, by that conclusion, none of us are truly free, in any way, even in speech. freedom is not omnipotence. some stuff you just can't do. there are physical limitions for humans, and thus we can't do some activities even if we desire, so either we aren't truly free and thus the word freedom should be used with " " and carefully planned or there's another definition of freedom.
the second option is what I believe in and that definition seems correct to me; freedom is not being able to do anything you want, it's being able to do what you want without going over the border of other people's freedom. since each individual could have it's own definition of where his/her own freedom ends, it's up to society according moral norms to limit under the agreement of it's members that same freedom.
so yeah, basically, you can say and do whatever you want, but you have the responsability of those actions. if you say someone is X, then you should present proof for that when that person sues you for it. under better laws, if you tried to go picket someone's funeral with threats and exclamations of joy over the death of those people, you should know that you are getting banned from the service/memorial and probably sued or worst.
Well, freedom is never omnipotence. Even an omnipotent being would not be free to break the laws of logic, so even omnipotence in a sense just means "can do anything that you can do"... which applies to any being.
Regardless, I dont see any issue with stating an opinion, certainly nothing that would warrant the government to create laws to stop people from doing so. Like I said, some countries like Germany have many laws to prevent people from stating their thoughts... which is ironic since ostensibly those laws are there to protect people, but they serve only to harm them. Ignorance is not a virtue, and certainly ignorance wont protect you from danger. And in the worst case, ignorance can be used by those in power to control you. It's not a coincidence that religions have historically been anti-science, anti-progress, and anti-diversity. The best way to control people is to keep them ignorant and dependent.
once again you entirely bypass my argument.
I'll simplify as much as I can. as soon as an opinion or statement encourages illegal and imoral actions set by society, it should be seen as the responsability of those who stated those things to present proof and defend their opinion or handle the consequences. groups who support the dead of several others obviously should be accounted for that position, even if they have actually not killed anyone. just like groups of people in South Africa who claim lesbians should be raped to "turn" them straight, or the groups of people in Asia that support the mutilation of people for traditional or religious purposes.
Ignorance is a problem, but it's not the only one. some people act fully aware of what they are doing and what their actions are. just because it's a fundamental right to be able to speak your mind, doesn't mean that you can do it when it diminishes the value of other people's lives. while not a severe crime on itself, it obviously should suffer some type of repercussion, even if it's just the banishment of certain individuals from certain cerimonies or the payment of a certain ammount of money to the people hurt by those statements.
because yeah, it's just not physically that you can hurt someone. who knows how deep these statements and others could affect someone? the traumas that could incite or feed, and the ramifications of such psychological attacks?
it's fairly easy to say you want full freedom, but freedom is a coin, with two faces. rights and duties, and you are only allowed your rights if you accomplish your duties, and you should only complete such duties if your rights are respected.
if you don't respect other people's mourning of their families and their religious cerimonies, why should your own religion be respected for stating it's opinion?
Log in to comment