This kind of free speech is not really free speech. Free speech does not include "oh, I am all for free speech, as long as it does not offend my ethical world view, stomach, or political views". Free speech is free. .Period. Josh warned everyone about the video beforehand, which is exactly what he should have done to balance free speech and peoples' perspectives. If they clicked and were offended, it's their problem, no matter how old they are.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Agreed.
I also agree. But, one should not be oblivious of the effects their form of "free speech" may have on those who view their "free speech".
saying anything just for the sake of saying anything can at best bee benign and at worst be destructive.
There is a responsibility attached to the action of free speech
Which was spelled out when Josh warned. However, Josh should have said "Warning, graphic video. View only if you are mature.".
I've already put this issue to rest.
We do not need to discuss it any further.
I will post as I wish.
No, the issue is not at rest, because you took the video down.
Thats a choice I made based on a re-evaluation of the material I'd like to post.
I would have prefered to not make that re-evaluation, but someone decided to go out of his way to make me feel uncomfortable about the posting.
Free speech is not immune from external influence.
Cause and effect, eh? Which means speech is actually not free in any form.
Sure is.
LOL. You are a wall.
I understand that if I choose not to say something, because someone suggests I should not, I'm exercising my natural right of choice - choice to listen to that person, choice to acknowledge they may be saying something of value, choice to act on that acknowledgement.
I'm starting to think you're trying to make an argument of semantics, or you really just do not understand freedom.
The semantics response is cliche, tired, and does not address cause-and-effect in relation to the notion of free speech.
Cause and effect have no relation to free choice.
Why? Or are you spinning faith?
Spinning faith?
- I have no idea what you're talking about.
I just simply don't see the connection, can you please explain it to me?
Well, maybe the cause-and-effect connections that allow the brain to function in the first place to start..
Argument ad populum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Read Ron Paul because many people have read him! Limited printing run for the libertarian audience, though!
Oxygen allows the brain to function.
No, the cause and effect of the cells that make up the brain allow the brain to function. If those cells didn't cause-and-effect, you wouldn't be able to breathe the oxygen in the first place.
Right, cause and effect can explain all. So you deny individuals have free will?
I'll have to check out the link when I get home.
Until someone reconciles free will with cause-and-effect, yes, I do deny it.
The only real option that I think you have is the soul option, which is why I think Ron Paul is still a practicing Christian. He needs the Christian value set (the soul) to justify his belief in free will.
Well, if I choose to think about it, cause-and-effect is not reconcilable with free will.
So that leads one to ask, so what's the point of living out the fate that has been dealt as existence is just a means to an end.
Of course this turns into a rather grim line of thinking.
Therefore, I choose not to think about it.
I embrace my illusion of free will.
It's not grim at all. Your quality of life is exactly the same. You can't predict the future, you still feel as if you are controling your hands and feet, and as long as you have political freedom/free speech the question and its answer have no real way of becoming "grim".
Post a Comment