Freedom of Speech...should it be above everything? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: September 21 2010 at 03:33

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

You have no life. You live because no one has killed you yet.

Your argument is absurd.

You don't own a car, because someone would steal it from you in the wild. Please, I'm going to bed. This is ridiculous.

You've never been to Scotland have you? Big smile

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 21 2010 at 06:44

I still stand by this:

A right is a culture-bound ideal of expectations of an individual within a society.

Now you must realize that "Ideal" is not a dirty word to me. I happen to believe that the greatest potential for human existence comes from the imaginations and ideas of our minds. As Carlin says about rights "It's a cool idea, but just and idea." The good things in life are just cool ideas.

Rights are a "made up" concept, but a functional one. If we're going to have a functioning society, the individual should have a "right to life." What does that actually mean?

1. Should be able to expect that the government won't kill him (perhaps excepting grave circumstances)

2. Should be able to expect the law to protect him somewhat from other people killing him

already it's getting nebulous...my example about young black males is that they don't have #2 in many areas, and some would argue they don't even have #1. So though the "right to life" sounds nice, for them the reality is often more akin to "the wild." The idea of "rights" has become meaningless.

So it comes down to different people's ideas about what "should" be. A right is not sacrosanct. It's just another idea. A "cool" one, yes. But just an idea.

thellama73 View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368

Posted: September 21 2010 at 08:37

You are still making the argument that if a right is violated it ceases to exist as a right, i.e. if the police don't protect the young black males in your area, their right to life is being violated and therefore they have no right to life.

This view makes no sense to me.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 21 2010 at 09:08

My point is that saying someone has a right is meaningless unless there are protections in place.

Those protections can be social convention (we all agree that we're going honor this ideal or concept) or it could be given more teeth through social coersion (e.g. murderers are turned out of the tribe) or an extension, societally sanctioned entities (the police) use force to intervene.

Again, without those protections, you can say someone has a "right" but it doesn't mean anything. It just means "It would be cool if an individual had that."

Edited by Negoba - September 21 2010 at 09:09

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 21 2010 at 10:03

Without those protections it still means something to say you have a right. It just means that your rights are being violated. Just as if when your life isn't protected we don't conclude that your life doesn't exist, but instead that your life is being taken away from you.

Your argument seems potent enough at first, but when you realize it can be apllied to anything, the punch is lost.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 21 2010 at 10:12

What exactly does a right without protection mean? Besides "It would be nice to have that"?

A right is an idea, it doesn't exist in the physical universe.

Life, you can check, Breathing, yep, heart beating, yep. Alive. Shot in the head, not breathing, no heartbeat. Not alive.

You act as if a right is something that comes with the package like eyeballs or toes. A right is an idea. If you're the only one with the idea, it doesn't mean much. The validity of "rights" is only proportional to the number of people who agree on "Yeah that would be cool if individuals had that."

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 21 2010 at 10:34

The "right" definition posted by thellma defined what rights are, but not where the word came from - it came from the old english riht meaning "direct" and it means "law" (as in "directive") - therefore rights are laws that allow you to do things. In a totally anarchic or totally free society you wouldn't need rights (or laws) to do anything - you could do as you please.

What?

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 21 2010 at 11:16

Even though thellama copied a dictionary definition, it seemed pretty dang vague. In any case, appeals to authority and law and morality (social constructs).

Dean's definition - "rights are laws that allow you to do things." Alternatively, rights are guidelines about the boundaries of individual freedom.

Again, by definition freedom is not absolute. Despite Carlin's hopes, in most societies there are consequences to killing someone just for saying something you don't like. The concept of rights, then, is an attempt to show where the individual is free and where they are not.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 21 2010 at 11:18

Negoba wrote:

What exactly does a right without protection mean? Besides "It would be nice to have that"?

A right is an idea, it doesn't exist in the physical universe.

Life, you can check, Breathing, yep, heart beating, yep. Alive. Shot in the head, not breathing, no heartbeat. Not alive.

You can just as easily check for a right. We have a definition of living. That brings forth an algorithmic process to check for life. We have a formulation of rights. Thus we can also check for rights.

Yes they're not physical. I don't know what that matters though.

EDIT: So are we done talking about freedom of speech at this point?

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - September 21 2010 at 11:19

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 21 2010 at 11:26

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Negoba wrote:

What exactly does a right without protection mean? Besides "It would be nice to have that"?

A right is an idea, it doesn't exist in the physical universe.

Life, you can check, Breathing, yep, heart beating, yep. Alive. Shot in the head, not breathing, no heartbeat. Not alive.

Yes they're not physical. I don't know what that matters though.

EDIT: So are we done talking about freedom of speech at this point?

So I assume that the U.S. Constitution is your gauge for whether something is a right or not?

And this applies directly to freedom of speech. Defining rights is another way of saying where the boundaries of freedom are.

thellama73 View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368

Posted: September 21 2010 at 12:36

Negoba wrote:

Even though thellama copied a dictionary definition, it seemed pretty dang vague. In any case, appeals to authority and law and morality (social constructs).

Dean's definition - "rights are laws that allow you to do things." Alternatively, rights are guidelines about the boundaries of individual freedom.

I don't know why you're so hung up on definitions. The definitions of hundreds of words we use everyday are vague. The definition of "thought" is vague as is the definition of "consciousness." Does that mean that consciousness is a social construct or that it doesn't exist?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 21 2010 at 13:17

thellama73 wrote:

Negoba wrote:

Even though thellama copied a dictionary definition, it seemed pretty dang vague. In any case, appeals to authority and law and morality (social constructs).

Dean's definition - "rights are laws that allow you to do things." Alternatively, rights are guidelines about the boundaries of individual freedom.

"Right" has dozens of meanings - some of them are applicable and some are not. A dictionary is not an encyclopedia or a politics/philosophy text book - it gives a list of possible meanings without explanation - all a dictionary will do is confirm that you are using the word correctly in the proper context (or the right word in the right context

)

I get where Jay is coming from in trying to issolate the particular meaning of the word in this context since it is possible that we are all using slightly different interpretations of what "rights" mean to us, so other's arguments don't fit with our interpretation.

In terms of allowance to do things there is a formal meaning and an informal (colloquial) meaning - "you have no right to borrow my stuff without asking"

What?

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 21 2010 at 19:00

The libertarian faction here seems to think that "rights" are something more than they are. That's why I'm trying to get you to look at the definition, your own definition, closely.

And of course it helps me to look at my own thoughts on the subject, to be able to say it out loud. That's probably the only value in these conversations anyway. Is to examine our own opinions and see if they bear water when put out, concretely, for other intelligent people to look at.

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: September 21 2010 at 20:41

To answer the original question, though not really:
As long as money=speech it will be.

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 21 2010 at 20:42

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

JLocke

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900

Posted: September 21 2010 at 21:08

Dean wrote:

JLocke wrote:

Negoba wrote:

Where does morality come from then?

Human beings. However, I think it is obvious that the majority of sane human beings in sane societies end up agreeing on a whopping 99% of what is moral and what is not. The little stuff in between can be disagreed with, but the large majority is commonly accepted. Same deal with what rights are, in my opinion. Sure, somebody wrote them down on paper and declared them as 'rights', therefore you could say that was 'making them up'. But if I wanted to, I could walk out of my house right now, drive to a tall, tall bridge, and push that car over the egde for no reason. I can do that, and nobody can stop me without some sort of force. Whether you want to call it freedom, a right, or anything else, the fact that I am able to do it doesn't change. The term 'rights' was made up. The rights themselves are established by societies. It's more complex than what you are talking about, I feel.

Anyway. I think Carlin was speaking more on the limitations of rights than rights themselves. He even said at the end, ''I have the right to do whatever the f**k I want, and if you don't like what I do, you have the right to kill me.'' Yes, man has established his rights. But does that make them unimportant or irrelevant?

But I guess if you wanna get really wild about it, you could take my comment about agreement in sane societies and ask me 'what is sane, really? Where did sanity come from?' LOL

I think you're wrong. I think morality and rights have nothing to do with society, but began with family and in the beginning family was the largest social group we belonged to (which is why the bibble stresses family connections and genealogies) - all families have a hierarchy of authority and limitations on what members of that family can and cannot do, that hierarchy also defines what is acceptable (ie right and wrong). Within those limitations the patriarch/matriarch will grant accession of rights to offspring who have earned privileges, either on merit or on seniority - if you do your chores you can play; when you're older you can stay out 'till 11, etc.. Over time families grew into extended families, then into tribes, villages, towns, cities and countries - and through those stages of development the basic ideas of what is right and wrong (morality) and what you can and cannot do (rights) have become more formalised, but otherwise remained unchanged.

Did I say society? I meant community. Wink

Edited by JLocke - September 21 2010 at 21:08

Post Reply	Page <1 9 1011