Jacobi

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 43 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jacobi

• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  cofty, you wrote: I'm suggesting you go back to square one and try to clarify.

  Clarify what, exactly?

  Lets take an example: Simon came to the conclusion that I felt speech should be limited on a criteria of emotional harm. The example I brought up where I most clearly illustratted my attitudes towards banned speech was that of the hate-preacher who incited to terrorism and it singled out the danger of violence very clearly. Do you feel that example was too ambigious, or do you feel it was clear to understand?

  You prefer ambiguity. Duly noted.

  nah.
  
  
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  cofty, here is an example of what I mean: Where in this thread did the concept of feelings and critique (as relating to free speech) enter the conversation? I was very, very clear about my examples and they had absolutely nothing to do with feelings or a general critique.
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  cofty, you are attempting argumentumt ad populum. This would be more convincing if the responses to me had not largely consisted of cartoons (sorry: visual aids), obvious misreadings, a confusion about the definition of "speech" and what appears to be a teenage girl having some sort of a breakdown.
  
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  Simon, did you even read my post? I wrote SPECIFICALLY that I don't consider "harm" to be sufficient to limit free speech (this was in response to free mind fade who brought up harm as a criteria for limits on speech). In fact I wrote:

  "btw, nowhere did I suggest that speech should be banned simply for being harmfull."

  holy cow I am beginning to understand why visual aids are considered usefull by many posters on this forum.
  
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  I feel you guys are having a discussion with some other person than me who has ideas that are contrary to those I actually express.How about giving each other the benefit of the doubt?
  
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  freemindfade:

  Ok, so you agree with me that some forms of speech should be banned after all? i.e. (in your words) speech that is "harmfull"?

  Our discussion began with you disagreeing with me on free speech so if you don't know what the discussion is about you can perhaps return to what I have said you think is wrong :-).
  

  (btw, nowhere did I suggest that speech should be banned simply for being harmfull. That is WAY to restrictive in my oppinion. This is also why I use a more specific examples of speech I think should be limited).
  
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  no, cofty. but your question feels pretty random and has a bit of a "do you beat your wife" quality. You must have misread or misunderstood something I have written severely to ask me that...

  to be clear: I believe in a very broad definition of free speech but with some limits (fire-in-theater)
  
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  cofty, my comment was aimed at freemindfade. I don't see why your question is relevant. Do you think my comments suggests such a link?
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  Let me bring up another example so we don't get hung up on the issue the speech happens in a theater:

  Suppose someone use his free speech (in a public medium, for instance a public park) to incite domestic terrorism. He quickly has a large following which he every weekend try to convince terrorism is just and right, i.e. he provide reasons for terrorism and explain how it should be carried out.

  After a while, the number of terror attacks go up, and it is determined (for instance through interviews) the terrorists are inspired by this person and cite his ideas as why they carried out the attacks.

  The person begin to note this in his speeches, and says it is a good and just thing, and intensify his calls for more terrorism.

  I belive this would (and should!) constitute "banned speech" because of the (a) obvious and direct danger (b) he is aware of the danger and nevertheless persists. I therefore think the speech should be banned; i.e. his free speech should be limited.

  Do you agree?
  
• 
  151

  Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?

  by freemindfade in

  1. social
  2. current

  curious what the canadian take is on all this .

  i also understand he compared islamic state terrorists to greek, vietnamese & italian migrants?

  that one i haven't confirmed yet but sounds wacky if true.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jacobi

  Freemindfade: The "fire in theater" is often cited as an example of the limits of free speech. This is indeed a limit on free speech as it defines a class of "banned speech"; i.e. speech which present a clear and obvious danger. You bring up the periphery issue that speech (yelling) is not allowed in a theater to begin with; this is true, but it is easy to imagine a similar situation in a public venue or a private venue which just happens not to have any such laws. Should it be allowed to (knowing the outcome) yell "fire" in such a setting?

  By the way, please wait for me to re-define speech in some technical manner before bringing this issue up; also, I am not in favor of "banning everything". I am discussing your suggestion there should be no limitations to speech.