Page 32 of 35 FirstFirst ...
22
30
31
32
33
34
... LastLast
  1. #621
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If you shoot someone because you think they're a demon, because your pastor told you they were, you're still guilty of murder. The pastor just might share some culpability.

    You don't seem to understand what "intent" means, since you're confusing it with "motive".



    There's currently no law on this to begin with. We're discussing an "ought" argument, not an "is" argument.

    This isn't the first time you've willfully confused the two and pretended that confusion was an argument.
    Except, you have to show that that specific person cause harm, and you have to have a victim.

    I mean, I'm glad we have no law on the issue. As for the "ought," we wholeheartedly disagree. And yes, I'm confident that you will not get such a law passed in my country in my lifetime.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  2. #622
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Love, Cassie & Nina
    Posts
    55,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If you shoot someone because you think they're a demon, because your pastor told you they were, you're still guilty of murder. The pastor just might share some culpability.

    You don't seem to understand what "intent" means, since you're confusing it with "motive".
    Yeah... Remind me why we're discussing intent when this isn't a criminal issue anyway?
    You're not "playing devil's advocate", you're making someone who is likely speaking from personal experience defend themselves against the shitty and oppressive opinion you're too embarrassed to admit you actually believe in. It's you. You're the devil.

  3. #623
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You even said some of those things were possible actionable.
    Yes. In certain contexts.

    You're willfully misrepresenting my response by cutting that part of it out.

    I do understand analogies, and how they work. That's why I liked my immigration analogy to bust through your ultimatum.
    Which it . . . didn't. Since I held the same position there.

    A great deal is a subjective term.

    This is the foundation of misinformation, those grains of truths, and statements that are technically correct. Lies are easy to refute, half-truths are easy to believe.
    Again, false. Misinformation is not truth. It's the lies around the truths. This is literally what misinformation is. It's in the "mis-" prefix. Why are you lying about what the word means?


  4. #624
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Then maybe try something more accurate like "a few accounts I've seen, which aren't generalisable because it's not a statistically significant sample size nor even relevant because misinformation is counterfactual by definition".
    Except, I've seen it hundreds and hundreds of times.

    They are common talking points among anti-vaxxers and misinformation peddlers. Since you haven't taken me up on the offer for more via PM, I'll assume it's a sufficient amount for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  5. #625
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Love, Cassie & Nina
    Posts
    55,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Except, I've seen it hundreds and hundreds of times.
    r/thathappened
    You're not "playing devil's advocate", you're making someone who is likely speaking from personal experience defend themselves against the shitty and oppressive opinion you're too embarrassed to admit you actually believe in. It's you. You're the devil.

  6. #626
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Yeah... Remind me why we're discussing intent when this isn't a criminal issue anyway?
    It could be, which is the only reason I'm entertaining it to begin with. If it were civil law like libel, then yeah, intent wouldn't be relevant at all. And the standard of evidence would just be "a reasonable person wouldn't be likely to post this".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Except, you have to show that that specific person cause harm, and you have to have a victim.
    Again, we're not talking libel, here.

    You don't have to have a victim, with child pornography. You could draw the child porn, and it would still be child pornography and still illegal, even if no actual children were harmed. See also incitement to riot, which is about the intent and not whether a riot actually occurred. And so on.


  7. #627
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Yes. In certain contexts.

    You're willfully misrepresenting my response by cutting that part of it out.



    Which it . . . didn't. Since I held the same position there.



    Again, false. Misinformation is not truth. It's the lies around the truths. This is literally what misinformation is. It's in the "mis-" prefix. Why are you lying about what the word means?
    I hold the same position, speech can be restricted, but I do not support the restriction of speech in the manner we are discussing.

    Once again, this is the issue. You have mountains of half-truths being spammed by millions of people. In essence, it's the "mob rule" issue, where you cannot determine who caused the harm.

    And yes, that is a huge problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  8. #628
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I hold the same position, speech can be restricted, but I do not support the restriction of speech in the manner we are discussing.
    And yet, you never explain why.

    You can't use "because it's a restriction on speech" as that explanation, since you've already dismissed it yourself as a position you don't believe.

    Once again, this is the issue. You have mountains of half-truths being spammed by millions of people. In essence, it's the "mob rule" issue, where you cannot determine who caused the harm.

    And yes, that is a huge problem.
    You don't need to figure out the origin point. You can just take action against all offenders.

    And again; there's no need to identify a particular victim. That's not a requirement under the law.

    It doesn't matter who told a guy that as a sovereign citizen, he could refuse to pay taxes or comply with police, all that matters is that they did those things.


  9. #629
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It could be, which is the only reason I'm entertaining it to begin with. If it were civil law like libel, then yeah, intent wouldn't be relevant at all. And the standard of evidence would just be "a reasonable person wouldn't be likely to post this".

    - - - Updated - - -



    Again, we're not talking libel, here.

    You don't have to have a victim, with child pornography. You could draw the child porn, and it would still be child pornography and still illegal, even if no actual children were harmed. See also incitement to riot, which is about the intent and not whether a riot actually occurred. And so on.
    If you have no victim, and you cannot determine harm, then you have a very difficult path to even writing such a law, much less having it survive constitutional scrutiny. This is especially true if you are going after social media companies, and not the people posting the misinformation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And yet, you never explain why.

    You can't use "because it's a restriction on speech" as that explanation, since you've already dismissed it yourself as a position you don't believe.



    You don't need to figure out the origin point. You can just take action against all offenders.

    It doesn't matter who told a guy that as a sovereign citizen, he could refuse to pay taxes or comply with police, all that matters is that they did those things.
    I've explained it numerous times.

    It is a burdensome and unnecessary restriction on speech.

    Yes, that is an argument.

    It infringes on the First Amendment protections of Americans and business owners.

    Now, you can say you don't believe me, and we can see who eventually wins.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  10. #630
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    If you have no victim, and you cannot determine harm, then you have a very difficult path to even writing such a law, much less having it survive constitutional scrutiny.
    Nope. Those simply aren't requirements for law to exist or be prosecutable, in the first place.

    If you knowingly sell tainted pharmaceuticals, getting caught before they hit shelves doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime. No victim, no harm, still a crime.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I've explained it numerous times.

    It is a burdensome and unnecessary restriction on speech.

    Yes, that is an argument.
    It really isn't. You're just saying you don't like it. It's just subjective, baseless opposition.

    I can debunk that "argument" completely thusly; "Nah."


  11. #631
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Nope. Those simply aren't requirements for law to exist or be prosecutable, in the first place.

    If you knowingly sell tainted pharmaceuticals, getting caught before they hit shelves doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime. No victim, no harm, still a crime.
    But, you have already stated that no law covers this, we're dealing with hypotheticals. Meanwhile, in this country, even hate speech is protected speech. So, the idea that one could successfully restrict most of this misinformation... is a pipe dream.

    Many have tried to argue harm from that, and it has failed miserably on many occasions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Nope. Those simply aren't requirements for law to exist or be prosecutable, in the first place.

    If you knowingly sell tainted pharmaceuticals, getting caught before they hit shelves doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime. No victim, no harm, still a crime.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It really isn't. You're just saying you don't like it. It's just subjective, baseless opposition.

    I can debunk that "argument" completely thusly; "Nah."
    No, I've said it's a giant restriction on the First Amendment. You can disagree, but you don't get to change my argument.

    So, nah.

    Now, not only to I have the luxury of it currently being legal, I think you and I both know how the SCOTUS would rule on such things. So, I'm pretty content with my position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  12. #632
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Love, Cassie & Nina
    Posts
    55,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I've explained it numerous times.

    It is a burdensome and unnecessary restriction on speech.
    No, what you've "explained" is repeating "but Section 230, but the First Amendment, but SCOTUS" without actually explaining why this speech should be protected or why regulating social media to reduce its incidence is "burdensome and unnecessary".

    And then resorting to appeal to authority fallacies, to boot, which is odd coming from a libertarian.
    You're not "playing devil's advocate", you're making someone who is likely speaking from personal experience defend themselves against the shitty and oppressive opinion you're too embarrassed to admit you actually believe in. It's you. You're the devil.

  13. #633
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    No, what you've "explained" is repeating "but Section 230, but the First Amendment, but SCOTUS" without actually explaining why this speech should be protected or why regulating social media to reduce its incidence is "burdensome and unnecessary".

    And then resorting to appeal to authority fallacies, to boot, which is odd coming from a libertarian.
    Most of it should be protected, because it's not a harmful act. I especially keyed in on the parts that involve half-truths, because that relies a great deal on subjective interpretations. This was especially problematic for the chap who called for the nationalization of all social media companies. I want to keep out as much subjectivity as possible from the government.

    Yes, I'm well aware that juries are a thing. It's both a blessing, and a curse in that regard.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  14. #634
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Love, Cassie & Nina
    Posts
    55,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I hold the same position, speech can be restricted, but I do not support the restriction of speech in the manner we are discussing.
    Without actually giving any reason to said opposition besides "restricting speech is bad".

    Quit contradicting yourself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Most of it should be protected, because it's not a harmful act.
    Cool: misinformation is manifestly harmful, so that doesn't answer the question.

    Why should misinformation be considered protected speech?
    You're not "playing devil's advocate", you're making someone who is likely speaking from personal experience defend themselves against the shitty and oppressive opinion you're too embarrassed to admit you actually believe in. It's you. You're the devil.

  15. #635
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Without actually giving any reason to said opposition besides "restricting speech is bad".

    Quit contradicting yourself.
    Except, I am not saying that. In fact, I have stated several times that I'm not saying that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Without actually giving any reason to said opposition besides "restricting speech is bad".

    Quit contradicting yourself.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Cool: misinformation is manifestly harmful, so that doesn't answer the question.
    "You're zipper is down."

    Ha, made you look. I guess that's harmful to you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  16. #636
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Love, Cassie & Nina
    Posts
    55,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Except, I am not saying that. In fact, I have stated several times that I'm not saying that.
    So, you're not actually saying anything.

    Good to know!
    You're not "playing devil's advocate", you're making someone who is likely speaking from personal experience defend themselves against the shitty and oppressive opinion you're too embarrassed to admit you actually believe in. It's you. You're the devil.

  17. #637
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    But, you have already stated that no law covers this, we're dealing with hypotheticals.
    Yes, that's what an "ought" argument is.

    Meanwhile, in this country, even hate speech is protected speech. So, the idea that one could successfully restrict most of this misinformation... is a pipe dream.
    There are plenty of counterexamples you're ignoring.

    Hate speech largely fails in the USA because the USA is a largely racist country, and always has been. Deliberately and intentionally so within living memory.

    That's not an argument on principles, just an argument that racists support racism.

    No, I've said it's a giant restriction on the First Amendment. You can disagree, but you don't get to change my argument.
    You've said you're fine with restrictions on the First Amendment.

    Now you don't.

    That's hypocrisy and why everyone is calling you out for it.

    Now, not only to I have the luxury of it currently being legal, I think you and I both know how the SCOTUS would rule on such things. So, I'm pretty content with my position.
    Literally no different an argument than a white racist in the early '60s saying that they had the "luxury" of blacks being second-class citizens and denying there was any chance they would ever be considered "people" equal to whites.

    And sure; they had SCOTUS backing them up at the time, too.

    It isn't a winning argument and it holds zero water.


  18. #638
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    So, you're not actually saying anything.

    Good to know!
    No, you just keep ignoring what I'm saying, and pretending I'm saying something else. That's why you insist on editing out the parts you don't like.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

  19. #639
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Love, Cassie & Nina
    Posts
    55,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You're zipper is down.

    Ha, made you look. I guess that's harmful to you?
    Are you seriously comparing making someone look at their crotch to the impacts of anti-vaccination propaganda?

    Priorities. Most of us are capable of assessing what is actually harmful.
    You're not "playing devil's advocate", you're making someone who is likely speaking from personal experience defend themselves against the shitty and oppressive opinion you're too embarrassed to admit you actually believe in. It's you. You're the devil.

  20. #640
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Yes, that's what an "ought" argument is.



    There are plenty of counterexamples you're ignoring.

    Hate speech largely fails in the USA because the USA is a largely racist country, and always has been. Deliberately and intentionally so within living memory.

    That's not an argument on principles, just an argument that racists support racism.



    You've said you're fine with restrictions on the First Amendment.

    Now you don't.

    That's hypocrisy and why everyone is calling you out for it.



    Literally no different an argument than a white racist in the early '60s saying that they had the "luxury" of blacks being second-class citizens and denying there was any chance they would ever be considered "people" equal to whites.

    And sure; they had SCOTUS backing them up at the time, too.

    It isn't a winning argument and it holds zero water.
    Not only is it a racist country (like so many others), it's also a country that lauds free speech. Now, it may be weak on issues wih the press, but it is quite strong in its support of free speech itself.

    I said I'm fine with some restrictions to free speech. I'm not fine with this, because I don't consider a great deal of it harmful, and because we are dealing with hypotheticals on legislation that isn't even properly defined.

    It's not hypocrisy, it's a distinct lack of faith in people and their legislation.

    So, if you think you can stop misinformation in this manner, then I welcome you to try. Personally, I think it would fail, and I think it ought to fail.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Are you seriously comparing making someone look at their crotch to the impacts of anti-vaccination propaganda?

    Priorities. Most of us are capable of assessing what is actually harmful.
    You said misinformation is manifestly harmful. Do you want me to grab the quote?
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Multiculturalism hurts and kills. This happened before Trump and it would be happening without him. Racism arises from a multicultural society. If we were monocultural, people would not see issues through the lens of race.
    This is a poster saying that people are at fault for being the victims of terrorism, because they are not white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilfire View Post
    I hate personal freedom because people abuse it like a shiny new toy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •