Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2014, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2014 01:23 PM by TheLogicalAthiest.)
Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
People get sent to jail for destroying lives through violent acts like murder but you never see people get jailed for destroying society through intellectual crimes. Sure some things like holocaust denial is illegal but the govt. doesnt seem to care about intellectual crimes like creationism or faith healing etc. that destroy the advancement of the human race. I think people like Ken Ham and Rupert Murdock etc. should be jailed from crimes against humanity as they destroy society with lies and bullshit, but society doesnt see it this way. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you agree?

"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." - Henry David Thoreau
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
Yeah, I get what you're saying.

But for me that would be a step too far... As far as I'm concerned, people can believe in and publicly talk about any bullshit they like, its when that bullshit tries to work its way into other people's lives that there's a problem.

I personally think the ex-pope... Benny Boy as I like to call him, and several cardinals.. Should be arrested for crimes against humanity. The disgusting lies they spread about condoms were pure evil...

But Murdock is just a tycoon... He caters for those who like to hear their own opinions said by someone else. I don't think he really gives a shit who his audience are, as long as they pay for his newspapers and satellite TV.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2014, 12:13 AM
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
They tend to care about physical harm and economic harm. If you can't show either of those two things you're going to have trouble getting government to step in to disputes between citizens. I tend to side with them on that limitation in favour of free speech. I'm extremely wary of thought crime being punished by government.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2014, 05:37 AM
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
Anyone else just get a huge I&I vibe off the thread title?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2014, 06:47 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2014 07:09 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
(15-03-2014 01:17 PM)TheLogicalAthiest Wrote:  People get sent to jail for destroying lives through violent acts like murder but you never see people get jailed for destroying society through intellectual crimes. Sure some things like holocaust denial is illegal but the govt. doesnt seem to care about intellectual crimes like creationism or faith healing etc. that destroy the advancement of the human race. I think people like Ken Ham and Rupert Murdock etc. should be jailed from crimes against humanity as they destroy society with lies and bullshit, but society doesnt see it this way. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you agree?
True! Just look at government education system! It's murdering curiosity and capacity to learn. It's dumbing down of whole generations. It's absolutely useless what they teach, they teach letters, but teach hate to reading, they teach numbers, but also hate to math, they teach skills, but also teach hate to work.

So basically, the government is bad even if it does good and true things, it does them in a wrong way. Teaching creationism is all wrong.

Jail doesn't correct people. We don't need to put teachers in jail, we just need to stop the government from forcing children to stay in their classes and forcing parents to pay them. Let's have free choice to say no, keep our money and walk away. I know it's unpleasant for them to lose, but it's their fault for not being better teachers. I'd love to see a double-blind experiment of teaching abilities and student preference between creationists and real science teachers. Let's see if the pleasure of understanding evolution exceeds the pleasure of not really understanding how God did this or that.

(16-03-2014 05:37 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Anyone else just get a huge I&I vibe off the thread title?
I've never really understood what is the problem with I&I. I mean, half the world is poor and nobody's responsible for it? There are people with astronomically high financial rewards, are we supposed to believe that they never move a finger to secure these rewards? Should we believe that in social world things happen without a reason, without a cause?
For example, television and other media are not in the truth business, they are in the business business. They do not profit from truth, they profit from what doesn't drive consumers away and what draws them in. There is some overlap with truth of course, but not a significant one. Social world is not science, we don't get research papers and conferences on what's going on in Obama's head or Putin's head or George Bush's head, even though that would save an enormous amount of lives, resources and money. All we get is propaganda. What people get paid for is what they say. Where you sit is where you stand, as politology says. That's the truth and logic of the social world.

I think our mind cringes and recoils away from seeing so much wrongness and irrationality in the world. It can't be true, we tell ourselves. It is easier to say that a few guys are too radical or controversial, than to admit how much of our world is irrational, unscientific - and to admit to ourselves that we have no know-how to fix it. Natural sciences can not fix the social world! Neither can social sciences. All these are just instruments, not blueprints. People do not trust blueprints for two reasons.
1) They can't read blueprints for social arrangement.
2) Most people who claimed to have blueprints became known to history as mass murderers.
Why is that? Because blueprints for social arrangement are philosophy. One has to be a philosopher to read them, evaluate and draw them. Even the most skilled scientist is just an artisan, not a philosopher. There were some scientists who were also philosophers, such as Buckminster Fuller, but they were just far and few in between. Science is no replacement for philosophy, not even social science. If we permit science to exceed philosophy, what we'll get is a catalogue of historical philosophers, parroted by philosophy students at universities, but we won't get any change of social arrangement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2014, 07:18 AM
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
What you are basically advocating is essentially the concept of thoughtcrime; the idea that certain thoughts, opinions and ideas are morally wrong and should be punished - I shouldn't need to explain why this is a very dangerous and sinister idea; I'm actually surprised anyone would be advocating the idea that the government should have the power to imprison people just for their intellectual ideas.

The only reason you are comfortable with advocating such a totalitarian concept is because you think that your intellectual ideas are right and that it would only be people with the 'wrong' ideas that would be getting imprisoned. But who gets to decide what ideas are right and wrong in such a situation? The government enforcing the punishment of people's ideas, of course - and you've assumed that the government will always have the people's, and your, best interests in mind. Can't you see how dangerous it would be to give the power to decide what ideas were right and wrong into the hands of a group of people in authority? That's just a dystopia waiting to happen.

What you are saying is bullshit; there's no such thing as 'intellectual harm;' all ideas and opinions should be allowed to be freely expressed, if there's any harmful consequences that result from people accepting an idea and putting it into practice then the fault does not lie with the idea having been allowed to be expressed, the problem is the harmful actions of the people that acted on the idea; the idea itself should still be allowed.

Drinking Beverage

"Humans always measure what they see in front of them to what they already know. They will deny anything outside of that. They are shallow lifeforms, so enthralled with superficial appearances that they fail to see the truth."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2014, 07:43 AM
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
(16-03-2014 07:18 AM)MrAttacus Wrote:  What you are basically advocating is essentially the concept of thoughtcrime; the idea that certain thoughts, opinions and ideas are morally wrong and should be punished - I shouldn't need to explain why this is a very dangerous and sinister idea; I'm actually surprised anyone would be advocating the idea that the government should have the power to imprison people just for their intellectual ideas.

The only reason you are comfortable with advocating such a totalitarian concept is because you think that your intellectual ideas are right and that it would only be people with the 'wrong' ideas that would be getting imprisoned. But who gets to decide what ideas are right and wrong in such a situation? The government enforcing the punishment of people's ideas, of course - and you've assumed that the government will always have the people's, and your, best interests in mind. Can't you see how dangerous it would be to give the power to decide what ideas were right and wrong into the hands of a group of people in authority? That's just a dystopia waiting to happen.

What you are saying is bullshit; there's no such thing as 'intellectual harm;' all ideas and opinions should be allowed to be freely expressed, if there's any harmful consequences that result from people accepting an idea and putting it into practice then the fault does not lie with the idea having been allowed to be expressed, the problem is the harmful actions of the people that acted on the idea; the idea itself should still be allowed.

Drinking Beverage

While I do think there is such a thing as intellectual harm, I am not willing to trust anyone to judge exactly what it is, as it is always going to be a subjective judgment.

The only acceptable antidote to "intellectual harm" is education.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
16-03-2014, 12:06 PM
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
(15-03-2014 01:17 PM)TheLogicalAthiest Wrote:  Sure some things like holocaust denial is illegal but the govt. doesnt seem to care about intellectual crimes like creationism or faith healing etc. that destroy the advancement of the human race.

Before I address the basic question, I really want to respond to this. Exactly where is holocaust denial illegal? And, what does that mean? Is denying the holocaust get you subjected to arrest? To prison time? To a heavy fine?

I'm not aware of anywhere where denying the Holocaust is illegal. What I am aware of is that Holocaust deniers often use this "it's illegal to deny the Holocaust" in [X] country as a means of "proving" it's a hoax, because something that was true wouldn't need to be protected by laws. It's a ridiculous argument on many levels, not the least of which is I don't believe denying the Holocaust is illegal anywhere. Nor should it be.

As for the topic at hand, I'm with Dom. The idea of "thought crimes" is about as scary as scary can get. Throwing people in jail or subjecting them to government lead censure for having different opinions is completely anthema to the idea of a free and open society. The way you combat things like faith healing and intelligent design is by shining the light of reason and evidence on it.

What I would favor, though, at least for the US, is laws requiring more transparency in where money comes from and who funds some of these causes. I am a near absolutist when it comes to the right of free speech. Anonymous speech, however, is a different issue. I'm all for letting people be able to follow the money trail so they can see what interest and agenda is behind a given set of arguments or advertisements or, most importantly, legislation.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2014, 12:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2014 12:14 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
(16-03-2014 07:18 AM)MrAttacus Wrote:  What you are basically advocating is essentially the concept of thoughtcrime; the idea that certain thoughts, opinions and ideas are morally wrong and should be punished - I shouldn't need to explain why this is a very dangerous and sinister idea; I'm actually surprised anyone would be advocating the idea that the government should have the power to imprison people just for their intellectual ideas.

The only reason you are comfortable with advocating such a totalitarian concept is because you think that your intellectual ideas are right and that it would only be people with the 'wrong' ideas that would be getting imprisoned. But who gets to decide what ideas are right and wrong in such a situation? The government enforcing the punishment of people's ideas, of course - and you've assumed that the government will always have the people's, and your, best interests in mind. Can't you see how dangerous it would be to give the power to decide what ideas were right and wrong into the hands of a group of people in authority? That's just a dystopia waiting to happen.

What you are saying is bullshit; there's no such thing as 'intellectual harm;' all ideas and opinions should be allowed to be freely expressed, if there's any harmful consequences that result from people accepting an idea and putting it into practice then the fault does not lie with the idea having been allowed to be expressed, the problem is the harmful actions of the people that acted on the idea; the idea itself should still be allowed.

Drinking Beverage
I'm not saying thoughts should be punished with prison terms. And neither should we be threatened with prison for not paying taxes that fund schools - or forced to go to schools, which are like prisons anyway. Just no prisons and no forced payments of money, please. And then wrong thoughts will be much less harmful, because we'll be allowed to avoid them.

Wrong thoughts are punishment in themselves - if other people are allowed to escape or otherwise protect themselves and leave the intellectually dangerous person alone in their own private prison. That includes children, they need protection and freedom to leave too, especially them. In a system with money and self-interest, quality is the result of choice. No choice - no quality. Children have no choice but to go to churches and schools. No wonder that churches and schools suck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: Do you agree the Govt. doesn't care about intellectual harm as much as physical?
(16-03-2014 06:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I've never really understood what is the problem with I&I.

Facepalm

Wut

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: