‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 > 
 
   
 

Jordan Peterson Criticism

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 May 2021 08:55
 

weird:

You seem to be suggesting that something is true just because you want it to be true.
I am suggesting that we should examine evidence to discover what is true.

It’s good that you’re clarifying how you’ve been using the term “evidence”. So finally we’re distinguishing between evidence used to analyze past events and evidence used to predict future events - it’s progress!

I’ve already - a couple of times - laid out a plausible, logical path towards compelled speech, based on cultural trends and the language of the law. It seems we’re down to disagreeing as to whether my prediction could become true?

Free speech is absolutely critical. In my book, any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed. The risks are too high. So let’s say there is only a 1% chance that my prediction comes true. To me, that’s not an acceptable risk, when there are other paths to fighting harassment that have zero risk of curtailing speech.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  2247
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
14 May 2021 11:43
 
icehorse - 14 May 2021 08:55 AM

weird:

You seem to be suggesting that something is true just because you want it to be true.
I am suggesting that we should examine evidence to discover what is true.

It’s good that you’re clarifying how you’ve been using the term “evidence”. So finally we’re distinguishing between evidence used to analyze past events and evidence used to predict future events - it’s progress!

I’ve already - a couple of times - laid out a plausible, logical path towards compelled speech, based on cultural trends and the language of the law. It seems we’re down to disagreeing as to whether my prediction could become true?

Free speech is absolutely critical. In my book, any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed. The risks are too high. So let’s say there is only a 1% chance that my prediction comes true. To me, that’s not an acceptable risk, when there are other paths to fighting harassment that have zero risk of curtailing speech.

I’d buy a copy. (My above boldface.)

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
14 May 2021 11:46
 
icehorse - 14 May 2021 08:55 AM

weird:

You seem to be suggesting that something is true just because you want it to be true.
I am suggesting that we should examine evidence to discover what is true.

It’s good that you’re clarifying how you’ve been using the term “evidence”. So finally we’re distinguishing between evidence used to analyze past events and evidence used to predict future events - it’s progress!

I’ve already - a couple of times - laid out a plausible, logical path towards compelled speech, based on cultural trends and the language of the law. It seems we’re down to disagreeing as to whether my prediction could become true?

Free speech is absolutely critical. In my book, any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed. The risks are too high. So let’s say there is only a 1% chance that my prediction comes true. To me, that’s not an acceptable risk, when there are other paths to fighting harassment that have zero risk of curtailing speech.

No, you have not laid out a plausible, logical path at all.  You’ve claimed that such a path exists, but you have not demonstrated that it does.  Here, let me demonstrate how this could easily be done.

The Espionage Act of 1917 is a law that infringes on free speech.  I can demonstrate this by citing the text from the 1918 amendment to the law. Source

whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States,

The law specifically targets acts of speech and attempts to make them illegal.  I don’t even have to get into an argument over whether the terms are vague or not.  It is plainly obvious that forms of speech are made illegal in a plain-text reading.  We don’t have to get into arguments about what might be possible under the law.  I can clearly demonstrate that this law will be abusive by the government due to it’s very nature.  This is a way of stifling speech opposed to the government.

Your argument relies on a series of assumptions and presumptions with no basis in fact.

Premise 1: All dogs are made of lava.
Premise 2: All lava tastes like strawberries.
Conclusion: All dogs taste like strawberries.

Now, this argument is sound.  The conclusion is true... if the premises are true.  The problem is that your argument relies on us agreeing that your premises are true.  YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT YOUR PREMISES ARE TRUE.

icehorse - 14 May 2021 08:55 AM

Free speech is absolutely critical. In my book, any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed..

I just want to point out that this is a ridiculous stance.  For you to hold it, you would have to want to protect:
1: The westboro baptist church’s right to go into a 3rd grade classroom and protest there.
2: NAMBLA’s right to go into that same classroom and start displaying pornography
3. The right to use speech to tell an assassin you will pay him money to kill someone.

If you think NO SPEECH should be curtailed, all these and many more are things you are going to have to defend.

[ Edited: 14 May 2021 11:50 by weird buffalo]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 May 2021 12:32
 

weird:

YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT YOUR PREMISES ARE TRUE.

The nature of the law is that plaintiffs and lawyers are constantly pushing at the boundaries to see if they can push laws a bit further. Sometimes they can, sometimes they cannot. But laws DO get nibbled away at, regardless of your opinion about it.

The language of harassment in the bill is a bit ambiguous. There is room for interpretation.

weird:

If you think NO SPEECH should be curtailed, all these and many more are things you are going to have to defend.

That’s a strawman, care to take another guess?

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
14 May 2021 12:42
 
icehorse - 14 May 2021 12:32 PM

weird:

YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT YOUR PREMISES ARE TRUE.

The nature of the law is that plaintiffs and lawyers are constantly pushing at the boundaries to see if they can push laws a bit further. Sometimes they can, sometimes they cannot. But laws DO get nibbled away at, regardless of your opinion about it.

The language of harassment in the bill is a bit ambiguous. There is room for interpretation.

weird:

If you think NO SPEECH should be curtailed, all these and many more are things you are going to have to defend.

That’s a strawman, care to take another guess?

Feel free to enlighten us with some specifics from Canadian case law that you are using to inform your stance on this.

any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed.

This seems like a pretty unambiguous statement.  If it doesn’t accurately represent your views, feel free to clarify.

If a law prevents people from displaying pornography at a grade-school, that is a limit on free speech.  Do you think the law should be removed?  Because the above statement says that all laws curtailing free speech, even a little, should be removed.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
14 May 2021 12:49
 
icehorse - 14 May 2021 12:32 PM

The nature of the law is that plaintiffs and lawyers are constantly pushing at the boundaries to see if they can push laws a bit further. Sometimes they can, sometimes they cannot. But laws DO get nibbled away at, regardless of your opinion about it.

The language of harassment in the bill is a bit ambiguous. There is room for interpretation.

I want to be clear.

My challenge… this WHOLE TIME… is to ask you to demonstrate that any of this is true.

For example, can you show us an example from canadian case law that demonstrates the concept of “harassment” is ambiguous?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 May 2021 12:53
 

icehorse:

any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed.

Ah my bad, a typo. I meant to say “any new law”, does that clear things up?

I understand that there are currently limits to speech. Mostly it has to do with imminent incitement of violence. I’m not pushing back against the current laws, just the new ones.

==

As for your example of porn in schools. Maybe not as clear cut as you think. Who decides what’s porn? Is a nude by Michelangelo porn?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 May 2021 13:02
 

weird:

For example, can you show us an example from canadian case law that demonstrates the concept of “harassment” is ambiguous?

Not yet, I’m holding my breathe.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
14 May 2021 13:35
 
icehorse - 14 May 2021 12:53 PM

icehorse:

any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed.

Ah my bad, a typo. I meant to say “any new law”, does that clear things up?

I understand that there are currently limits to speech. Mostly it has to do with imminent incitement of violence. I’m not pushing back against the current laws, just the new ones.

==

As for your example of porn in schools. Maybe not as clear cut as you think. Who decides what’s porn? Is a nude by Michelangelo porn?

Then you should have no issues with the Canadian law in question, since it’s not new.  The law passed in 2017 only added a group of people, it added no new infractions or restrictions on speech.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  1262
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
14 May 2021 18:56
 

A nude by Michelangelo in a school is not porn if its presence is connected to the material being taught.

These kinds of questions have answers, even when they require judgement calls.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
14 May 2021 19:44
 

And I would still say that someone off the street still shouldn’t have the right to walk into a Math class and disrupt it with a nude by Michelangelo.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 08:24
 
weird buffalo - 14 May 2021 01:35 PM
icehorse - 14 May 2021 12:53 PM

icehorse:

any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed.

Ah my bad, a typo. I meant to say “any new law”, does that clear things up?

I understand that there are currently limits to speech. Mostly it has to do with imminent incitement of violence. I’m not pushing back against the current laws, just the new ones.

==

As for your example of porn in schools. Maybe not as clear cut as you think. Who decides what’s porn? Is a nude by Michelangelo porn?

Then you should have no issues with the Canadian law in question, since it’s not new.  The law passed in 2017 only added a group of people, it added no new infractions or restrictions on speech.

I think we just ought to agree to disagree on this point. I believe it’s quite possible that the law could be used to compel the use of certain pronouns. You don’t.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8814
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
15 May 2021 08:26
 
weird buffalo - 14 May 2021 07:44 PM

And I would still say that someone off the street still shouldn’t have the right to walk into a Math class and disrupt it with a nude by Michelangelo.

I would be surprised if anyone on this forum believes that free speech includes the right to a platform other than “the commons”. So disrupting any sort of meeting is probably not a free speech question.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
15 May 2021 08:44
 
icehorse - 15 May 2021 08:24 AM
weird buffalo - 14 May 2021 01:35 PM
icehorse - 14 May 2021 12:53 PM

icehorse:

any law that could possibly be used to curtail speech, even a little, should be removed.

Ah my bad, a typo. I meant to say “any new law”, does that clear things up?

I understand that there are currently limits to speech. Mostly it has to do with imminent incitement of violence. I’m not pushing back against the current laws, just the new ones.

==

As for your example of porn in schools. Maybe not as clear cut as you think. Who decides what’s porn? Is a nude by Michelangelo porn?

Then you should have no issues with the Canadian law in question, since it’s not new.  The law passed in 2017 only added a group of people, it added no new infractions or restrictions on speech.

I think we just ought to agree to disagree on this point. I believe it’s quite possible that the law could be used to compel the use of certain pronouns. You don’t.

I know you believe it.  I’ve been asking you to demonstrate how you know that it’s an actual possibility, and not just a boogey-man concern.

There are plenty of people who think big-foot is real.  I’ll be convinced when they show good evidence for it.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
15 May 2021 08:46
 
icehorse - 15 May 2021 08:26 AM
weird buffalo - 14 May 2021 07:44 PM

And I would still say that someone off the street still shouldn’t have the right to walk into a Math class and disrupt it with a nude by Michelangelo.

I would be surprised if anyone on this forum believes that free speech includes the right to a platform other than “the commons”. So disrupting any sort of meeting is probably not a free speech question.

And I gotta laugh at your “free speech” concerns.  You’ve cried and cried about an actress who wasn’t fired from anything, but you’ve had nothing to say about a politician being removed from their party position for speaking true facts.

 
‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 >