No they can't. You don't appear to understand the difference between agreed principals decided by elected heads of hundreds of nations (ie 'human rights') and randomly made up nonsense that jumps into your brain. As ST has suggested, it's not clear you understand what 'arbitrary' actually means. It certainly is not a word suitable for describing the universal declaration of human rights. If you're equating limiting the rights of individuals to promote hatred to 'systematic use of violence', then yes, it is civilised. Does it now? Words of hate lead to physical acts of aggression, don't they? Preventing that is not immoral, quite the opposite. Al Qaeda wouldn't quite be the force it is if nobody had bothered speaking. It's really not that black and white though is it? You admit that words are used to the detriment of others and always will be - is that not wrong, in some cases more wrong than limiting someone from saying those words? I know you were answering Dev here but anyway...your final statement
I know I shouldn't bite, but point me in the direction of any bigoted comment I've made on any website I've used over any of the time you've 'known me'. I certainly could point you in the direction of numerous posts where I've decried (a section of) celtic supports IRA chants, poppy protests etc etc going back as far as pre-SPN days. If you can't manage to find a specific post, any single one will do, could you please just shut the **** up, you boring twat.
Typical you resort to foul mouthed language. Always the sign of someone struggling with intelligence. You cannot accept anyone's point of view that does not fit in nicely with your ideals. What a shame. That makes you incredibly intolerant and you have been well known for your vitriolic attacks on TF. To resort also to picking up on typos is really rather pathetic and inane. I mean perhaps it proves you are a better typist than me. So what, I have no problem with that. Best you return to the comfort of TF where you certainly did not like being faced with a few home thruths about your stance on bigotry and now fascism on this site. You are the boring one I'm afraid, a pompous sanctimonious windbag if truth be told. So return to TF please, to the comfort zone which you do not like to be invaded by people with different viewpoints.
That's my point really. The 'human rights' of these 'nations' are just as legitimate (indeed illegitimate) as the ones Jeff from down the pub could devise. No government has the consent of every person residing there, so they have no right to make human rights on 'their' people's behalf. Arbitrary (adj.): Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Which is exactly what I'm equating the human rights declarations to. Weak means-to-an-end utilitarian argument. If the means is immoral, it doesn't matter what the end is. Preventing that includes violence which is immoral. Words are empty anyway. If someone's written out a legal contract with someone else which binds them to kill someone else, fair enough self-defensive action should be taken against them. I've nothing agaisnt self-defense but empty words should be treated as just that. Like I said above, I really couldn't give a toss if the end is idyllic and amazing, the means have to be morally justifiable in order for me to want to support it, and here, the means contain non-consensual violence. See my response above about self-defense. And yes, I have heard of 'the law', I don't have to like it, I just have to lump it in the current oppressive system which is based on violence and slavery. Violence is not telling someone you're going to attack them, violence is attacking them. Actions speak louder than hollow words. I'm a proponent of free speech, but not of 'free action', if you see what I mean; 'free action' including violent attacks on other people because of a disrespect for human autonomy.
You do realise that one of 'human rights' framed in international law by the UDHR is 'freedom of speech'? Ok, then you're talking pish. The UDHR clearly was not based on 'random choice' nor on a 'personal whim' and was entirely built on a 'system' - the system being that of the right of elected representatives of hundreds of countries (ie the UN) to define them. It's as far from 'arbitrary' as you can get. A better argument than any you've put forward I thought <erm>. Besides, whether the means are 'immoral' is entirely a matter of opinion. Mine is that sometimes the ends do justify the means, the lesser of two evils and other such cliches etc etc. It's all very easy having impeccable 'morality' when you don't have to ever put it to the test. Well, I'm realistic enough to realise that occasionally someone's 'human rights' or 'natural law of autonomy' (if you prefer) may have to take precedence over someone else's. So apparently do you, you think the right to free speech takes precedence regardless of the impact on other individuals. I certainly defend the right to free speech (and said so in my first post I think) but I don't believe it is the single most important 'right' in every single situation. That's a pretty messed up idea of morality - not giving a toss about the outcome of your 'moral dilemma'. Anyway, the 'means' can be morally justifiable - ie when the 'pain' caused by limiting someone's freedom of speech is less than the 'pain' that would be caused by allowing it. If 'pain' is unavoidable, I'd say it is a moral imperative to take the option that minimises it. You might not like it, but in some circumstances that might be limiting the rights of organisations or individuals to say what they want.
Yep. My basis for free speech derives from human autonomy, not some bullshit from politics men in Switzerland. Elected representation is coercive and means nothing to me. Just because a bunch of people who sucked dick in politics all determined something doesn't make it valid. Validity in philosophical morality comes from axioms and natural law. OK: let's break this down because the argument's tiresome. Forget means, forget ends. Is violence wrong: yes or no? It can't take precedence over someone else's, that's an illegitimate exertion of ownership, i.e. slavery. Is involuntary slavery a morally justifiable thing? No. It was allegedly abolished ages ago (bullshit). Pure utilitarianism. It has no place in a moral discussion, it's just a pedestrian way of thinking. I'll refer back to my question above: is violence wrong or is it acceptable?
Oh jesus. It has every place in a moral discussion - my morality encompasses a slightly more complicated reality than some 'universal laws' where a=wrong, b=right. If you can't understand a situation where you have to make a moral decision over two outcomes neither of which is the ideal, theres no point is continuing a discussion. Morality is never absolute. So as a general principle: freedom of speech = good violence = bad. But to deny there are never any circumstances in which the reverse of these might be the better, the more 'moral', choice is self-deluding.
Indeed. You have proven this to be the case; I think it would be better if you shut up now and got a smack round the head.
