From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 11:09:55 MST
> (Kai Becker <kmb@kai-m-becker.de>):
> Am Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2003 22:28 schrieb Lee Daniel Crocker:
> > Rational people realize that /all/ speech is biased, and all speech
> > should be judged against the credibility of the speaker.
>
> (1) And what do you think will the other 96+% do?
Most people buy into the pretense of "objectivity" that major media
claim to have, and rely on authorities to tell them who's objective
and who isn't.
> (2) Since when is "credibility" a rationally measurable unit?
Since when is it not? Do you deny the simple fact that some people
are more honest than others? One doesn't need an SI unit to
recognize that. Human judgment is quite sufficient, and far
superior to the alternative of not using judgment at all. It is a
shame that not only do people fail to ue their judgment, but they
don't work to develop the skill. The justice system, for example,
would work much better if jury members had more training and
practice at judging credibility, which is, after all, their primary
function.
> Imagine the following scenario: A (probably religious) group with good
> connections to government and or media starts a campaign against
> extropianism. Extropians are no good patriots, they deny god, plan to
> overthrow the government, have no ethics, follow nazi eugenics, will kill
> children for their own longevity, etc.pp. Oh, and they're responsible for
> the anthrax attacks. That surely was an extropic experiment to kill the
> inferior... If someone could spread this propaganda with enough force,
> including names and addresses, you'll probably feel, how many "rational"
> persons really live around you - and how "rational" the authorities are.
People /do/ spread those kinds of lies, and worse, every day. And the
remedy for bad speech is /more/ speech, not supression by force. The
day I recommend using the force of law against speech of any kind is
the day I will have surrendered my right to call myself a free man, or
to live in civilized society. It is the very definition of civilization.
If those believers go beyond the point of speech and actually take
forcible /actions/ against my freedom, such as passing laws against
cloning or some other technology, /then/, and only then, am I justified
in using force to defend myself against their first use of force. But
if all they do is speak, all I can do is speak in return, and hope that
humans with reasonable minds judge us both reasonably.
Your contention that any kind of speech must be supressed is typical of
left-wing hopeless pessimism that humans are weak and ignorant and can't
possibly judge ideas for themselves, so they must have the "right" ideas
forced upon them, and be "protected" from dangerous ones. I for one
have a bit more respect for human minds than that.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST