Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
If a is man alone in the natural state (which would be the purest form of freedom) does he lose his right to life?

Would you not say even the bear wondering the woods alone has a right to live?

Unfortunately, it would depend on the context. Your first sentence is too broad in scope. In your second sentence, the context of where becomes critical.

If he was in the woods and he is alone, there is no reasonable expectation that he has a right to exist; BUT if a bear attacks him, that bear waves its right to exist the moment it instigates violence. If either is not in direct proximity to each other, then there is no threat to either.

a reply to: LockNLoad

That definition is the type that sounds good until you take a closer look.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

OK maybe I shouldn't have put both examples together LOL These are two separate examples, the man is alone in his natural state and the bear is alone in its natural state, nowhere near each other LOL

Don't both have the right to life (of course baring any interaction)?

The reason I used two examples is because of your statement:

"I believe a right should be classified as a context-appropriate freedom that provides an overall benefit for both the subject AND their environment"

To me this appears to state that rights are only afforded if they benefit not only the individual but also those around him, that is why I put the bear and the man alone. I was trying to draw a corollary from both animals alone.

a reply to: daskakik

Could you please expand on this I'm not sure I follow.

2nd

a reply to: LockNLoad

LesMis' definition of rights sound nice but when you look closer, like you did, you find flaws in the logic.

Poetic license is not a stranger to classic liberal writers. Interesting, given the topic.

a reply to: daskakik

Ahhh... got it.

well I'm done for the night, my beds calling "talk" at'ya later.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
OK maybe I shouldn't have put both examples together LOL These are two separate examples, the man is alone in his natural state and the bear is alone in its natural state, nowhere near each other LOL

Don't both have the right to life (of course baring any interaction)?

The reason I used two examples is because of your statement:

"I believe a right should be classified as a context-appropriate freedom that provides an overall benefit for both the subject AND their environment"

To me this appears to state that rights are only afforded if they benefit not only the individual but also those around him, that is why I put the bear and the man alone. I was trying to draw a corollary from both animals alone.

Thank you for clarifying.

In that case, my use of "environment" was too broad. Perhaps I should have said "where a living being benefits and its environment either is not negatively impacted or benefits as well (as long as neither is being meaningfully harmed) then it would be a right — according to me.

Yes they certainly both have a "right" to life as in they should be allowed to exist and by just existing and not doing anything harmful to another living creature (except perhaps microbes if you REALLY want to get technical) should not have their lives threatened. My use of the word "should" is problematic because who am I to determine such a thing when I am not describing myself? But it is the only word I, as a conscious being, can use to be as objectively descriptive as possible in terms of how something other than me affects their environment. As far as I am aware, it would be impossible for me to use a more objective word if describing something other than me.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Unless the black female employee complains to the employer directly because she feels she has been racially vilified or harassed AND her experiences can be confirmed by at least one other witness, and the employer has still not been made aware of there being an issue up until this point, THEN no. It not the obligation of the employer to just fire the accused unless they experienced this happening first hand.

Two things. Wouldn't warnings, reprimands, sensitivity training, etc be forms of consequences for speech? Second, for the sake of the exercise let's pretend like this guy says these things constantly with no filter. So there would be a plethora of witnesses. Keep in mind, the point of this exercise is to show that there CAN be consequences for your speech. There is no such thing as totally FREE speech, and the government only protects you from government infringement.

The person first accused has the obligation to speak directly with the employer and raise their concerns that they are being unfairly harassed by a group of employees. It is then the obligation of the employer (if they haven't already been made aware of the issue yet) to investigate the claims as soon as possible and establish what is going on. The employer would not be obligated to fire the black women or the group supporting her" based ONLY on weak evidence presented by the person complaining about their harassment.

The point of this scenario is to show that these people have escalated their confrontation to the point that it is disrupting work. If the employer is unaware of the confrontation at this point then he is a terrible employer. Like I'm talking they are straight up yelling at each other in the hallways.

The best solution to both situations:
Call each individual in separately and try establish what has happened. If after doing so, you cannot confirm who is lying, then call in a third party and try to find out. If that fails, call in a group meeting of EVERYONE involved and get to the bottom of it. If after doing this you still cannot establish who is lying and who is telling the truth, tell them that the accused and the alleged victim all be placed on disciplinary action until the truth has been established.

Yes, this will take time, but the ONLY other alternatives are to either be flat out racist (ok I can't be bothered, I'll fire the black woman because I don't like her anyway) OR unreasonably biased against the accused and fire them on the spot (ok I can''t be bothered, I'll fire the accused to avoid the chance of a lawsuit). Both of these alternatives would be a grave injustice to what has happened, especially considering all of the above mentioned methods would not take THAT long or use too much effort to achieve in a timely matter.

I'm really talking about situations where there is no reason to investigate. Issues where the employer himself would be witness to these uses of speech. If speech is to be free as the OP argues, then there should be no consequences for either of these two situations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Two things. Wouldn't warnings, reprimands, sensitivity training, etc be forms of consequences for speech? Second, for the sake of the exercise let's pretend like this guy says these things constantly with no filter. So there would be a plethora of witnesses. Keep in mind, the point of this exercise is to show that there CAN be consequences for your speech. There is no such thing as totally FREE speech, and the government only protects you from government infringement.

Grown adults that are in relatively healthy states of minds should not need any reminders that they are responsible for what they say. If they don't have the sense to realise that the workforce should be a professional environment for everyone to be polite and treat each other with respect, then...

Do you really think that actual racists will stop being racist because they are told for the 1000th time not to use racial slurs? It should be included in the contract before becoming an employee about any further restrictions on freedom of speech. Warnings I agree with, but not much else you said.

The point of this scenario is to show that these people have escalated their confrontation to the point that it is disrupting work. If the employer is unaware of the confrontation at this point then he is a terrible employer. Like I'm talking they are straight up yelling at each other in the hallways.

Not all bosses are in their office just outside where the majority of their employees' desks are, or the lunch room, or the locker room etc.

I'm really talking about situations where there is no reason to investigate. Issues where the employer himself would be witness to these uses of speech. If speech is to be free as the OP argues, then there should be no consequences for either of these two situations.

Maybe you are confusing me with another member? While I would love to implement the idea of 100% free speech, it is an unrealistic expectation. There are too many seriously dangerous exceptions you would need to allow, which WOULD jeopardise the whole idea.

I don't think aiming for close to 100% in areas outside professional environments is such a bad idea because it is such an important right to possess. People have been executed throughout history for saying unpopular things. We have lost some truly great historical figures because of that. Let's recognise and appreciate how important it is but be realistic in our applications of its principles.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
I'm just trying to show that there is a reason that Free Speech as it applies to the government is ONLY protected from government intruding on your speech. I'm trying to show examples about why we have manners and we don't say certain things in mixed company. Are there times where the consequences for some speech went too far? Certainly, but that still doesn't mean that your day-to-day free speech is being infringed or is under attack.

Maybe you are confusing me with another member? While I would love to implement the idea of 100% free speech, it is an unrealistic expectation. There are too many seriously dangerous exceptions you would need to allow, which WOULD jeopardise the whole idea.

I know, but you were answering my scenarios that were addressed to that poster. I'm just trying to keep the context for why I wrote them consistent.

I don't think aiming for close to 100% in areas outside professional environments is such a bad idea because it is such an important right to possess. People have been executed throughout history for saying unpopular things. We have lost some truly great historical figures because of that. Let's recognise and appreciate how important it is but be realistic in our applications of its principles.

Agreed.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I don't think we are that far apart in understanding, the only thing I don't really agree with is the "not doing harm to another living creature", this would be contrary to my belief that we have the right to seek food. Yes we would be violating the right of life of the animal we harvest for food, but I understand that it reciprocal. If the bear wants to eat me, that is fully within it's right to seek food, but I still have the right to defend my right to life.

a reply to: LockNLoad

The understanding seems close but I see these two things:

The use of the word right when it could easily be left out.

The futility of a "right" to life when life, in fact, feeds off of death.

a reply to: daskakik

Death is a part of life, but that does not negate the acknowledgment of the life before death.

This brings us back to what I call "innate rights" these are things that are a part of us and all living things in nature.

We and all living things in nature have life, without food we would not have life, without protection from nature that tries to kill us we would not have life.

Let me try this (I'll probably dick it up)... We and all other living things have the innate function of life, in order to maintain that function we need to be free to find the food to support the function of living, and free to find/use protection from negative elements that would stop our function of life.

Now is it OK if another living thing denies us any of the 3 innate things I listed, while this other living thing operates outside of the 3 innate functions? (not killing to continue to live, not killing to protect it food source, not killing to protect its shelter)

I use killing in the food and shelter example as an extreme, it could be any form of denying us food or shelter.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: imwilliam

That's fair. The physics of speech could hardly move a feather, but I can understand the comfort of the superstitious thinking required to blame words. I think people might not want to let that comfort go just yet.

Speech is hardly mere physics. It's a mode of expression for an idea. And ideas can be powerful things. Victor Hugo said it best: "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

Unless you're arguing that the modality of speech is the most important aspect. With that I must disagree.

a reply to: icanteven

Speech is hardly mere physics. It's a mode of expression for an idea. And ideas can be powerful things. Victor Hugo said it best: "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

Unless you're arguing that the modality of speech is the most important aspect. With that I must disagree.

Everything is "mere physics". It's simply untrue that ideas or words are powerful, in any literal sense. The metaphor that words are powerful is a common superstition, but when measured for work or power or energy, is the opposite of true.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yep...The power of the words in and of themselves is dependent on the ones hearing the words. Words that are powerful to one person/group may not have any power to another person/group.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
Death is a part of life, but that does not negate the acknowledgment of the life before death.

Of course not but you said it yourself one "right" negates the other.

This brings us back to what I call "innate rights" these are things that are a part of us and all living things in nature.

We and all living things in nature have life, without food we would not have life, without protection from nature that tries to kill us we would not have life.

I get it but it just seems like calling it a right or trying to set it apart/above is superfluous.

Let me try this (I'll probably dick it up)... We and all other living things have the innate function of life, in order to maintain that function we need to be free to find the food to support the function of living, and free to find/use protection from negative elements that would stop our function of life.

Now is it OK if another living thing denies us any of the 3 innate things I listed, while this other living thing operates outside of the 3 innate functions? (not killing to continue to live, not killing to protect it food source, not killing to protect its shelter)

I use killing in the food and shelter example as an extreme, it could be any form of denying us food or shelter.

The wrench in the works is that you don't need to be alive and it is actually neither good nor bad for something to deny us any of those 3 things.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The post said "ideas".

You conflated them with "words" to force fit your argument.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: icanteven

Speech is hardly mere physics. It's a mode of expression for an idea. And ideas can be powerful things. Victor Hugo said it best: "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

Unless you're arguing that the modality of speech is the most important aspect. With that I must disagree.

Everything is "mere physics". It's simply untrue that ideas or words are powerful, in any literal sense. The metaphor that words are powerful is a common superstition, but when measured for work or power or energy, is the opposite of true.

You're simply wrong about the power of ideas or words to create a reaction. In fact, I make my living in the world of ideas and words. Putting them together in such a way that persuades a buyer to make a purchase (and my customers to pay their invoices) is what puts food on my table.

You're approaching this from an abstract position. Words and ideas spawn concrete realities. I know I won't convince you otherwise, but I disagree with your limited assessment of speech and ideas.

And maybe I just don't understand what you're trying to say. So from that perspective, indeed, some constructions made from words hold little to no power.

originally posted by: icanteven
You're approaching this from an abstract position.

That is as far as the argument goes.

Purely academic.