An interesting question. So the legitimacy of restrictions on speech (which is where we started) is now conditional on whose judgement we are talking about? :-)
I already told you my set S is empty. But the opinion of, say, the King of England on the one hand, and Ben Franklin on the other about the whole “inflammatory rhetoric” business is likely to have been very different. Who do we listen to?
Could you please improve your reading comprehension at least to the degree where you don’t attribute to me positions with straw sticking all out of them?
To quote yourself, the set S consists of speech
“that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread”
That set for personally me is empty as far as I can see (no counter-examples come to mind).
No? Cool, so bigots exist and inflammatory rhetoric exists, so I dare hope that cases where the former have been spreading the latter also exist. Let’s analyze my statement:
“that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread”
“You” refers to Lumifer. “Would agree have been settled beyond dispute” was just my way of saying “admits”.
In my intended sense, that statement means, “Lumifer admits X is a case of inflammatory rhetoric being spread by bigots”.
Since such cases exist, S is not empty. Now go back to my original comments and select an X such that X belongs to S.
“Would agree have been settled beyond dispute” was just my way of saying “admits”.
LOL. And, to recall an old joke, “You ruined my life you fucking bitch!” was just my way of saying “Pass the salt, please”.
Sorry, you seem to be intent on deliberately misinterpreting me. I am not particularly interested in how many nails will it take to attach that piece of jello to a tree. I’m out.
No, I’m genuinely on the fence on this one. My only claim is that one legitimate argument to do it does exist. Depending on the specific case, that reason may be outweighed by more significant arguments.
Of course. Just look at what kind of inflammatory rhetoric those anti-British bigots known as the Founding Fathers of the US were spreading!
Is that the judgement of the British, or the judgement of Lumifer?
An interesting question. So the legitimacy of restrictions on speech (which is where we started) is now conditional on whose judgement we are talking about? :-)
I already told you my set S is empty. But the opinion of, say, the King of England on the one hand, and Ben Franklin on the other about the whole “inflammatory rhetoric” business is likely to have been very different. Who do we listen to?
Okay, so confirm that the following proposition is true: For Lumifer, “inflammatory rhetoric” is nonexistent across spacetime.
Could you please improve your reading comprehension at least to the degree where you don’t attribute to me positions with straw sticking all out of them?
To quote yourself, the set S consists of speech
That set for personally me is empty as far as I can see (no counter-examples come to mind).
No? Cool, so bigots exist and inflammatory rhetoric exists, so I dare hope that cases where the former have been spreading the latter also exist. Let’s analyze my statement:
“that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread”
“You” refers to Lumifer. “Would agree have been settled beyond dispute” was just my way of saying “admits”.
In my intended sense, that statement means, “Lumifer admits X is a case of inflammatory rhetoric being spread by bigots”.
Since such cases exist, S is not empty. Now go back to my original comments and select an X such that X belongs to S.
I’m glad we could clear that up.
LOL. And, to recall an old joke, “You ruined my life you fucking bitch!” was just my way of saying “Pass the salt, please”.
Sorry, you seem to be intent on deliberately misinterpreting me. I am not particularly interested in how many nails will it take to attach that piece of jello to a tree. I’m out.
A little charity, please. I’m not a native English speaker.
And I think it is entirely legitimate for me to disambiguate the sense in which I intended a particular sentence.
So you want to censor every case of inflammatory rhetoric spread by a “bigot”?
No, I’m genuinely on the fence on this one. My only claim is that one legitimate argument to do it does exist. Depending on the specific case, that reason may be outweighed by more significant arguments.