Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

Quote:

---

Consider this, if a road to a hospital could be built that could save untold lives, but in order for the road to be built you must knock a non consenting persons house down, would that be morally justified?

---

Ah, city planning.

Wherever possible, don't build a road, build the hospital closer. By the way, this is a very real problem. Suburbia people tend to be worse off by all sorts of metrics, including things like the prevalence of obesity, because services are far away and harder to distribute, and people spend more time in their cars going places because nothing is close by.

Maybe problems would be solved if it was less us vs them and more "you're ........ing yourself!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Ah, city planning.

Wherever possible, don't build a road, build the hospital closer.

---

Lol, true.

I remember being in a philosophy class in college where my friend had come up with a solution like that. The question had something to do with 5 people missing organs, and a healthy brain dead body in the next room. I can't remember what my friend said, but it was basically a technical solution that absolved the moral problem (Something about switching organs? ), and the teacher just told him to sit down. He gave the best answer though, I thought anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpo

The rights of an individual has to be balanced against society only insomuch as the individual/collective doesn't does not violate the rights of any other individual. A society is a collection of people. If a collection of people were to gather more rights as the collection grew, then there would be no rights for anyone in a minority.

Consider this, if a road to a hospital could be built that could save untold lives, but in order for the road to be built you must knock a non consenting persons house down, would that be morally justified? Does that person not have the right to their property, simply because a majority collective will benefit from them losing it? All of the people this would save would have a right to their lives, but that fact doesn't negate the individuals rights.

---

hmmmm.... not sure the point you are making.

The constitution could not be protected under your ideology since the country and thus the consitution can only be protected if the right to life of individual soldiers is on balance made secondary to the protection and defense of the rights of the country as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gemera

hmmmm.... not sure the point you are making.

The constitution could not be protected under your ideology since the country and thus the consitution can only be protected if the right to life of individual soldiers is on balance made secondary to the protection and defense of the rights of the country as a whole.

---

Basically I'm saying that the rights of each a group and an individual are equal in importance.

For instance if the lives of numerous people rely on the death of a single individual (who is not violating anyone else's rights), then it is not justified to take that individuals life. It's not justified by the constitution (which states the individual has the right to life), nor is it justified ethically.

This is because the United States is not a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, anything can be voted on or passed into law. Our country is a democratic republic, where we can vote or pass into law only those things that do not violate the rights enumerated in the constitution (The constitution being the overarching law that provides the "republic" part). Therefore, even if 99% of the populace voted to throw the other 1% into the sea, it would still be against the law.

I can't tell if we are having an actual disagreement or just a breakdown in communication. It sounds like you are saying that the constitution does not protect an individual from the will of the majority. Or even that the rights of the majority must come before the rights of an individual in order to "protect the constitution". If this is the claim, I would need to see which parts of the constitution say this so I could do some research (or maybe look up supreme court rulings on it). I'm willing to reconsider or change my mind, but I can't simply do it on assertion.

No I'm not saying that, but clearly we have different viewpoints.

Just a point on this subject. If a person called someone an .............. and the person who was called an .............. attacked the other person, who would be in violation of the law? Have we devolved to where we make hate speech the justification for someone to ignore the law agaiinst assaulting another person? Muslims believe it should be so.

Another point, The members of ISIS believe that they have the right to kill anyone who refuses to convert to the Muslim religion. At least, living in the US (so far) we have decent laws. If it weren't for the first clause of the First Amendment, we might end up with religeous fanatics like ISIS ruling us. I maintain that the Constitution of the United States (and Bill of Rights) is the most immaculate document ever written and that includes the Bible and the Koran. It is the only document that I know of that places itself in authority over all religions. Too bad most of the members of our government no longer follow it!

I could probably physically assault someone if they called me an ......, since ...... is a verbal assault. Muslims have nothing to do with it.

Also, why are you comparing an unrecognized jihadist group (considered a terrorist group even by muslim states) to the United States set of laws? I would expect a fairer comparison, like comparing the USA Constitution to the Saudi Arabian Basic Law.

I don't believe in "verbal assault", it seems like a belief that people's feelings are just as important as their physical well being. No one has the right to go out in public and expect everyone they meet to walk on eggshells because they won't control their behavior otherwise.

Saying you have the right to beat someone up if they say something you don't like is intimidation, and goes against the essence of free speech.

I don't know much about ISIS, I'm assuming it's some sort of Theocracy from comments made. The idea of a church run state is asinine in the modern world, as there's almost no way to censor ideas anymore. Censorship is necessary in those situations where leaders push a particular interpretation of reality. I don't think Islam is really any more obnoxious that any other religion about this though.

Edit: On the constitution being immaculate, keep in mind can make things like the Bible or Koran so dangerous is because people consider them inerrant. This is even more important when you realize everyone has their own interpretation. What if another person has a different interpretation of say the Interstate clause, and also believes the constitution is perfect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpo

Saying you have the right to beat someone up if they say something you don't like is intimidation, and goes against the essence of free speech.

---

Verbal abuse is a real concept and can put you in jail. There are victims and perpetrators. It's at the source of such concepts as school and job bullying and domestic violence. And its different from someone "saying something I don't like".

But if you want to know, I don't generally respond to name calling. I don't feel verbally assaulted by it. It's just something I ignore easily. I will lash out however if the person insists to the point of starting to annoy me. I will most probably feel verbally abused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Verbal abuse is a real concept and can put you in jail. There are victims and perpetrators. It's at the source of such concepts as school and job bullying and domestic violence. And its different from someone "saying something I don't like".

But if you want to know, I don't generally respond to name calling. I don't feel verbally assaulted by it. It's just something I ignore easily. I will lash out however if the person insists to the point of starting to annoy me. I will most probably feel verbally abused.

---

Well, the fact that you wouldn't attack someone who offended you is kind of the point. If you don't hold yourself to such a low standard to allow that type of behavior, why would you think other people aren't strong enough to control themselves? It's like admitting other people just aren't as rational and can't help themselves.

I know words can hurt a lot, but there is no causal link between feelings and actions. A person is in the end choosing their own actions, and to say that they are not has wider implications than you might think.

For instance you can't defend yourself on a rape charge by saying you were experiencing uncontrollable lust do to what the other person was wearing; So you shouldn't be able to defend yourself in a physical battery charge by saying you were experiencing uncontrollable anger do to what another person said. Allowing this defense in one area opens the doors that it could be valid in other areas, anything else would be special pleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will1

Just a point on this subject. If a person called someone an .............. and the person who was called an .............. attacked the other person, who would be in violation of the law? Have we devolved to where we make hate speech the justification for someone to ignore the law agaiinst assaulting another person?

---

The instigator of force is usually the one at fault, but I'm not a lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpo

I don't believe in "verbal assault",

---

I think there are legal types of verbal assault such as slander. The fact that someone's words precipitated violence is sort of the reason why we try cases. In some cases, both people will be guilty of something, and the courts have no trouble equally dispensing justice.

Quote:

---

Well, the fact that you wouldn't attack someone who offended you is kind of the point. If you don't hold yourself to such a low standard to allow that type of behavior, why would you think other people aren't strong enough to control themselves? It's like admitting other people just aren't as rational and can't help themselves.

---

For that matter, I really think that maybe Mario was trying to bring the conversation down to Earth a bit. If you are a big enough dick, you might get punched in the face over words. Sorry, people can be irrational - just go to a soccer game in Europe. He did not assert a right to assault someone, he said he could, but the way I read the conversation you are putting words in his mouth.

In the US, assault is not necessarily an act of physical force. It can be threatening language or body movements. You can be charged with assault for simply pointing a gun at someone or brandishing another weapon, such as a knife, with intent to do harm. In many cases, they get a double charge of assault and battery, in which the assault was then consummated with a act of battery, which is generally the physical violence associated with such a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

For that matter, I really think that maybe Mario was trying to bring the conversation down to Earth a bit. If you are a big enough dick, you might get punched in the face over words. Sorry, people can be irrational - just go to a soccer game in Europe. He did not assert a right to assault someone, he said he could, but the way I read the conversation you are putting words in his mouth.

---

I wasn't trying to put words in his mouth. I read could and interpreted could with no repercussion. People don't normally say things like "I can run all the red lights", even though it would be true. But I was only speaking of the should, as in "let's say x, what are the implications of x?", I wasn't directly replying to what Mario wrote after that point.

Edit: Oh and slander is a good point, I hadn't really considered it. It's a bit different than hate-speech though, as you get to make your case in court.

I am only against the idea of excusing things on grounds of something being "hate speech", partly because what I've written before, and partly because it is such an ill-defined term. It's so badly defined anyone who expresses an opinion could be doing it.

Edit2: Oh and on getting punched for being a dick. This is just a personal story, and doesn't really pertain: In the 6th grade, while going to a fundamental Christian school, I was beaten up by some kids after class on account of bringing "A brief history of time" into class and asking the teacher questions about it. This was in the weeks following our weird history lessons, where the earth was around 10 thousand years old. At the time I thought they were doing it because I was questioning the bible or something, but looking back they probably beat me up for being a nerd :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpo

In the 6th grade, while going to a fundamental Christian school, I was beaten up by some kids after class on account of bringing "A brief history of time" into class and asking the teacher questions about it. This was in the weeks following our weird history lessons, where the earth was around 10 thousand years old. At the time I thought they were doing it because I was questioning the bible or something, but looking back they probably beat me up for being a nerd :P.

---

Just for contrast, I spent 8 years in parochial school and no one told a creation story outside of religion class.

Quote:

---

I know words can hurt a lot, but there is no causal link between feelings and actions.

---

O_o

I'm sure this will shock absolutely all of you: I have received violence over words.

There was no "causal link" between my words and my broken nose.

To be clear, there was a definitive link; I absolutely deserved it.

I realize that you are trying to warn people off the justification of actual violence from simple words, but you can't give even verbal harassment a pass by pretending it doesn't exist with phrases like "I don't believe in "verbal assault",".

Soma