When Did It Stop Being OK TO Disagree??

[canthai55]

40 minutes ago, robblok said:

Disagree, dangerous falsehoods should never be allowed. Of course that is a nice statement of me but not really practical I realize that. I just don't believe that it should be allowed to use fake information, lies and stuff like that. How to really make that happen, no idea yet. Many people seem to thave these views but nobody has a perfect solution.

 

I mean suppose all is allowed and I make a fake page with an alleged chat of you with a young girl. Put in some fake pics and other allegations boom, your reputation is gone all of a sudden your a paria. I mean free speech correct ? (i know its extreme but that is what people are saying if they want to allow everything to be said without any restrictions and checks on information. 

 

On the other hand you got the problem if free speech is totally gone information can be hidden and in some cases the truth will never come out. 

 

IMHO its hard to make perfect rules but i still prefer it if there were some limits and checks on information. 

This is what is meant ...

Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Edited September 17, 2021 by canthai55

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

The problem is neither you nor anybody on here should get to decide, or is indeed equipped to decide, what a "dangerous falsehood" is. In this Covid pandemic for instance we have seen that for the longest time the number of cases was taken as a measure of whether to put in place draconian lockdowns. Now governments have turned around and said "Ooops sorry, actually taking cases alone is wrong, we'll now look at hospitalizations coupled with available beds and death rate".

 

Again and again scientific advisors of the highest rank have gotten facts about Covid wrong, and thus peddled falsehoods

 

Were they dangerous? Probably. However, we all have to live with dangerous falsehoods. This is not a sterile environment where mistakes do not happen and mommy can protect you from all negatives of the world. You put 10 scientists in a room and you get 21 opinions. They can't all be right. There will always be falsehoods. We have seen this with Covid.

 

The question is whether these falsehoods are so dangerous that they should be banned. If that were the case 80% of the world's scientists, politicians etc should all be banned. Any talk of communism should indeed be banned, the most dangerous falsehood the world has known.

 

It's very dangerous to engage in aggressive adversarial cancel culture. It almost cost the US a revolution.

 

Rather than support cancel culture we should all stand up against it in my view. It's a very slippery slope. First they came for the communists, then they came for Trump, then for Nikki Minaj, tomorrow they may come for you...

Your right one of the problems is who should decide what is false and what is not false. Its indeed dangerous. But its equally dangerous to let false information and lies go on and on.

 

Scientists come to consensus by doing experiments and research. After a while they come to a consensus at least the majority of them. Guess what the a huge majority does not agree with the covid idiots and antivaxxers. Its a small minority that is vocal that comes with strange things and those things are NOT verified by others. So id say they are false until proven right. That is the good thing about science if you do a test of something you have to reproduce the results to confirm your right or wrong. So science will sort itself out and they will find out what is false and not.

 

Like i said full freedom is speech is bad but so it a total censure of stuff. 

 

[robblok]

16 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

This is what is meant ...

Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

As long as you understand there are restrictions then we are in agreement.  Seems you do. 

 

Anyway only few people advocate total freedom of speech (without limits) most are pro freedom of speech but with some limits. You can debate about what limits and so on but total freedom of speech is dangerous and so it the total opposite. 

[LawrenceN]

Only slightly off-topic: About 40 years ago, a friend's GF told me I was opinionated. That was an eye-opener. I realized that she was right, and since that day, I don't feel I have to have an opinion on every everything. It was liberating to be able to back away and not care about so many things that do not affect my life. 

[pacovl46]

As soon as one party decided to base their decision on some absolutely obviously and utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory and refused to even listen to evidence proving the contrary simply because their opinion is already set in stone, because they’re the only ones who know the way, know what’s what because they’re the enlightened ones, the gurus, the messiahs and the rest of the world is just fricking stupid, despite the fact that most of the rest of the world bases their decision on what actual experts, people who do this professionally, have to say about it whereas the “messiahs” base their opinion on the b.llsh.t some idiot says they found on bitchute, is when I’ve lost the ability to disagree, shut it down and go and have lunch with them because I don’t suffer fools lightly and life is simply too short to waste it on conspiracy theorists because they’re a lost cause! I’m also allergic to b.llsh.t and stupidity. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by pacovl46

[RJRS1301]

41 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

The problem is neither you nor anybody on here should get to decide, or is indeed equipped to decide, what a "dangerous falsehood" is. In this Covid pandemic for instance we have seen that for the longest time the number of cases was taken as a measure of whether to put in place draconian lockdowns. Now governments have turned around and said "Ooops sorry, actually taking cases alone is wrong, we'll now look at hospitalizations coupled with available beds and death rate".

 

Again and again scientific advisors of the highest rank have gotten facts about Covid wrong, and thus peddled falsehoods

 

Were they dangerous? Probably. However, we all have to live with dangerous falsehoods. This is not a sterile environment where mistakes do not happen and mommy can protect you from all negatives of the world. You put 10 scientists in a room and you get 21 opinions. They can't all be right. There will always be falsehoods. We have seen this with Covid.

 

The question is whether these falsehoods are so dangerous that they should be banned. If that were the case 80% of the world's scientists, politicians etc should all be banned. Any talk of communism should indeed be banned, the most dangerous falsehood the world has known.

 

It's very dangerous to engage in aggressive adversarial cancel culture. It almost cost the US a revolution.

 

Rather than support cancel culture we should all stand up against it in my view. It's a very slippery slope. First they came for the communists, then they came for Trump, then for Nikki Minaj, tomorrow they may come for you...

People who work as scientists keep open minds, and the beauty of science , and scientific enquiry, is that true scientists keep and open mind, and continue the research and are prepared to look at new evidence as it arises.

By finding, evaluating, and testing  new evidence as it arises often requires previously held views, based on the previous data and evidence , to change.

This what is occurring with this virus, new evidence , new data.

No person alive today has ever dealt a pandemic of this magnitude before, there are no guidelines or protocols, they are being developed as the evidence emerges from data collation and analysis.

We are living through scientific and social developments never experienced before 

This why things change, some previously held theories have to change.

 

 

[Tanomazu]

4 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

This why things change, some previously held theories have to change.

 

And how would things change if you censored, cancelled, blocked and banned those who hold differing views, different facts or interpretations?

 

So what you are saying is that scientific discourse only arrives at the truth precisely because the widest possible variety of interpretations, facts and opinions are allowed.

 

If scientists were censored then progress would be impossible. Same everywhere. Censorship is the enemy of progress. Cancel culture is a regression to previous dark ages.

 

Everyone should have to tolerate all differing views, unless there is clear evidence of direct and specific imminent harm by a particular view, for instance, which is very, very rarely the case. I mean Roblok may not like anti-vaxxers, is he personally directly and specifically harmed by anyone on here expressing anti-vaxxer views? Not really. Unless he were to walk into a room with that person who expressed the anti-vaxx view and that person was infected and Roblok were close enough to breath in his aerosols.

 

We can all be a little over the top regarding potential dangers.

[Nanaplaza666]

21 hours ago, xylophone said:

Whilst I welcome healthy debate and at times have agreed to disagree, I find it difficult to do this when a poster posts nonsense.

 

A good example is the "conspiracy theorists" and no matter how much debate one has with them, it's pretty well useless because they believe in their "conspiracies" (Bill Gates and the Covid virus, vaccines being used to inject nanoparticles of mind altering substances and so on) so I don't see the point in arguing/discussing, in fact if someone is stupid enough to believe that sort of nonsense, then I'm best off not having anything to do with them, so I put some of them on ignore.

 

I did the same with several trump supporters, because no matter how many times he lied in public, and no matter how many times the actual footage was shown supporting this, they refused to believe it. Then there was the time he was forced to repay about $2.5 million after "misusing" funds collected for a charity, yet although it was all out there for everyone to see and hear, his supporters argued against it on threads like this.

 

I would gladly have a discussion with anyone and will put forward my points of view, but where the poster doesn't have the intelligence to see that what they are posting is absolute rubbish, proven beyond doubt by all and sundry, then it's not worth it.

 

This old adage rings true in this case, "it's pointless arguing with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

If you are arguing you have to argeu with everyone and don't say you will not argeu with idiots and call people idiots because they don't say axactly what you want them to say or say axactly what your saying or thinking . That's the whole point of arguing and i think your hypocrite to just say that . But hey, you must think i am wrong because i am not saying what you want to hear or not thinking the way you are . 

[Gottfrid]

5 minutes after you married a Thai woman.

[Kwasaki]

38 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

I'm also allergic to b.llsh.t and stupidity. 

So where does fun having a laugh with others, taking the water stop and end with you.  

[Old Nomad]

In this context "False Balance" is a subject to think about / be aware of:

"False balance is a bias, which usually stems from an attempt to avoid bias, and gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability. It creates a public perception that some issues are scientifically contentious, though in reality they aren't, therefore creating doubt about the scientific state of research, and can be exploited by interest groups such as corporations like the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry, or ideologically motivated activists such as vaccination opponents or creationists."

[StevieAus]

6 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

and hang your head in shame as well??????????

And that is after receiving six of the best on each hand !!!!

[canthai55]

2 hours ago, Tanomazu said:

 It almost cost the US a revolution.

"Oh yes the glory of America, how could we forget since you American people never shut up about it

Here's US history in a nutshell :

 

1)millions of pounds invested in new British colonies

1. 1.  

2)France tries to invade but Britain defends its colonies at the cost of 120,000 lives in the world's first truly global war

 

3) ungrateful colonists refuse to contribute to the costs of this war despite the wealth of the land

 

4) US propaganda brands king George a tyrant - the King who ended slavery and spent 40% of Britain's GDP buying their freedom

5) US revolts and is on the verge of losing its own revolutionary war until the French intervene

 

6) Britain occupied by total war with Napoleon and has its real armies on the continent

 

7) Britain cuts its losses and goes on to defeat Napoleon and restore the sovereignty of the nations of Europe

8)US claims victory and begins its life with a national attitude of arrogance

 

9) US continues slavery for another 60 years and has to have a civil war to resolve the matter

10) claims to be the greatest country in the world despite the fact that they established their nation on millions of pounds of stolen property, slave labour and genocide of the natives

11) does little to help France during 2 world wars despite France being instrumental in their revolution

12) content to let Britain and Europe suffer until Japan drags them into the war 13) goes on to completely mess up the world order for the next 6 decades

14) society starts to crumble, many live in poverty and social unrest plagues the nation.Yet it still screeches hysterically about its manifest destiny

15) world at large getting sick of their <deleted>".

[Kanada]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

As long as you understand there are restrictions then we are in agreement.  Seems you do. 

 

Anyway only few people advocate total freedom of speech (without limits) most are pro freedom of speech but with some limits. You can debate about what limits and so on but total freedom of speech is dangerous and so it the total opposite. 

Freedom of speech doesn’t give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre!
People are people so there are caveats on everything and grey areas where there shouldn’t have to be!

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, Kanada said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre!
People are people so there are caveats on everything and grey areas where there shouldn’t have to be!

With "freedoms" come responsibilities.

[Kanada]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

With "freedoms" come responsibilities.

I hate to say it but after reading Thai Visa opinions for a month or so I haven’t seen a lot of responsibility or dependable opinions!

Maybe that’s just me and my opinions tho’….

 

[Rampant Rabbit]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

IMHO its hard to make perfect rules but i still prefer it if there were some limits and checks on information

Checks  on mis  information

[Rampant Rabbit]

19 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

With "freedoms" come responsibilities.

Not  in Thailand

[sucit]

This is actually a very good question.

 

Assume we are discussing in a place like the United States for clarity’s sake…

 

You can always take away rights to save lives or do “good” in some way. I don’t understand why people do not realize this. There could be a serial hacker stealing funds from accounts in the USA, and to catch them, we’d all have to give up our right to illegal searches and seizures let’s say for argument’s sake. Well, it does not matter one bit we could save a bunch of people from criminals by losing the 4th amendment right. The point of it being a right is that it gets upheld even in the tough times, death, tragedy or all hell breaking loose be damned. 
 

You see, that’s how that works. Constitutional rights stay that way in the tough times… in fact during those tough times is the most important periods when we need to maintain them. 
 

The only entities who logically should want right infringement are those who would benefit, which would be governments. Citizens have to be absolutely mind <deleted> bonkers to release their rights. That’s what we see now, and that is how you know everyone is <deleted> crazy and they sure as hell should not be listened to, for their own good in the end. 
 

To answer the question, these are not disagreements. They are one citizen saying “I want this right taken away from everyone because I’m afraid”. Well, you don’t get to say that. My right is protected constitutionally. So yeah those are essentially fighting words, because if enough sheep think like you, we all lose. You literally are not allowed to do that. It’s not a disagreement but it’s one person wants to violate the rights of others because of their beliefs. They need to follow their own beliefs in a way not to infringe upon those of others. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by sucit

[StreetCowboy]

3 hours ago, Tanomazu said:

The problem is neither you nor anybody on here should get to decide, or is indeed equipped to decide, what a "dangerous falsehood" is. In this Covid pandemic for instance we have seen that for the longest time the number of cases was taken as a measure of whether to put in place draconian lockdowns. Now governments have turned around and said "Ooops sorry, actually taking cases alone is wrong, we'll now look at hospitalizations coupled with available beds and death rate".

 

Again and again scientific advisors of the highest rank have gotten facts about Covid wrong, and thus peddled falsehoods

 

Were they dangerous? Probably. However, we all have to live with dangerous falsehoods. This is not a sterile environment where mistakes do not happen and mommy can protect you from all negatives of the world. You put 10 scientists in a room and you get 21 opinions. They can't all be right. There will always be falsehoods. We have seen this with Covid.

 

The question is whether these falsehoods are so dangerous that they should be banned. If that were the case 80% of the world's scientists, politicians etc should all be banned. Any talk of communism should indeed be banned, the most dangerous falsehood the world has known.

 

It's very dangerous to engage in aggressive adversarial cancel culture. It almost cost the US a revolution.

 

Rather than support cancel culture we should all stand up against it in my view. It's a very slippery slope. First they came for the communists, then they came for Trump, then for Nikki Minaj, tomorrow they may come for you...

I don't think people should be allowed to publish falsehoods with the intent of causing harm, or recklessly with respect to their accuracy in the knowledge that it may cause harm.   I am not sure that people should be allowed to publish the truth with the intention of causing harm.

[RJRS1301]

Just now, StreetCowboy said:

I don't think people should be allowed to publish falsehoods with the intent of causing harm, or recklessly with respect to their accuracy in the knowledge that it may cause harm.   I am not sure that people should be allowed to publish the truth with the intention of causing harm.

I doubt the former president of usa would have hired you as his media advisor

[Tanomazu]

9 minutes ago, sucit said:

To answer the question, these are not disagreements. They are one citizen saying “I want this right taken away from everyone because I’m afraid”. Well, you don’t get to say that. My right is protected constitutionally.

Unfortunately it does not work that way on social media, on the internet or on talkboards, because there is no universal constitution protecting users' rights. Quite the opposite, the terms and conditions usually prohibit basically everything, thus leaving the site wide discretion to step in whenever they want. Maybe we need an internet constitution all companies are forced to adhere to. How easy is it for someone to report a poster whom they disagree with, but the poster being reported basically has no rights whatsoever and has to rely on the censors being intelligent, fair and equitable. Most censors, not all, but most are not equipped that way.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Tanomazu

[Tanomazu]

5 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

I don't think people should be allowed to publish falsehoods with the intent of causing harm, or recklessly with respect to their accuracy in the knowledge that it may cause harm.   I am not sure that people should be allowed to publish the truth with the intention of causing harm.

Interesting question whether the truth itself can cause harm. That probably is the case. However, it is not just the intention that is relevant, the so-called mens rea, it is also a question of whether actual harm is inflicted in reality, the important actus reus. In other words if actual, specific harm is inflicted, yes, of course then traditionally free speech often ends. However, if no actual specific harm has been inflicted the principle of freedom of speech should prevail.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Tanomazu

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Kanada said:

Popularity might be a tiny part of it but they can also check how you handle finances…how you write and spell (which is a big one)..…how people react to you and your personality…corroborate info you provided…drug use…how a person speaks about current employer…bragging about alcohol and other drugs!! A huge source of information available to a possible employer that could save them from making a hiring mistake !

If you’re a person with 50,000 followers I’d sure want you on my team and quicker the better……that means you’re an influencer and a leader and you know how to work you butt off!

 

It also means that any like me that think social media is evil vile and would never go on face thingy are at a disadvantage even though they may be really good at the potential job.

 

As for "personality", I'm sure anyone can pretend to be anything they want from behind a screen in mummy's basement.

 

Perhaps it's changed, but when I was young, people started at the bottom and worked their way up in occupations. They didn't get to start half way up the ladder because they were good at posting stuff on stupid social thingys.

 

BTW, I don't get how people of working age have enough time to go on line long enough to get 50,000 "followers". I was too busy actually working when young to be on the internet all hours of the day.

[StreetCowboy]

2 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

Interesting question whether the truth itself can cause harm. That probably is the case. However, it is not just the intention that is relevant, the so-called mens rea, it is also a question of whether actual harm is inflicted in reality, the important actus reus. In other words if actual, specific harm is inflicted, yes, of course then traditionally free speech often ends. However, if no actual specific harm has been inflicted the principle of freedom of speech should prevail.

So rabble-rousing should be permitted until after riots, and then retrospectively prohibited?

[StreetCowboy]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It also means that any like me that think social media is evil vile and would never go on face thingy are at a disadvantage even though they may be really good at the potential job.

 

As for "personality", I'm sure anyone can pretend to be anything they want from behind a screen in mummy's basement.

 

Perhaps it's changed, but when I was young, people started at the bottom and worked their way up in occupations. They didn't get to start half way up the ladder because they were good at posting stuff on stupid social thingys.

 

BTW, I don't get how people of working age have enough time to go on line long enough to get 50,000 "followers". I was too busy actually working when young to be on the internet all hours of the day.

Back in the day you had to be good at exams to start two steps up the ladder.

 

[dj230]

haha, those days are long gone, i think the human race evolution has peaked and is slowly reversing 

[RocketDog]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

I am more combative on the forum then in real life though I love having some arguments with the gf at times. I mean the good kind and she is smart so its fun. But im certainly more combative on the forum. 

 

On the forum you don't have to live with the people you debate with you don't know them in real life so you don't pull punches. 

 

Plus i like the more combinative style (up to a certain point).

 

But i doubt many take this really serious, i don't loose sleep over bad remarks or whatever. Its a forum its a debate and when i close the browser its gone from my mind.

Unfortunately some folks are not so emotionally stable, and take their arguments or philosophies too far and act on their baser instincts. Combative is one thing, abusive or homicidal is quite another. You may in fact find yourself 'living' in real life with the people you sparred with virtually only yesterday. Anonymity is not what it used to be either.

 

Witness the cockroaches who crept out of the woodwork into broad daylight when our former president publicly gave them freedom, ney encouraged them, to do so.

 

Unfortunately they have openly taken up permanent residency in polite society and are still wreaking havoc in multiple areas of life, such as bringing the current pandemic under control, bringing weapons to demonstrations, mowing down pedestrians with their cars, etc.

They don't leave their pique and grievances behind when they leave the keyboard, they carry them into the streets. It doesn't take many such individuals to cause significant disruption/destruction now either.

[Tanomazu]

Just now, StreetCowboy said:

So rabble-rousing should be permitted until after riots, and then retrospectively prohibited?

The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.

 

For instance distributing leaflets to oppose the draft in war time was obstruction of the draft, a criminal offence at that time. However, the judge in the case, Schenck v United States, said in other times those people distributing the leaflets would have been within their constitutional rights to distribute their leaflets. But it was war, so bad luck.

 

Thus we need to look at where and when the statement was made. If it was made online it is extremely unlikely it will lead to immediate riots, though that can happen. However, that has to be taken into account. It is not the same as shouting something in a crowded theatre. The general test is will the words create a "clear and present danger" that should be prevented?

 

In Brandenburg v Ohio this was then modified again and instead the new standard was whether the words were likely to incite imminent lawless action.

 

So in the extremely rare case where someone posts something that was on the balance of probabilities likely to incite imminent lawless action, then yes, that could be censored, however not otherwise. Otherwise freedom of speech would prevail. Expressions of honest opinion are entitled to near absolute protection.

 

 

 

 

[pacovl46]

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

So where does fun having a laugh with others, taking the water stop and end with you.  

Obviously there's a massive difference between people taking the "water" and people believing in conspiracy BS!