What makes a country free?

[Constable Reggie]

In the US at least, even if a Neo Nazi were to be voted into power, anything they did that would limit the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights including free speech, right to petition, and equal rights under the law for people of colour and women could be grounds for removal. If they ever tried to enact white supremacist legislation that specifically targeted any of the groups protected by the Bill of Rights (read: everyone), I'd probably see that as grounds for impeachment. And if they can't be recalled or impeached by having some insane level of control of both the government and the judiciary, I'd hardly call that a free country. The US government represents its voters, but it also has a mandate to uphold the law. Theoretically, the people elected to office are not above the law and can't change conditions willy-nilly. If a president can nearly be impeached for sexual misconduct, I think it's within reason to assume you can impeach someone for hate crimes too.

Exactly. You guys do realize it takes a ridiculous majority to actually enact anything the neo-nazis believe in, right? A neo-nazi president can't simply overstep legislation and the parts of the constitution he doesn't like (if he did, he'd be impeached), and a few neo-nazi representatives/senators aren't enacting shit if the rest of congress aren't total idiots who support their ways, and even if something does get passed, it'd be struck down as unconstitutional. The only way they could actually enact their ways is to get a new amendment (or repeal some) going, and doing that requires 2/3rds of both houses agreeing to it, and then it needs to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. And if that many people support the neo-nazi ways, there's far more to worry about than just the neo-nazi politicians.

[Phoenix Wright]

I think that question was more of why would I try to force them out of power. And it's true, I don't agree with their ethical code, unfortunately for them, so I'd do what I could to force them out. This would include rallying for impeachment, et cetera, et cetera.

[Tryhard]

this thread really went somewhere, didn't it?

I'm from the UK and hate speech laws are a thing here, but I don't agree with them. While America is inconsistent at best with terms to free speech, at least you don't have your government deciding what is offensive and what is not.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Kelsper

[Constable Reggie]

edit: reggie, by the time you get here it'll be too late, but i'll say it anyway: it's not worth it to read those last few posts.

Well, I learned that Olwen's fundamental misunderstanding of what a straw man fallacy explains everything ever

I'm not sure why exactly Olwen's so fixated on philosophers. Philosophy is just abstract approach of worldly concepts. While that may lead to philosophers becoming the type of person that Olwen thinks should be leading, it's not just exclusive to philosophers, and not all philosophers will end up thinking that way. Take it from a philosophy major (albeit one who so far has only taken a few semester classes relating to it). It's fine to want people who deeply care about helping others to be the leaders, but don't mistake them with philosophers. The only difference between a caring person and a caring philosopher that I can think of is that a philosopher knows explicitly why he/she bothers to care for others besides just thinking it's the right thing to do.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Dark Sage]

is it just me or is jushiro's idea basically similar to animal farm, regarding the pigs and their so called right to rule? I don't think they use the word philosopher there, but the reasoning is almost exactly the same.

[Constable Reggie]

i mean, i suppose we could think of a hypothetical example too. i don't want the "Cannibalize Babies United" party to come into power either, but again, they'd have a right to try.

Actually, a certain intellectual's philosophy of the topic makes a dangerously persuasive argument for the cannibalization of babies. And as we all know, all philosophy is caring philosophy.

CBU for president, modest proposals for everyone!

Edited August 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

How has it not hit you yet that you just might be absolutely awful at articulation? In just about every single serious discussion topic I've ever seen you in, somehow this stupid fucking topic between you and someone else (this time me, sometimes Esau, sometimes someone else unfortunate) arises where your posts amount to you picking out "straw mans" from another's post. Then you post about how you got a degree in logic and everyone claps for you then tells you to sit back down we get the point.

We get the point. You know words. Logic words. Cool, calculating words.

I honestly have never read any debate he's participated in where he has not accused his opponent of some random logical fallacy, most commonly ad hominem. Half the time his complaints aren't fair representations of the fallacies stated.

Must've gotten his "logic degree" from a box of Cracker Jacks am I right

[dondon151]

unless i am a certified thinker, i'm not qualified to think!

[Chiki]

While that may lead to philosophers becoming the type of person that Olwen thinks should be leading, it's not just exclusive to philosophers, and not all philosophers will end up thinking that way. It's fine to want people who deeply care about helping others to be the leaders

I define philosophers differently (not just people with PhDs in philosophy). I define it as people who both have the knowledge and people who care deeply about the world.

Obviously some philosophers shouldn't be leading the world, like this one who saved up money to hook up with gay men and got himself murdered as a result.

I honestly have never read any debate he's participated in where he has not accused his opponent of some random logical fallacy, most commonly ad hominem. Half the time his complaints aren't fair representations of the fallacies stated.

Because you have no idea "ad hominem" is. It's simply when you attack your opponent as opposed to attacking their argument:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument

It doesn't have to be insulting, you only have to attack the person as opposed to their argument to do so. It doesn't matter if it's not insulting at all: attacking a person's own views instead of their argument is still ad hominem.

yes i'm sure in between posts you're busy feeding kids in africa and protesting the drone strikes

This is the most classic ad hominem imaginable. If you don't think it is, you have no idea on what you're talking about.

Let me show you another ad hominem:

I think that question was more of why would I try to force them out of power. And it's true, I don't agree with their ethical code, unfortunately for them, so I'd do what I could to force them out. This would include rallying for impeachment, et cetera, et cetera.

Do you not see how inconsistent your two views are? You believe in a democracy and you also believe in getting rid of an evil regime voted in by a majority. You don't even believe in your own views!

This is another ad hominem attack, this time committed by me, because I'm attacking his views instead of his argument per se. But you wouldn't consider it an ad hominem, even though it by definition is, because you have no idea what an ad hominem attack really is.

Try to educate yourself. http://www.skepticink.com/notung/2012/11/12/what-is-meant-by-ad-hominem/

All ad hominem is is that you attack the person (doesn't matter how insulting) instead of the argument. So if you compare a person's two views to each other, it's an ad hominem attack.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Chiki

[Constable Reggie]

I define philosophers differently (not just people with PhDs in philosophy). I define it as people who both have the knowledge and people who care deeply about the world.

That's fine and all, but then that's more of people who have a philosophy to help others, rather than just philosophers as a whole. Saying that anyone can lead if they become a philosopher is misguided at best.

It doesn't have to be insulting, you only have to attack the person as opposed to their argument to do so. It doesn't matter if it's not insulting at all: attacking a person's own views instead of their argument is still ad hominem.

yes i'm sure in between posts you're busy feeding kids in africa and protesting the drone strikes

This is the most classic ad hominem imaginable. If you don't think it is, you have no idea on what you're talking about.

Um, you set it up by making the argument (overwhelmingly) specifically about you

The reason why I advocate these views is because I care too much, when you instead think I care too little. I care too much about the rights of the uneducated farmer; I care about the homeless people I see on the streets when I walk outside; I care about the innocent victims of the Iraq War and the drone strikes done by Obama; I care about people living in poverty because the government doesn't tax the rich enough. I care, far more than you do, about the rights of those people, hence why I want this extreme solution. I want people who care about morality to make decisions that our current rulers can't--because I consider them far more well-equipped to do so.

PW simply questioned how much you really care about all the stuff you're claiming. Not ad hominem at all when the debate (which you brought up) is about you as a person

This is another ad hominem attack, this time committed by me, because I'm attacking his views instead of his argument per se. But you wouldn't consider it an ad hominem, even though it by definition is, because you have no idea what an ad hominem attack really is.

Only the last line could be possibly considered ad hominem, as the first two points legitimately bring up an issue regarding PW's view (again, the argument is about PW himself) about democracy and what he would do. Again, kinda the whole point of this argument

[Chiki]

That's fine and all, but then that's more of people who have a philosophy to help others, rather than just philosophers as a whole. Saying that anyone can lead if they become a philosopher is misguided at best.

Bolded part is my definition for philosophers in this context; it isn't the same definition as what we normally consider.

PW simply questioned how much you really care about all the stuff you're claiming. Not ad hominem at all when the debate (which you brought up) is about you as a person

The debate was about the view that philosophers should be rulers and how it's better than a democracy. The fact that PW brought up myself (he asked me how much I care about an uneducated farmer) is itself an ad hominem attack, because it's targeting myself and not my argument. Defending myself has nothing to do with the debate at hand, really.

You can tell what the debate was about in the first place if you look at the first post: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=42205&p=2558551

The debate started off as something about the view itself, not about me. PW decided to use an ad hominem attack with the "farmer" rhetorical question.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Chiki

[Constable Reggie]

The farmer's question was directed to your school of thought regarding leadership, not you directly (considering the next mcdonald's example, "your kind of world"). Since he later said it was in response to the link you posted (The Republic), I'm assuming he's talking about Plato's philosophy that the low, worker class is restricted from education. You responded by incorrectly claiming it was a strawman, which PW responded by showing frustration that you did so, while also explaining how it wasn't. You then tried to explain why you thought it was a strawman, misunderstanding his question, which he responded again, he's talking about Plato's philosophy behind not allowing the worker class to get education (which you seem to be behind, since you've been advocating the line of reasoning). Since you went off on a tangent about yourself and caring (which was unrelated to the topic at hand), PW responded by questioning your commitment to the kind of thing.

So really, you started the whole issue up by not understanding what PW was asking about.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

The farmer's question was directed to your school of thought regarding leadership, not you directly (considering the next mcdonald's example, "your kind of world"). Since he later said it was in response to the link you posted (The Republic), I'm assuming he's talking about Plato's philosophy that the low, worker class is restricted from education. You responded by incorrectly claiming it was a strawman, which PW responded by showing frustration that you did so, while also explaining how it wasn't. You then tried to explain why you thought it was a strawman, misunderstanding his question, which he responded again, he's talking about Plato's philosophy behind not allowing the worker class to get education (which you seem to be behind, since you've been advocating the line of reasoning).

So really, you started the whole issue up by not understanding what PW was asking about.

Even if you're right that it was directed to my school of thought, which there is no evidence for, it's pretty clear that it's a straw man. In the post just prior to his, I said this:

when one has political beliefs towards the left of the spectrum it means that they care more about issues such as poverty, taxing the rich, etc. and rightfully so.

I can imagine a completely uneducated person being a very wise and kind person who cares about the well being of others. Such a person should be allowed to rule over others.

My school of thought exists for the sole purpose of taking care of everyone. I made this very clear in the post prior. PW's straw man is obvious: he's claiming that my school of thought doesn't care about these people, even though it does. Let's see what the definition of straw man is:

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,^[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

Is he misrepresenting my position? Absolutely. Because my position exists for the sole purpose of taking care of people in need, when he's claiming that I don't care about them: hence the "uneducated farmer" example.

Now that we've concluded that his entire argument is a straw man, let's not ignore all his other ad hominem attacks:

Here's an entire paragraph about me:

How has it not hit you yet that you just might be absolutely awful at articulation? In just about every single serious discussion topic I've ever seen you in, somehow this stupid fucking topic between you and someone else (this time me, sometimes Esau, sometimes someone else unfortunate) arises where your posts amount to you picking out "straw mans" from another's post. Then you post about how you got a degree in logic and everyone claps for you then tells you to sit back down we get the point.

You and I have a very different perspective on what it means to care for people. Bullshit if you think that means you care more. Absolute cow manure, I say.

Wow, how arrogant.

He accuses me of ignoring his post because I claimed almost all of it was an ad hominem attack, but there's really no reason to respond to something that's targeted towards me rather than my view.

[Constable Reggie]

The proof is here:

"Not to mention the link you posted about your belief is what made the question arise in the first place."

He's asking that if everyone should be cared for, why is it that most people aren't allowed to be educated under your school of thought, which is based on The Republic thought of philosophy?

He wasn't claiming anything. He was legitimately asking a question about your views (you link and advocate The Republic) on the lower-end worker class. Again, he's not claiming anything. You're saying that you believe that everyone should be cared for, so PW asked (again, based on your advocation on The Republic) how these people (uneducated farmers/mcd workers) are being equally cared for under Plato's philosophy. Which you didn't answer.

So again, your incorrect assertion that it was a strawman is a result of you misunderstanding what he was asking about.

Now for PW's last post before claims of total ad hominem, which I don't seem to recall arguing for before this, but whatever.

First off, the last quote isn't even from the post you're talking about.

Second, the middle quote isn't even ad hominem, surely I don't need to explain why.

Third, the paragraph quote you mention was only in response to (in his eyes) a completely nonsensical and ridiculous response you made to him earlier. Its not ad hominem per se since there's no actual discussional argument (just hissy fits and wild misunderstandings) taking place.

To be the bigger man is to respond to his actual points (dodging my questions, the nazis discussion), and not just not respond because oh noes ad hominem

Edited August 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Phoenix Wright]

Here's an entire paragraph about me

stylistically, there was a reason why i took the very first thing you said in that post and made it the last comment i replied to. it was an aside. not really related to much of anything at all--especially since what i was replying to was an attack (or at least i saw it as such). but reggie is right, much of what we had was hissy fits and misunderstandings anyway.

so, i ask that you not respond to him anymore concerning me (thanks though, reggie), and just get to answering my three questions, because i do want them answered. no links, no plato, just you answering them.

Who gets taught (the most important to me)? Who does the teaching? What gets taught?

Although it was said that education is not necessarily the defining component of this new extreme caste system, it surely seems so, without clarification of why not.

I'd also like to raise the possibility that far too much faith is being put into a slim body of people that is ultimately completely unwarranted. A single year of university schooling has already proven to me that the people in the world of academia are just as immature, selfish, and conceited as anyone else. But they are also as adult, kind, and thoughtful. What I mean to say is they are not elevated beings. Neither are philosophers, even in the general definition of the term given to us. They are not infallible, incorruptible people just because they care. An oligarchy proposed as it is would solve none of the world's problems, I think, even though it's said that the reason the oligarchy exists is to solve the problems of the many.

Where will the money come from? Would money still exist? Is this a nation-wide or global effort? Given either, I would recommend rethinking it all further. These problems that we have are not easily solved. It sounds mostly like wishful thinking to me, as are my own socio-political beliefs, to be honest. (I'm a socialist, which means I place far too much trust in the government--a body of people that time and time again proves itself untrustworthy.)

So, I understand that the producer is cared for, but what sort of importance does he actually hold? Historically, those at the bottom of a caste system are considered sometimes "undesirables," other times, "peasants." You explained to me that you see them, these living, breathing, reasoning adults, as children! What is fundamentally different about the proposed caste system? And I ask about the structure of the system, not the people in control of it. I already know well enough that the type of people who would have control are no different from those in control right now.

Does a sort of "middle" (for lack of a better term at the moment) exist in this pyramid? If so, who's in it and how do they get there?

Do you not see how inconsistent your two views are? You believe in a democracy and you also believe in getting rid of an evil regime voted in by a majority. You don't even believe in your own views!

I think the confusion might stem from a firm misunderstanding of what it means to live in a democracy. Or at least any contemporary one.

...because you have no idea what an ad hominem attack really is.

Nice touch!

Edited August 15, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

Because you have no idea "ad hominem" is. It's simply when you attack your opponent as opposed to attacking their argument:

Don't shift the goalposts, OIwen. Strawmen like these are a well known appeal to emotion. Instead of utilizing a lame reductio ad absurdum, remember that such an argumentum ad populum creates a false dilemma.

Do you not see how inconsistent your two views are? You believe in a democracy and you also believe in getting rid of an evil regime voted in by a majority. You don't even believe in your own views!

Believing in the core tenets of democracy doesn't mean agreeing with everything a mob does. You realize that democracies have sort of advanced beyond direct democracy and that mob rule isn't advantageous right

[Rehab]

By who? Racist idiots who aren't backed by anyone other than other racist idiots? People who we, in this age, view as pathetic, misguided, awful people?

Being hated by extremists/neonazis/whatever is only an issue if you make it an issue. Now, being racially targeted/profiled by your own state is a huge issue that shouldn't be ignored, but I don't see anyone here advocating that law enforcement/democratic/republican state officials shouldn't be allowed to speak ever.

By that logic, no southern nation should be allowed to have speech rights or political candidates, given that they did the same thing in the past.

KKK members may still advocate doing that stuff, and try to get it legalized, but who the fuck is going to be on their side in this day and age?

The governments and social institutions of southern states have long since been reformed, though, and the people that were in charge have since been swept out of power, with safeguards implemented to (hopefully) prevent such future abuses. I also can't think of many things less practical than outlawing government

The KKK had no intention of being involved in the democratic process, its lynchings certainly didn't respect equal application of the rule of law, and I haven't seen much evidence that they've reformed at their core much. Their being less capable or supported today doesn't mean they're not still an organization with an unrepentant history of crime.

What crimes has a proponent of Nazism necessarily committed outside of those against hate speech that are being argued against?

Perhaps it would be best to ask that question to a Jew, or a homosexual, and then maybe to duck.

I'm not saying political freedom isn't important, or that forbidding some things from being advocated in public spaces doesn't restrict it in any way. But absolute political freedom can easily come with its own cost to other forms of freedom, like freedom from harassment or crime, and I don't think that's necessary or beneficial to democratic society. Hell, the Germans ban everything down to the Nazi salute.

What neonazis do is advocate crimes against humanity, and I think allowing them to publicly advocate their bullshit betrays the trust of peoples who ought to be protected. Just because we don't see many pogroms today doesn't mean we shouldn't guard against them, at least partially because we don't know what the future holds for those people.

[Esau of Isaac]

Perhaps it would be best to ask that question to a Jew, or a homosexual, and then maybe to duck.

Or the Roma, or poles, or any other manner of untermensch. This would apply to those that committed these crimes decades ago, not those of today. Are the KKK guilty of the slave trade of their forefathers (that is, for those who did own slaves in the first place)? Are modern Catholics guilty of the Crusades of centuries past?

No, of course not. Having beliefs is not a crime, or at the least should not be in my opinion. Most people may consider Nazism to be heinous, and I personally agree, but then any large number of people can find anything heinous. While I understand the value of maintaining public safety, I don't agree with the literal ban of expression in this regard.

What neonazis do is advocate crimes against humanity, and I think allowing them to publicly advocate their bullshit betrays the trust of peoples who ought to be protected. Just because we don't see many pogroms today doesn't mean we shouldn't guard against them, at least partially because we don't know what the future holds for those people.

You can guard against threats while also allowing for the expression of thought. In protecting the people you value and love most, it's necessary to protect those you hate immensely as well. You can't effectively ensure the freedom of everyone without ensuring the freedom of the worst outliers of society. To me picking and choosing what is and is not a valid ideal to transmit to others can easily lead down a path of censorship towards "troubling" ideals. It's true that it's possible for, through free expression, a Nazi party to take root and eventually become a dominant power. But I don't think banning words is a valid or even effective means by which to combat its growth in the first place. Telling someone "You're wrong in my eyes so you can't talk about that," isn't going to make them alter their belief system. If anything it will strengthen their resolve in obstinacy.

I mean, it could be argued that hunting down and killing any Nazi-sympathizers will absolutely halt the growth of Nazism. Would you condone such an act, though?

[Espinosa]

I mean, it could be argued that hunting down and killing any Nazi-sympathizers will absolutely halt the growth of Nazism. Would you condone such an act, though?

They did just that in post-WW2 France.

[Phoenix Wright]

How is that relevant to the argument? It doesn't matter if that's what happened, the question is whether or not the act is allowable, by a government, no less.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

They did just that in post-WW2 France.

Do they do that right now in France?

[Espinosa]

Do they do that right now in France?

Not anymore of course; wouldn't make much sense when the times of the collaborationists are long gone as is the destruction they caused by forcing brothers to fight among themselves. They did somehow arrest Varg for his idiotic neopagan blogging though - I chuckled a good bit (though the guy still puts out decent enough tracks, but aren't you supposed to grow out of that 14 year old skinhead phase when you're of his age).

Anyway, France has a pretty big NS movement nowadays. You'll have one anywhere with frustrated people and alienating immigrants from former colonies or wherever, and indeed a good deal of freedom and decadence that comes with it.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Espinosa

[Constable Reggie]

The governments and social institutions of southern states have long since been reformed, though, and the people that were in charge have since been swept out of power, with safeguards implemented to (hopefully) prevent such future abuses. I also can't think of many things less practical than outlawing government

The KKK had no intention of being involved in the democratic process, its lynchings certainly didn't respect equal application of the rule of law, and I haven't seen much evidence that they've reformed at their core much. Their being less capable or supported today doesn't mean they're not still an organization with an unrepentant history of crime.

The similarity between the two, however, is that both group's ancestors did the same thing (broadly speaking), and were basically able to get away with doing it until reform. So while modern KKK members (the ones that don't commit illegal acts) still advocate bringing back the views of the old times, they're no less responsible for past heinous activity than southern nations for their ancestors.

We already have a solution for the potentially illegal acts they might do; they're illegal. That doesn't mean we should take away their right to lobby for their views regarding the topic. If we can't apply equal and fair laws to even the people we despise on a personal level, how can we call our nation the land of the free?

Edited August 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Phoenix Wright]

olwen, you know i am expecting a reply right

[Steampunk]

Oh Internet....

Going back to the original topic, I believe this is impossible to determine. In order to understand what makes a country free, we must understand what makes a person free (because countries are comprised of people). All I can say here is good luck with that. That's hundreds of years of philosophical debate that still hasn't been resolved.

TL;DR:

everyone has a different idea of what makes someone free. No matter how chill a country's laws are, there is going to be a group of people who feel there is some right they are being denied. Don't mean that to sound negative: they may have a valid reason for feeling that way, but laws cannot be made all-encompassing. Some slice of the population is going to draw the short straw when it comes to legislation.

The problem is "freedom" isn't a universal thing despite everyone understanding what it is. If we lived in the United States during the 1800's, white male citizens over 18 years of age would probably consider it a very free country. Other ethnic groups and women may not have agreed with them. Still, the powers that were maintained the US was a free country where all men were created equal and endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights etc, etc, etc. Today, the US likes to think it is free, but there are still certain groups in the US that are denied rights (such as gay marriage). So, people who do have all the rights and freedoms they want may think the US is a free country. Gay people may or may not beg to differ.

Freedom is a state of mind, and each person's mind works differently. If a person can do what they want unmolested by government authority, they would probably think their country was free. If a person wanted to do certain things they were not legally allowed to, they would think differently. Multiply that by the several billion people living on Earth in difference countries, and we have several billion different definitions of "freedom." There may be common themes/trends, but the definitions will differ enough that, no matter how liberal a country is, there is going to be a group of people feeling oppressed in some way. Even a completely anarchistic political system does not guarantee "freedom" for all.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Dieselpunk