Go to page:

Je suis Charlie

Viddax
Lord Viddax
Guardian of Shadows
United Kingdom 31awards
Joined 10th Oct 2009
Forum Posts: 6672

The following analogy is roughly from 'Question Time' (?) on BBC1 from today. I will have to find out who actually said the phrase, and is subject to ammendments. Bracketed bits are my additions.

Freedom of Speech is not always about saying things, sometimes out of decency and moral standards. You have the right to fart in a lift/elevator. (But out of respect for the other people in the lift you do not if can help it.) And the subsequent right to not be attacked for killed for farting. Yet if you are killed or hurt, or fart, you do not expect the rest of the people to fart with you in solidarity.

End rather botched quote, I think I'll add the actual word for word quote in another post just to show my shoddy memory and give it proper attention.


There is also a difference in having an ideal and dying, and dying for an idea or ideal. The former case involves two seperate things, wheras the latter conflates the two.
Case 1: An ideal + Death = ideal with value in life. Can also be expressed as: An ideal + Death = An ideal + Life.
Case 2: An ideal (therefore) Death = ideal augmented in value by death. The ideal has value in life but now the ideal is more important than life. Can also be expressed as: An ideal + Death > (Greater than) An ideal + Life.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

I do not find that your analogy works at all, Viddax. Because I would expect people to ‘express solidarity’ with someone in a lift, who is then being subjected to a physical assault as a direct consequence of their action, by voicing immediate disapproval and doing whatever they can to stop the assault. Not by farting in unison. And is that not effectively the case here? I have not heard of any reports of people going home and drawing inflammatory cartoons as a gesture of solidarity. Have you?

“Freedom of Speech is not always about saying things, sometimes out of decency and moral standards.”
I am not at all clear what you are trying to say here. I think that you are saying that Freedom of Speech should be curtailed by considerations of decency and moral standards. If you are not then I would be grateful for clarification.
Freedom of speech is, indeed, curtailed by moral standards, as required by the law. Slander. Incitement to kill. Making untrue claims in advertising. Racial insults. Where lines are drawn is for society to decide and is ever shifting. But to argue that one has the freedom to say that one regards a particular belief system as nonsensical, and then to suggest that, out of ‘decency’ one does not have that right is simply contradictory.

As to your final point I am equally puzzled by what you are trying to say. I do not disagree with your distinction between having an ideal and dying and dying for an ideal, but fail to see its relevance. No one, as far as I can see, has suggested that they are the same. And the difference may be a purely semantic one. You fail to consider the obvious case of someone having an ideal, for which they are prepared to die, but then dying from some unrelated cause. In this case (‘having an ideal and dying’) it is still true that ‘ideal + Death > (Greater than) An ideal + Life.’ (‘dying for an ideal’).

Viddax
Lord Viddax
Guardian of Shadows
United Kingdom 31awards
Joined 10th Oct 2009
Forum Posts: 6672

I agree that there have not been cases of drawing inflammatory cartoons, or copying the original cartoon either. However the analogy is first of all not mine, and secondly is still relevant for the message of solidarity. As in why must solidarity be shown and expressed? Does that not then point to a state of disunity, and it also allows the stupid mistake of it becoming an 'us' and 'them' situation. ('Us' as in all non-Muslims, and 'them' as Terrorists and Muslims: which is a fallacy of some sort and utter gobshite.)

Freedom of Speech also comes with a responsibility or set of responsibilities, not enshrined or covered in law or even common sense at times. In your case the freedom and sense of decency are not mutually exclusive but inclusive. The freedom to say a belief (or even scientific theory) is nonsensical, does not then give you the right to bombastically shout at the beleivers/followers/scientists in their face in their own home. Just like you have the complete right to scream "warble garble narble" in the street without being arrested specifically for that, but it does not mean you can then use that freedom as a pretence or excuse to go absolutely anywhere in the world (from Fort Knox to the Kremlin for example).

My final point was somewhat simplified too much. The point I was trying to make was that the person dies for the ideal, and their death is either because of that ideal or to further that ideal. Their death is ideal driven. Ideal + Death > (Greater than) An Ideal + Life ~ (Therefore) Ideal = Death. Yet: An Ideal not necessarily ~ (therefore) death.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

Why must solidarity be shown?

Firstly, because it is a natural human response. It is the class standing up to the school bully, the country becoming united in the face of an external threat, even the rush of passers by to help someone who has fallen. It doesn’t always happen in our fragmented world and, in the face of sufficiently ruthless threats, consider Stalinist Russia, can be suppressed.

Of course, you may point out, correctly, that that is the naturalistic fallacy, because a thing is does not mean it ought to be. But being a logical fallacy does not mean that it is wrong. And it must be admitted that, like all ingrained behaviour, it is not always adaptive. It has its down side, in group-out group hostility, prejudice and the like. But overall I would think that it is a necessary instinct in human societies.

Secondly, because it confirms the society’s standards and norms. It provides tremendous social pressure.
   
Thirdly, it provides much needed reassurance. Individuals are not alone. The ‘Blitz’ spirit if you like.

Us and them is not a stupid mistake. It certainly can be. And the way that you have set up the argument of course it is. But set it up as us (the vast mass of concerned citizens, of all persuasions, including Moslems) and them (the terrorists) and it becomes an entirely different scenario.

It is not a fallacy as such nor is it dependant upon showing solidarity. If there had been no mass rallies or purchasing copies of the magazine, do you honestly think that there would still not be the almost inevitable anti-Moslem backlash? But you do have a point, it may well be that a show of unity may exacerbate such tendencies. It would be a complex sociological question as to the balance.

As to your second point I do not disagree that freedom of speech brings with it responsibilities. But you cannot give a freedom and deny it at the same. Now that is a fallacy. The fallacy of contradiction.

Any freedom is open to abuse. The freedom to drink alcohol for example. As in this case you may limit that freedom by appropriate legislation. So going around to a neighbour’s house to scream at them would rightly be dealt with as a breach of the peace. But what you cannot do is to limit free speech at some arbitrary point of your choosing. Then it would simply not be free speech. Consider your example. You have the complete right to scream ‘warble, garble, narble’ (as I often do) but you cannot use that freedom! Can you not see the glaring contradiction in that? There is a world of difference between should not and can not.

It must be accepted that all human rights, whatever their ontological status, have positive and negative aspects. We do not live in a perfect world. All we can do is look at a particular question and decide, as well as we can, whether the positives outweigh the negatives. Looking at history, looking at closed and repressive societies, I, personally, have no doubt that Freedom of Speech is overall a good thing. So I will fight for it.

I am still totally confused by your final argument. Your logical argument is fallacious. Let I = ideal, L = life and D = death.
Your summation is that I + D ˃ I + L ~ I = D.
Let me put in some figures. I =3, D = 4 and L = 2.
   3 + 4 ˃ 3 + 2
   Therefore 3 = 4.
The entire edifice of arithmetic has just collapsed about our ears.

Your point, I quote, was ‘that the person dies for the ideal, and their death is either because of that ideal or to further that ideal. Their death is ideal driven’. This is simply tautologous. A person who dies for an ideal is a person who dies for an ideal.

If that is all you wished to say then I am in perfect agreement, but cannot see why you bothered to say it.

Poetryman
Tyrant of Words
United States 29awards
Joined 14th Aug 2011
Forum Posts: 1530

AnonEMouse said:Je suis Charlie

Je suis Charlie

malin69
malin
Dangerous Mind
France 5awards
Joined 12th Jan 2013
Forum Posts: 820

The democracy always triumphs over the war, over the tyranny and over the inhumanity

Viddax
Lord Viddax
Guardian of Shadows
United Kingdom 31awards
Joined 10th Oct 2009
Forum Posts: 6672

malin69 said:The democracy always triumphs over the war, over the tyranny and over the inhumanity

Beaucracry triumphs over those, and over itself. Too much red tape can sometimes be the best way to stop a cae of rip and tear.

Harpalycus, the idea of an absolute freedom sounds absurd. Of course it has to be repressed or prevented or simply not complete in some way: because of law or ethics or morality or common sense. But managing it and making it a viable thing in humanity, in existence, is not denying it. It is affirming it. -Sure, you can't go riding a nuke into your home, but lets actually give you something to do, say like a job for instance.

By pointing out the inconsistency in the equation, actually points to my overarching point there. That a person who dies for an ideal: dies for an ideal, and that is somehow greater than living for an ideal when death is a single moment but life is on average years and or decades.

I'll leave it there as further talk would simply confuse the situation, when we seem to be mostly agreeing.

Harpalycus
Twisted Dreamer
United Kingdom 1awards
Joined 3rd Nov 2014
Forum Posts: 130

Hi Viddax, it isn’t often that we find ourselves in the unusual state of ‘mostly agreeing’. But, happy state though it be, mostly is not all and there remain one or two bones of contention for a final gnaw.

You criticise absolute freedom. Quite rightly. But no-one has suggested that, least of all me. Ultimately society, whether by social pressure or by actual legislation, provides the limits. I am personally for defending and, indeed, extending those limits to some extent, but that is another debate.

My point was that if a freedom is given, then it is a freedom. You cannot say that you have the freedom to sunbathe in the nude on certain beaches and then say that you mustn’t do it because it discomforts people. You can certainly criticise those who you feel are abusing a right, you can disagree with those exercising that right, you can campaign to have that right curtailed, but you cannot deny them so long as they have that right.

Your argument about living, rather than dying, for an ideal, is becoming clearer (though I remain totally flummoxed how demonstrating the flaws in the equation pointed to it). To live and work for an achievable ideal would certainly be the preferred option, but it is not always a realistic one. It is relatively rare that anyone deliberately chooses death to help achieve an ideal, but many are willing to risk their lives for it. Ultimately it is a value judgement, a matter of opinion. Perhaps most succinctly summed up by the aphorism, ‘it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.’ The relative values one gives to ones own life and an ideal are an individual’s choice. To the individual concerned dying for an ideal is indeed greater than living without it.

How many of our ideals have been purchased with people’s blood? And would you be prepared to lose them, under threat from an AK47 or a suicide vest of semtex? Habeas corpus. Abolition of slavery. Religious freedom. Freedom of speech. Representative democracy. Self determination. Equality for women. Freedom of movement. Universal education. A free judiciary. The presumption of innocence. That these are not perfect does not alter the thrust of what I am saying.

And before you make the obvious point, I fully accept that all human motives and actions contain the seeds of both good and ill. Dying for an ideal is the defining characteristic of a suicide bomber. We are a mixed up species and there is never a perfect answer.

malin69
malin
Dangerous Mind
France 5awards
Joined 12th Jan 2013
Forum Posts: 820

Absolute freedom doesn't exist : I believe it is written in this terms in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "My freedom stops where that of other begins". I think, there is no other words needed about that.

lepperochan
Craic-Dealer
Guardian of Shadows
Palestine 67awards
Joined 1st Apr 2011
Forum Posts: 14449


was reading this thread on my lunch break. hard to find recent threads with actual discussion.

Kudos to Malin 69 and i hope he is in a good place


what brought me back here was the latest cover of Hebdo. I wondered if all the "I am Charlie" people were still Charlie:


I ask because i am a strong believer in the power of comedy. I was one of the folk who declared himself Hebdo at the start of this thread


however, I find it hard to see anything funny or satirical on the cover of this latest edition. appears to be a cynical effort to gain publicity simply to make money

though I wouldn't go as far as condemn the thing outright I am in a place where i probably wouldnt be too sad if the magazine ceased to publish


anyhow, nuff about my opinion. what's yours


the headline says "built by Italians, cleaned by migrants"

https://www.rt.com/news/436681-charlie-hebdo-genoa-bridge-collapse/



Go to page:
Go to: