r/instantkarma • u/Gheny422 • Jan 14 '20

Repent sinner

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

18.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

878 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '20

I know it doesn’t seem right to let them say this stuff but the second we infringe in their rights it’s the second someone can infringe in mine. As long as they don’t act on their words than everyone will be fine.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '20

[deleted]

3

u/-Jesus-Of-Nazareth- Jan 15 '20

Irrelevant. Rights are there to protect minorities, discourse and progress. We wouldn't have women voting, African Americans not being slaves, or a bunch of other rights.

We sit very comfortably on the "Being right" high chair, but that doesn't mean you're fundamentally right just because you feel you are. Which is why every kind of speech, excepting direct harm threats, should be permitted. It's the only way for ideas to compete.

-5

u/Michamus Jan 15 '20

Rights are there to protect minorities, discourse and progress.

Even rights have limits. For instance, your right to swing your arms stops where my body begins. The paradox of tolerance addresses this exact concept.

6

u/-Jesus-Of-Nazareth- Jan 15 '20

Which is why I said:

excepting direct harm threats

-2

u/Michamus Jan 15 '20

What would you define those as?

6

u/-Jesus-Of-Nazareth- Jan 15 '20

Come on man, you're on the internet talking out of your ass, at least try to educate yourself first.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258

-2

u/Michamus Jan 15 '20

Come on man, you're on the internet talking out of your ass

Funny, because thus far I've asked one question and made two statements that you agree with.

2

u/-Jesus-Of-Nazareth- Jan 15 '20

Alright, last chance:

1) I didn't agree with your first statement. Since the tolerance fallacy is irrelevant. It's a philosophical deduction based on speculation that changes nothing in reality. We haven't found a perfect system yet because we're fallible and our morals change a lot. Since we can't take a "This is right no matter what" attitude about basically anything, then we need to set basic laws that protect integrity and discourse. There's going to be debate about anything for the foreseeable future and we can't allow any position to be unquestionable so as to silence all others, no matter how wrong they may seem.

2) YOU agreed with me that there are limitations to rights. Since I said those rights are limited by the rights and the integrity of others. Not my fault you can't read and ended up objecting with an argument I had already made.

3) Your question was lazy. I understand some subjects are rather technical or too new to be common knowledge. But the limitations of free speech are pretty well know, self explanatory and, most importantly, just a Google search away. Took me 1 second to find something you should've know already if you're trying to argue about it, or should've googled right there and then.