bbw

Who decides what we may say, see, and hear? What are their qualifications? Do they need some sort of education or expertise?

And by what authority are such basic rights abridged? Should I assume you’d be happy with a censor who gives what the public thinks and believes no consideration whatsoever if that runs contrary to such a person’s val…

[Read more]

Enco, I have no problem with curtailing free speech for reasonable reasons (which by the way you also have no problem with). What we agree on are things like: libel, some degree of copyright, incitement of crime, causing a panic etc.

Where you seem to draw the line is with even the most virulent vicious bigoted hate speech which has been…[Read more]

A classic question for philosophy students is to ask them “OK, should we all go outside now and kill ourselves and if not, why not”. I think that question demands an answer.

It is actually very interesting how moral systems deal with suicide/euthanasia. I heavily question the Judaeo-Christian baggage left over even in our secular societies tha…[Read more]

I’ll remember next time Unseen you ask for evidence or sources, I will post some youtube video made by some guy talking about stuff. Of course I didn’t watch the video…why would I waste my precious time hearing some guy blab his opinions about shit when the very opening 30 seconds has all the markings of sensationalism, half-put together…[Read more]

Unseen…a youtube video, unless it cites scholarly, academic or properly analysed is not a source. I don’t understand how you can talk about evidentiary value with a comedian making internet video.

Absolute free speech is a total fantasy. It is impossible and virtually nobody would support it when you realise how many laws that actually curb free speech exist which are utterly uncontroversial. If you are against libel, copyright infringement, causing a panic or speech that incites a crime but are against laws which curb the most vile of hate…[Read more]

Belle, anyone can reshape a word to suit their narrative. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as long as it is clear what they mean by that word, that their definition doesn’t cause pointless confusion (or confusion on purpose) and that the audience is given a convincing reason to take this definition seriously.

When someone tries to use a term,…[Read more]

Pope…that is fine. Could you then define these two kinds of spiritual then please?

@davis – whatever definitions I could give, are never going to encompass all the things that people mean by the word.

Simon, unless you are dealing wit poetry…why would you use a term that is this elusive? How can you achieve much (if anything) if people are talking about something different (or at least vaguely overlapping) when you can use so…[Read more]

So…you want to use “spiritual” without defining it?

So then your definition is deficient and needs some refining.

To be clear here Simon, you are claiming that most people playing in a volleyball league would call their membership “spiritual”?

I’m talking about being an active functioning member of an interdependent cooperative group or team of some kind, whose members are all working towards the same goal.  If my goals are identified with those of my group, then it makes me feel better in all kinds of ways.

How is that different than a volleyball team, a knitting group making a big bl…[Read more]

I am with Unseen on this Simon. I know you have been struggling for some time to come up with a meaningful definition of spiritual in a secular sense (as have many people including Sam Harris). I am yet to really hear a coherent definition that makes it worth holding onto all the baggage of spiritual when alternatives are far better (even the…[Read more]