Is restricting the flow of ideas intrinsically bad

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

*pfft* Mr. Utilitarian calling others mindless ideologues !

His arguments sound oddly familiar. I think I read them on ARI.

[Darth Wong]

Yes. Freedom is good because it brings happiness.

No... freedom is good because it permits one to accomplish his goals. When enslaved, one is not free to pursue his values. That is the moral role of freedom. Happiness is a useless construction.

And we should agree with this claim ... why?

Living in society means accepting that other people do not share your values, like it or not. If you want everyone to think like you and make you happy, form a commune.

Nice strawman, asshole. Answer the point.

Mindless ideologues such as yourself

*pfft* Mr. Utilitarian calling others mindless ideologues !

Yes, in fact. Utilitarianism is an actual practised form of ethics in the engineering and medical professions, which means that unlike meaningless bullshit such as yours, it can actually be used in the real world.

invariably discard the end goal of any system of morality

The end goal of morality is a fulfilled life through freedom and benevolent exchange.

No it isn't.

Not simple-minded hedonism enforced by collectivism, à la THX 1138. I promote freedom and you promote coercion.

Since you disagree with my goal, you say that I have no goal. That is stupid thinking.

No, I say that your goal is simply a restatement of your means. You do not know how to differentiate between goals and means. You say that freedom is ethical because ethics is the pursuit of freedom; that's circular, moron.

The end goal of a system of morality is a happy society,

Since people have different values, and some values will always be opposed, to ask for total happiness is to ask for total subjection.

And to ask for total freedom is to ask for total anarchy, moron. Are you about done with the black/white fallacies yet?

Happiness is a useless construction which demands total subjection of the individual.

Prove it.

I don't exist to make you happy, Wong. You don't exist to make me happy (if you are, you're doing a piss-poor job at it).

You're a fucking retard. The fact that you don't exist for my happiness doesn't give you the right to interfere with my happiness, and that is what you propose by making freedoms so unrestricted that you can make someone's life hell by slandering him and it's OK.

[Darth Wong]

*pfft* Mr. Utilitarian calling others mindless ideologues !

His arguments sound oddly familiar. I think I read them on ARI.

He's a classic Randroid and an imbecile. This is the tard who once came on the board and said that a verbal description of a picture is better than the actual picture itself.

[Franc28]

And we should agree with this claim ... why?

The claim that freedom permits one to work towards his goals, and that slavery does not ? Do I need to explain this further ? It seems pretty simple to me.

Nice strawman, asshole. Answer the point.

Your point, asshole, was :

"If someone's freedom brings someone else misery, then what good is that freedom?"

Thw worth of freedom is in permitting us to work towards our goals, not to make everyone happy.

Yes, in fact. Utilitarianism is an actual practised form of ethics in the engineering and medical professions

You claimed as much to me on email. As for evidence, well...

which means that unlike meaningless bullshit such as yours, it can actually be used in the real world.

Funny, I use my morality in the real world. I am friends with people with whom exchange is mutually useful, and reject people like you who have nothing to bring me or to whom I have nothing to bring. (In your case, it's the former).

You say that freedom is ethical because ethics is the pursuit of freedom; that's circular, moron.

Oh Wong. You are such an idiot, I don't know why I even talk to you. But to answer your inane point, freedom is ethical because it is a proper VALUE - which is to say, it is a goal which permits me to survive and flourish better than its opposite. If I am free, I can pursue other values. If I am a slave, I can pursue no value. Simple.

And to ask for total freedom is to ask for total anarchy, moron. Are you about done with the black/white fallacies yet?

No.. freedom is not anarchy. In an anarchy, you live at the mercy of the most powerful, imbecile.

You're a fucking retard.

And you don't make me happy. That means that you should be in jail. Moron.

[Darth Wong]

And we should agree with this claim ... why?

The claim that freedom permits one to work towards his goals, and that slavery does not ? Do I need to explain this further ? It seems pretty simple to me.

Obviously, the concept of society representing multiple people and thus not permitting such simple-minded thinking is beyond you.

Nice strawman, asshole. Answer the point.

Your point, asshole, was :

"If someone's freedom brings someone else misery, then what good is that freedom?"

Thw worth of freedom is in permitting us to work towards our goals, not to make everyone happy.

Why not? Every creature's goals are its own survival followed by its own pleasure, ie- happiness. You're just hair-splitting because you can't reconcile the fact that your absurdly oversimplified ethics system can't even handle such a simple scenario as slander without producing harm.

Yes, in fact. Utilitarianism is an actual practised form of ethics in the engineering and medical professions

You claimed as much to me on email. As for evidence, well...

I see you are too fucking stupid to recognize that the engineering code of ethics is manifestly utilitarian.

which means that unlike meaningless bullshit such as yours, it can actually be used in the real world.

Funny, I use my morality in the real world. I am friends with people with whom exchange is mutually useful, and reject people like you who have nothing to bring me or to whom I have nothing to bring. (In your case, it's the former).

No, you do not use your morality in the real world. No legal system in the world employs your belief system, so it is nothing more than abstract bullshit which has never been implemented.

You say that freedom is ethical because ethics is the pursuit of freedom; that's circular, moron.

Oh Wong. You are such an idiot, I don't know why I even talk to you. But to answer your inane point, freedom is ethical because it is a proper VALUE - which is to say, it is a goal which permits me to survive and flourish better than its opposite. If I am free, I can pursue other values. If I am a slave, I can pursue no value. Simple.

You simply never tire of those absurd black/white fallacies, do you? Anything less than absolute freedom immediately becomes "slavery" to your cretinous way of thinking. Even if that freedom should involve harming other people.

And to ask for total freedom is to ask for total anarchy, moron. Are you about done with the black/white fallacies yet?

No.. freedom is not anarchy. In an anarchy, you live at the mercy of the most powerful, imbecile.

But the most powerful are just exercising their freedom to work toward their goals, fucktard. See how your dumbshit value system breaks down?

You're a fucking retard.

And you don't make me happy. That means that you should be in jail. Moron.

Obviously, you are too stupid to differentiate between "you need to make me happy" and "you should not have the freedom to fuck up my life".

[Franc28]

Urgh. I am not a Randroid, I am an Objectivist. But then again, you've always been a name-throwing imbecile and probably don't understand the fucking difference. Fucking utilitarian nazis.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Currently, I'm unconvinced that any censorship is a good idea since it means that someone decides what is "good" and doesn't get censored and what is "bad" and does get censored. In the end, certain people have the information and other don't. Perhaps censorship is the only way to prevent incorrect or incomplete information from harming people (intentionally or otherwise). However, I would prefer that society restrict people's ability to act on incorrect or incomplete information rather than restricting access to it. Whether this is possible or not is anothe issue.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

If someone's freedom brings someone else misery, then what good is that freedom? Mindless ideologues such as yourself invariably discard the end goal of any system of morality in favour of a single-minded focus on the means to that goal rather than the goal itself.

The end goal of a system of morality is a happy society, not a society which fulfills a lot of abstract principles but is full of miserable people. Think about that.

Such a utilitarian outlook could be used to justify both theocracy and communism- so long as more people are made happy by the "oppression" then are made unhappy by it.

[Darth Wong]

If someone's freedom brings someone else misery, then what good is that freedom? Mindless ideologues such as yourself invariably discard the end goal of any system of morality in favour of a single-minded focus on the means to that goal rather than the goal itself.

The end goal of a system of morality is a happy society, not a society which fulfills a lot of abstract principles but is full of miserable people. Think about that.

Such a utilitarian outlook could be used to justify both theocracy and communism- so long as more people are made happy by the "oppression" then are made unhappy by it.

Are you saying you agree with Franc28's cretinous claim that slander should be legal because it's "freedom"?

I would be very curious how one would go about demonstrating that communist citizens are actually happier on average than capitalist citizens, or how the average person in a typical theocracy is happier than the average person in a secular nation. Frankly, I think that this claim is utter bullshit, and is nothing more than a fictional bogeyman invented in order to attack utilitarianism even though it has no grounding in reality whatsoever (never mind the fact that utilitarianism puts more weight on objective harm than subjective harm anyway).

The point remains that a principle which harms people must be reconsidered or limited, because the ultimate value, above all other values, is the happiness (and prosperity) of people (obviously, this also includes human life, since it's pretty hard to be prosperous or happy when you're dead). In reality, contrary to your claim, every depraved and destructive value system in history has had the elevation of its own rules above human prosperity and happiness as its defining characteristic. Communism and theocracy both fall into this category, as does Franc28's ivory-tower bullshit.

[Uraniun235]

Exactly as the title asks, is restricting the flow of ideas intrinsically bad?

In a more ideal world, yes.

In a more ideal world, the press would always have the sense not to broadcase sensitive military information.

In a more ideal world, charges of slander would be considered rationally by everyone and one would be cleared of said charges after an investigation of the evidence; the slanderer would be discredited and disreputed as a liar and a slanderer.

In a more ideal world, upon hearing someone shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, people would not panic and would exit the building in an orderly fashion.

In an even more ideal world, these concerns would be irrelevant because people would not abuse their ability to communicate ideas to one another.

But this is not an ideal world, we are not ideal people, and as such we must have legal safeguards to protect us from the harmful use of language (and the harmful interpretation of irrational/harmful ideas) both with consequences for doing so and restrictions against it.

I do believe that to restrict the flow of ideas is, in and of itself, wrong. But I also believe that to allow the unbridled and reckless expression of potentially harmful ideas, to allow said expression to harm others, is a greater wrong, and as such we must choose the lesser of two evils and restrict the expression and communication of certain ideas.

[Rogue 9]

Urgh. I am not a Randroid, I am an Objectivist. But then again, you've always been a name-throwing imbecile and probably don't understand the fucking difference. Fucking utilitarian nazis.

I have my issues with utilitarianism, but Godwin's Law already? *Notes the title, along with the profanity.* Alrighty, then. The hypocrisy displayed in the post is delicious, by the way. Particularly coming from someone who once started a thread entitled "Mike Wong is a hypocrite." *Adds Franc to the Complete Shit List.*

Now that that's done, let's see you define the difference between Randroid and Objectivist, since the two tend to be synonymous, and where you get off dismissing Wong for being a name-throwing imbecile and then calling him a fucking Nazi in the very next sentence.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The claim that freedom permits one to work towards his goals, and that slavery does not ? Do I need to explain this further ? It seems pretty simple to me.

Freedom to work toward goals is part of utilitarianism, but not its entirety. You do know that freedom and rights are important elements of modern Utilitarianism, and even brands of 19th century utilitarianism. Why do you insist on making utilitarianism out to be some communist agenda?

Have you ever read JOhn STuart MilL? His essay on Freedom and Utiltarianism is good.

Thw worth of freedom is in permitting us to work towards our goals, not to make everyone happy.

Utilitarianism is a lot more than just making other's happy. It's preventing costs, reasonable damages, suffering. Of course, you might not care about that, but that's why there are moral and immoral people.

You claimed as much to me on email. As for evidence, well...

Yes. Utilitarianism, as Mr. Wong commented, is a real ethical system. Objectivism by Rand was made up. SHe's not even an academic scholar. She's some immigrant who came to the US to sucker fools like you into donating to her organizatoin and into buying her books. SHe's an excellent crook.

Do you know that she never published her work in an academic, peer reviewed journal? WHy? Cause it was nonsense, and she would never have been able to stand up to any scrutiny. she's bogus, can't you see that?

Have you even read one of her books? While a good read, all her characters are two dimentional, totally unrealistic as enemies, and she horrendously exaggerates Capitalism and Collectivism. My theory is that she suffered severe mental trauma from being under Soviet Dictatorship and she lost the ability to think rationally.

Look at her basic theory tenets: everything she says reinforces the idea that she's right, your wrong. Period. Everything has the word "rational" in it, like it really makes it rational cause she says so over and over again.

Funny, I use my morality in the real world. I am friends with people with whom exchange is mutually useful, and reject people like you who have nothing to bring me or to whom I have nothing to bring. (In your case, it's the former).

Wonderful. If you cannot bamboosle someone out of something, you do nothing for others. Oh that's right! Altruism is evil . Despite the fact that she totally caricaturizes Alturism as something that it's not in order to decry it.

Oh Wong. You are such an idiot, I don't know why I even talk to you.

Because you have nothing better to do but preach?

But to answer your inane point, freedom is ethical because it is a proper VALUE

Wow. You are objective. It's not a proper value as is determined by your own definition and that made up by Rand in one of her novels. Again, if you have to consistantly repeat what's absolute proper and rational, it most likely isn't. What's rational and proper don't need to be drilled over and over.

- which is to say, it is a goal which permits me to survive and flourish better than its opposite. If I am free, I can pursue other values. If I am a slave, I can pursue no value. Simple.

So you're slave? Do you work for free? Are you chained physically? Do you have a job? Can you leave it?

If you can leave your job, you are't forced to stay, and if you can go places you want, do what you want, and if you are paid, you aren't a slave, so it's nonsense to say you are. You are exaggerating. No one has, is, or will make you a slave. Not making other's miserable doesn't make you a slave.

No.. freedom is not anarchy. In an anarchy, you live at the mercy of the most powerful, imbecile.

Total freedom is anarachy. It's called Libertarian SOcialism AKA anarchic libertarianism.

And you don't make me happy. That means that you should be in jail. Moron.

More and more nonsensical exaggerations. No one said Utilitarianism = if not happy, ergo jail.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Are you saying you agree with Franc28's cretinous claim that slander should be legal because it's "freedom"?

No.

I would be very curious how one would go about demonstrating that communist citizens are actually happier on average than capitalist citizens,

On average, in the real world, I would say capitalist citizens are much happier- however, that isn't the question at hand. The question does utilitarianism justify communism/dictatorships if it produces "happier" people- and the answer is yes.

Let's presume we had some sort of device for measuring endorphin levels of the entire populace throughtout the day- if communism/dictatorships produced higher average endorphin levels then capitalism does- then it would be justified under utilatarianism- regardless of the method it used to achieve those ends (brainwashing, drugs in the drinking water, whatever).

or how the average person in a typical theocracy is happier than the average person in a secular nation.

Its not at all hard to imagine a group, in the majority, consisting of religious bigots using the law to become much "happier" at the expense of a statisical minority- such as outlawing homosexuality and/or atheism while using utilitarianism as a justification not only for that law, but for the theocractic soceity at large.

The point remains that a principle which harms people must be reconsidered or limited, because the ultimate value, above all other values, is the happiness (and prosperity) of people (obviously, this also includes human life, since it's pretty hard to be prosperous or happy when you're dead).

This does not address the fact that one can use utilitarianism to justify actions that limit the freedom of action of some individuals (such as homosexuals and atheists) while not necessarily doing them any mearsurable harm- provided that the net "happiness" of soceity favors it.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You can try to justify anything using any theory. Just because you can try to justify communism with Utilitarianism, doesn't mean you will. The result of communism is anything but Utilitarian, and Utilitarianism doesn't just seek to make people subjectively happy. There has to be something objective to it.

Outlawing homosexuality or atheism causes no one objective harm, therefore, according to even the foundres of Utilitarianism, it's meaningless.

Utilitarianism, to work, is based off of educated, informed objective decision. Happiness is seem in the ammount of damage, harm prevented/inflicted.

Yes, In hypothetical situations you can limit the freedom of some for the "happiness of others." This is already done in every modern nation.

Seat belts
Speed limits
consumer laws
engineering
medical practices (to a lesser extent, however)
Drinking laws
Smoking laws

are utilitarian, from a certain perspective. Utilitarianism, in extreme situations, can have some negatives, but any moral system can, and many do, which are worse than Utility.

Many of the problems of act utilitarianism are eliminated by a mix of Rule and Act, as well as one of the newer principles added to the Felicific Calculus: malicious factor. I syour act malicious and is it necessary to prevent harm and suffering?


It's all well and good to say Commumism: Lets work to gether and be happy, but when millions of people are starving and brainwashed, it becomes objectively different. YOu cannot always go by what the people themselves say anyway. Utilitarianism improves the more outside and educated the person making the decision is.

[Keevan_Colton]

Urgh. I am not a Randroid, I am an Objectivist. But then again, you've always been a name-throwing imbecile and probably don't understand the fucking difference. Fucking utilitarian nazis.

Objectivism - n. Demonstably idiotic school of thought, derived from the phrase "You will object to this"

[Queeb Salaron]

The claim that freedom permits one to work towards his goals, and that slavery does not ? Do I need to explain this further ? It seems pretty simple to me.

::Looks around:: I don't see any slaves around here. Do you?

Hrmm...

Oh, you mean those people who aren't experience perfect, blissful freedom? Tell me, Franc, how would you define "perfect freedom"? A society where everyone does as they please? A complete abolishment of social order, power structure, class, law, etc.? A land where everyone was of the same build (so as not to be able to physically dominate), intelligence (so as not to mentally dominate), and moral code (so as not to ethically dominate)? Well, assuming that we can't very well create a world of clones, we'd have to take those last three out. So I guess it would have to be a world completely free of any kind of power structure at all, including law and its enforcement? Sounds a lot like anarchy to me.

Your point, asshole, was :

"If someone's freedom brings someone else misery, then what good is that freedom?"

Thw worth of freedom is in permitting us to work towards our goals, not to make everyone happy.

I think by "misery," Wong meant "opperession." It just so happens that oppression in quotidienne life manifests itself as misery, and Wong identified it as such. Trading one person's freedom for another's oppression is unproductive.

Funny, I use my morality in the real world. I am friends with people with whom exchange is mutually useful, and reject people like you who have nothing to bring me or to whom I have nothing to bring. (In your case, it's the former).

That's all well and good. But do you detest those who are incapable of bringing you anything for virtue of the fact that what they have is of no use to you? That seems rather narrow-minded to me.

Oh Wong. You are such an idiot, I don't know why I even talk to you.

I would venture it's because you like the sound of your own voice.

But to answer your inane point, freedom is ethical because it is a proper VALUE - which is to say, it is a goal which permits me to survive and flourish better than its opposite. If I am free, I can pursue other values. If I am a slave, I can pursue no value. Simple.

Right. But what if you're neither completely free, nor a slave, as most people posting on this board -- dare I say most people in this country -- are?

No one here is arguing that freedom is universally of no value. Wong merely pointed out (in my own words) that freedom at the expense of freedom is simply unproductive.

No.. freedom is not anarchy. In an anarchy, you live at the mercy of the most powerful, imbecile.

No no. Being at the mercy of the most powerful is a characteristic of you, not of anarchy. The end result of anarchy is a power structure based on any number of criteria. Anarchy itself is simply a means to this end. You're confusing the result with the process.

And you don't make me happy. That means that you should be in jail. Moron.

Now that simply didn't make any sense at all. You really are a fucking retard.

[SirNitram]

Urgh. I am not a Randroid, I am an Objectivist. But then again, you've always been a name-throwing imbecile and probably don't understand the fucking difference. Fucking utilitarian nazis.

Don't sully objective data analysis by using the term 'objectivist' to describe your 'MINE MINE MINE' bullshit moral stance.

[Darth Wong]

On average, in the real world, I would say capitalist citizens are much happier- however, that isn't the question at hand. The question does utilitarianism justify communism/dictatorships if it produces "happier" people- and the answer is yes.

Of course. Why is that an indictment of utilitarianism? You're basically saying "if communism actually worked as advertised and produced Marx's fantasy utopia, then utilitarianism would endorse it!" Well no shit Sherlock. Common sense would endorse any system of government which produced utopia. The reason we know that communism is bad is that it does not produce utopia.

Let me ask you a question: if capitalism did not work, and produced nothing but misery and poverty, would you still insist that it's a better system? We know that capitalism is superior because it works, and communism doesn't. That is utilitarianism in action.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Of course. Why is that an indictment of utilitarianism? You're basically saying "if communism actually worked as advertised and produced Marx's fantasy utopia, then utilitarianism would endorse it!"

Wow- nice job taking down that strawman; now how about actually addressing my main point- namely that utilitarianism can be used to justify any action, regardless of how unethical they may be under other philosophical systems (or unwanted by a given individual), which increases the net "happiness" of soceity as long as those actions do not do objective harm.

My previous examples demonstate this in action- actions such as brainwashing, drugs in the drinking water, and outlawing atheism/homosexuality/minority religions are all justified under utilitarianism- provided the "net happiness" of soceity favors them.

We know that capitalism is superior because it works, and communism doesn't. That is utilitarianism in action.

This point would be of some value if utilitarianism was the only ethical system that lead us to this conclusion.

[Queeb Salaron]

Wow- nice job taking down that strawman; now how about actually addressing my main point- namely that utilitarianism can be used to justify any action, regardless of how unethical they may be under other philosophical systems (or unwanted by a given individual), which increases the net "happiness" of soceity as long as those actions do not do objective harm.

If those actions provide something good and productive, utilitarianism endorses it, yes. And if your "any action" results in something good, then yes, utilitarianism will endorse it (though I don't know that utilitarianism should be used as a justification, per se). What's your point?

My previous examples demonstate this in action- actions such as brainwashing, drugs in the drinking water, and outlawing atheism/homosexuality/minority religions are all justified under utilitarianism- provided the "net happiness" of soceity favors them.

If "happiness" were the only deciding factor in that, then sure. Your example used endorphine levels as a measuring stick. I'm not so certain that the sensation of happiness = true happiness, especially not when you consider the artificial means by which that illusion is created. I understand that utilitarianism is less concerned with the means than the ends, but from what I understand of the utilitarian way of thinking (which isn't much, for the record), there is something to be said for the honest and natural state of the masses. If people are honestly and naturally happy -- conditions which none of the three situations above provides for -- then it can be endorsed by utilitarianism. But I could be very wrong.

This point would be of some value if utilitarianism was the only ethical system that lead us to this conclusion.

What is another?

[Darth Wong]

Of course. Why is that an indictment of utilitarianism? You're basically saying "if communism actually worked as advertised and produced Marx's fantasy utopia, then utilitarianism would endorse it!"

Wow- nice job taking down that strawman

Explain why it is a strawman, fucktard.

now how about actually addressing my main point- namely that utilitarianism can be used to justify any action, regardless of how unethical they may be under other philosophical systems (or unwanted by a given individual), which increases the net "happiness" of soceity as long as those actions do not do objective harm.

Correct. I'm still waiting for you to explain why this is bad. Oh no, utilitarianism endorses anything that helps human society, even if other ethical systems don't! Egads, it's EEEEVIL!!!!

My previous examples demonstate this in action- actions such as brainwashing, drugs in the drinking water, and outlawing atheism/homosexuality/minority religions are all justified under utilitarianism- provided the "net happiness" of soceity favors them.

No they don't. You have utterly failed to explain how society is made happier and more prosperous by such actions. In fact, it is trivially easy to show how these actions would severely damage society and reduce its overall level of happiness (and while it's easy to make fun of the word "happiness" as a measure of anything, its polar opposite is depression, which is a clinical term; no one would object to reducing levels of clinical depression in society).

We know that capitalism is superior because it works, and communism doesn't. That is utilitarianism in action.

This point would be of some value if utilitarianism was the only ethical system that lead us to this conclusion.

Why does it have to be, fucktard? I'm just pointing out that the linchpin of your argument is moronic; you are seriously trying to argue that ethics systems which damage human society, cause harm, increase levels of depression, poverty, misery, etc. may in fact be superior ... for some reason which you have yet to explain.

[Nick Lancaster]

Only if they're selling tickets and making a profit.

What are you talking about ? I am a proud capitalist.

You were talking about your neighbors a moment ago. A free market does not automatically equate with freedom of speech, thought, or action.

Ultimately, censoring a Creationist, even for being wrong, fuels their personal conspiracy theories about how there are godless hordes plotting their destruction. (Personally, I only work on the project on odd Tuesdays.)

That's what I'm saying. You're saying we should stop people from speaking against each other. You're the one waving the flag of censorship, not me.

Please review my statement and show how it supports censorship. I clearly stated that IF you censor Creationists THEN you fuel conspiracy theories. Ergo, censorship, even to limit idiocy and factually unsupported nonsense, is self-defeating.

I would much prefer people have the critical thinking power to say, "This is bullshit," and walk away from the Creationist.

Not gonna happen. Human nature is to believe.

Then this board must be filled with figments of my imagination, and there really isn't any critical thinking going on here, it's all just expressions of belief.

Even given a human predisposition to belief, why do you assume every crackpot idea gets equal airtime? Why don't we all believe in little green men from Alpha Centauri, or the invisible purple dinosaur on the White House lawn?

Because man is capable of critical thinking.

Or is that just bullshit-ese for not having to take responsibility for your actions, because you can say 'It's okay for others to think whatever they want about me.'?

You're playing the same game here. You're attacking me on the public square for something you know nothing about. There is nothing I can say to change your mind, so... feel free to think I'm irresponsible.

Right. Don't answer the question, attack the questioner. I'm quaking in my boots.

How long do you think you could survive, stripped of all the benefits derived from society?

I don't care about your bullshit literary analysis, being alive and well is still better than being dead. This is not hard to understand. Society is essential to maintain our standard of life, but is not necessary to survive.

I don't recall citing any works of literature. Perhaps you feel I'm attacking some book or writing that you hold dear? If so, why are you unable to regard, objectively, the values therein?

You have no resources. Wherein comes your food? Are you going to start killing cats and roasting them? If you are self-sufficient, do you believe that others who share your plight will not impose themselves upon you to share, regardless of their contributions or lack thereof?

If you really feel you don't need society, I'd like to see you cut up your identification, divest yourself of your bank account, and see how long you last.

Did I say anything about some undefined glorious golden past?

Then you don't write english well : "reduction" means that at one point it was higher. So give your study that shows that critical thinking was higher in the past, or forget about it.

I also used the word, 'seeming'. That is, it is a perception that may or may not be based on fact.

The problem, apparently, is not that I write English poorly (you do understand, English expert that you are, that 'English,' as a language, must be capitalized?) ... but that you don't read it terribly well.

I did. I gave three arguments : free speech applies as long as you're not committing physical violence or fraud against others, putting censorship in the hands of government jeopardizes ALL minority opinions - including non-believers, and censoring false beliefs creates martyrs and publicizes their ideology. You can't read.

At least in America, freedom of speech is not quantified by the absence of physical violence or fraud. Otherwise, Janet Jackson was perfectly within her rights to flash her tit during her televised performance in 2003.

Additionally, the government already censors any number of forms of expression through the application of 'prevailing community standards' - suggest you go page through some rulings on obscenity cases.

Yet you are assuming, somehow, that censorship only affects some kind of minority, when, in actuality, a totalitarian government would be more likely to censor a majority view and supplant it with their own minority perspective. To wit, Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, as a Sunni minority, holding rule for over a decade in a country that is a Shi'ite majority.

Finally, when an issue is disproven at a factual level (as with the Creationist sideshow), exclusion of the material in an educational forum is not 'censorship,' per se. We don't give equal time to adherents of 2+2=87, either.

but given that you don't rely on others for self-validation, why should I think you're legitimate?

That's a bizarre and completely non sequitur question. I don't care about what you have to say, if you're going to ignore my arguments. It's called a "discussion". So, forget it !

You can't argue from the perspective of protecting society when you claim you don't rely on society for happiness or existence. If you have no vested interest in society, how can you legitimately present an argument about the impact of censorship on society?

Additionally, a rational discussion presumes you are willing to accept that you are wrong. You apparently aren't, attacking everything from my writing skills to my 'bullshit literary analysis,' as well as omitting words to create the appearance of unsupported claims.

Troll.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

My previous examples demonstate this in action- actions such as brainwashing, drugs in the drinking water, and outlawing atheism/homosexuality/minority religions are all justified under utilitarianism- provided the "net happiness" of soceity favors them.

Utilitarianism, again, is based off of happiness as is defined by "high pleasures" that help society and avoiding things that harm society. Since being atheist or homosexual do not harm society, they do not factor into a Utilitarian elimination. Opinion of digust or disagreement or dislike don't factor into the utilitarian calculus.

Why is this hard?

[Nova Andromeda]

My previous examples demonstate this in action- actions such as brainwashing, drugs in the drinking water, and outlawing atheism/homosexuality/minority religions are all justified under utilitarianism- provided the "net happiness" of soceity favors them.

--The major problem I have with utilitarianism as it is described (i.e., anything goes so long as "net happiness is increased") is that someone chose happiness as the only factor to increase. However, people generally do not want maximize happiness at the expense of everything else. For instance, I wouldn't trade my intelligence for a net increase overall life happiness. Instead, the fulfilment of people's goals (as determined by themselves where possible and by emperical observation where it is not) should be the factor that is maximized. The reason I prefer this criteria is that by maximizing the average fulfillment of goals by people it maximizes the chance I can fulfill my goals which is by definition what I, and by extension everyone else, want. Of course, people's goals are often in irreconcilable conflict, but we can't do anything about that in any case.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Explain why it is a strawman, fucktard.

Because my claim was not "if communism actually worked as advertised and produced Marx's fantasy utopia, then utilitarianism would endorse it!" Rather, it was that utilitarianism can be used to justify actions that most ethical systems would consider immoral as long they increase the net happiness of soceity. However, looking back at my inital post, I can see how you reasonably could have come to that conclusion.

No they don't. You have utterly failed to explain how society is made happier and more prosperous by such actions.

Soceity is nothing but an arbitrary grouping of individuals- assuming the "right" group of individuals is in the majority then each of my examples can be justified on happiness grounds.

outlawing atheism/homosexuality/minority religions

Any theocracy with a very large religious majority (lets assume that it is capitalist to eliminate the prosperity part of the equation). The majority would expirence a larger subjective "happiness increase" then the minorities "happiness decrease".

brainwashing

Again we can use a theocracy with a very large religious majority- the net increase of happiness would favor the brainwashing of "deviants" who go against the will of the "holy book of whatever". One could even argue that there would be objective benefits to making people think that "God A is better then God B", instead of vise versa, in relgiously divided soceities.

and while it's easy to make fun of the word "happiness" as a measure of anything, its polar opposite is depression, which is a clinical term; no one would object to reducing levels of clinical depression in society).

So in other words- you would have absolutly no objection to a government secretly medicating public drinking water to lower levels of clinical depression. Afterall- that would be a positive thing under utilitarianism.

Why does it have to be, fucktard? I'm just pointing out that the linchpin of your argument is moronic; you are seriously trying to argue that ethics systems which damage human society, cause harm, increase levels of depression, poverty, misery, etc. may in fact be superior ...

I've never claimed any such thing- I've merely been criticising what I see as a flaw in the utilitarian ethical system/outlook.