Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

ceadserv1.nku.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#101

Post by UncleMeat »

Veen wrote: post #94
UncleMeat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I conclude something of the opposite. I question the effectiveness of our current approach to free speech to actually protect people's lives. Mass violence can absolutely be enacted by fascist groups without ever crossing 1st amendment protections. And I would not expect to be granted the right to speak out against a fascist regime should it ever have a legislative majority. Hate speech scales more effectively than i…

> Mass violence can absolutely be enacted by fascist groups without ever crossing 1st amendment protections. But there are many other laws that prevent people from "enacting mass violence". Speech is not violence. Violence is violence. Plus, the same laws that would lock-up fascists for inciting violence could be used against BLM and other left-wing groups. The 1st amendment ensures everyone can say what they like. S…

It hasn't been that long since gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex. This was mass state violence against an entire population. The law failed to prevent people from "enacting mass violence" for ages. Progress is made over time, but this history of the US is the history of the law failing to prevent the powerful from enacting mass violence against the weak.

We already have laws that are abused against BLM and other left-wing groups. I'm not confident in the ability of the state to protect these groups, despite the state claiming that the US stands for certain values. This makes me skeptical of the free speech absolutist claim that the policy helps all groups equally.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#102

Post by IncRnd »

Y_Y wrote: post #86
IncRnd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is that law written?

Laws don't all have to be written.

Thank you. However, in this specific case, the question, "where is that law written?" was asking about the incorrect statement that the GP made.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#103

Post by coldtea »

andrepd wrote: post #98
coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are to believe the same "enemy of the day" embedded reporting that gave us WMDs, the Nayirah testimony, the Steele Dossier, and other such truths...

The evidence is overwhelming, unlike the case with Iraq's WMDs.

"Evidence" like satellite photos of school complexes, markets, and such being reported (in mainstream media nonetheless) as "concentration camps" and debunked by on-the-field checks?

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#104

Post by bckr »

bckr wrote: post #23
chmod600 wrote: post #18

Quotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living." https://en.…

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"

Woo, this one was a little unpopular, huh? But only just a little. I think a lot of people realize that I mean "no one will hire you", not "it will be illegal to hire you".

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#105

Post by bckr »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #42
bckr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

I don't mean it should be illegal to hire someone based on what they say. I mean that people should face the social consequences of holding and sharing opinions that sound similar to "all $identity_group should receive $abuse".

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#106

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

andrepd wrote: post #99
coldtea wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to some paradise that was 19th century China? If anything, they improved a lot, in sovereignity, wealth, education, infrastructure, commerce, science, and tons of other fields besides...

I hear that a lot. Wealth, science, infrastructure are better ergo the political system and decisions were good. I hear that from such diverse sides as Bill Gates and capitalism apologists as well as Soviet apologists. The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in a…

Not saying I agree with it, but: A frequent answer to that from proponents of a strong unitary state (e.g. China, but also Russia and a few other countries) is that society there is too divided for the state to survive without a heavy hand. And then, once the state breaks down and the country splits into fiefdoms ruled by warlords, the collapse of infrastructure and violence means that the average person wouldn't be getting much benefit from modern technology. Just look at Somalia.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#107

Post by Digory »

raffraffraff wrote: post #57
llaolleh wrote: post #28

I love Bertrand Russell's writing style. His piece on writing is a must read: http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/how... He translates this: "Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behaviour-patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favourable circumstances, whether congenital or en…

I think that philosophers like Judith Butler write impenetrable prose to sound intelligent and to make it almost impossible to argue against their positions. Anything worth saying can be said simply.

It feels like we are falling away from the ideal of speaking plainly. That was a product of idealistic journalism, Strunk & White, and mid-century writers like Hemingway.

You will frequently see Tyler Cowen call out “Straussian” prose. Strauss suggested that original ideas could rarely be said simply. Wiki:

> In 1952 he [Strauss] published Persecution and the Art of Writing, arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#108

Post by coldtea »

andrepd wrote: post #99
coldtea wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to some paradise that was 19th century China? If anything, they improved a lot, in sovereignity, wealth, education, infrastructure, commerce, science, and tons of other fields besides...

I hear that a lot. Wealth, science, infrastructure are better ergo the political system and decisions were good. I hear that from such diverse sides as Bill Gates and capitalism apologists as well as Soviet apologists. The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in a…

>The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century.

Available level of technology doesn't magically improve things, and doesn't make you #2 global economy from a distant developing world one.

Just check other developing world countries that had 1/1000 the success, regardless of 20 and 21st century technology being what it is.

>More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it.

There are tons of countries that don't even have running water and stable electricity, never mind "more efficient production and better medicine". Technology and infrastructure improvements don't apply magically by themselves.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#109

Post by DangitBobby »

rubenfiszel wrote: post #48
DangitBobby wrote: post #32

I don't see how the conclusion must be that he's the Pope. It containing just him and the Pope but actually only just him is a contradiction that could just as easily be resolved by saying "it contains me and the Pope but actually just me so there is no Pope." Even if I accept the false proposition, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

The conclusion is that if the set containing "the pope and bertrand russell" has only 1 member, then it must follow that the pope and bertrand russell are the same person/member. An implicit axiom is that, since the pope is in a set, it exists (or at least in that set), so that other conclusion of yours does not follow directly.

Another implicit axiom is that if there is a set of at least two people which contains him and the Pope, one of them is not the Pope. And if the set is reduced to just Bertrand Russell then he must not be the Pope.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#110

Post by DangitBobby »

_ZeD_ wrote: post #34
DangitBobby wrote: post #32

I don't see how the conclusion must be that he's the Pope. It containing just him and the Pope but actually only just him is a contradiction that could just as easily be resolved by saying "it contains me and the Pope but actually just me so there is no Pope." Even if I accept the false proposition, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

it's not that difficult to follow: let B = {set made of "Bertrand Russell" }, P = {set made of the pope} let BP = B ∪ P |B| = 1, |P| = 1 (trivials) |BP| may be 1 or 2 if |BP| = 1 it means B=P -> Bertrand Russell is the Pope if |BP| = 2, and 2=1, it means B=P -> Bertrand Russell is the Pope

I didn't have a difficult time following it, it's just not correct.
Post reply on HN