bearing false witness means lying, c'mon man
Private Message to a Liberal Moderator: Liberal Censorship
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
It's not a matter of bias. It's an actual non-sequitur. It's an attempt to reason from a particular case to a universal rule.
The simple fact that a single Muslim decides to go blow himself up, in and of itself, does not imply that all muslims are terrorists. [Granted, there may be other reasons for thinking this, but the action of an individual cannot be generalized to hold true of an entire group.]
I'm reasoning the other way around, namely, from the universal to a particular, which is perfectly legitimate:
All muslims, insofar as muslims, believe in taqiya and therefore may not be trusted.
This individual is a muslim.
You could claim that an individual muslim does not believe in taqiya, and I'll answer in two ways:
1. How do I know that he's not committing taqiya by claiming not to believe in it?
2. Even if he doesn't, to the extent that he doesn't, that's a deviation from Islamic belief.
At any rate, Rusha, at the very least, don't you think that this kind of conversation has sufficient merit not to be censored?
I'm not demanding that you agree with me, but only that you don't attempt to silence me.
Most lies are done for selfish reasons. However, in the case where a lie is done out of defense for one's self or the protection of another (from *real* threats), it would be no different than killing someone in self defense or to protect a loved one.
I am not speaking of selfish lies such as "tell my wife/husband I was at work or he/she will divorce me" or "tell my boss I was at work or he will fire me" types of lies.
Lying about what, exactly?
Would you have turned in your Jewish neighbor to the Nazi SS in the name of God?
If you had a daughter married to an abusive man and she came to you for help, would you tell her husband where she was hiding?
Would you lie to a woman seeking an abortion if you knew it would prevent he from getting one?
The commandment is not to bear false witness against your neighbor. Is it bearing false witness against your neighbor to lie to save a life?
^ This ...
I get you're not engaging me substantively at this point, but again, the universal applies to the individual if he's within the group you're speaking to. So that's an insult in the broad sense that applies in the particular.
And on that other topic of speaking an untruth: the action and result are the same between murder and morally justifiable homicide, but the purpose isn't. One is immoral and the other is not. Just so, a lie to shield the innocent from destruction is a moral good and the truth that assists evil in its purpose is itself an evil. Or, it would be fairer to say there is lying and there is not telling the truth. The operations are the same, as killing is the same between the unjustifiable act and the justifiable one, but the purpose/intent is far removed. (see: Rahab)
I don't really have much to add. The short end of what you are saying comes out to the following:
1a. You think that the moderator was entitled to "call me out" on something that I've said based purely on the content of what I said.
And that,
1b. It was my responsibility to "tone down," if not the content, at the very least, the way in which I presented that content, to make it more "user friendly," so to speak, to my audience.
You further think that:
2. Granted that the moderator was justified and I had such a responsibility, it was right that I was administered a ban when I reacted as I did.
1a and 2b are flat "support" for censorship. Argue about it however you want, but the "TL;DR," stripped of all of your lawyerly rhetorical flourishes, of what you are saying is "Censorship was OK in that case; the content of what you said was offensive and insulting, and the way that you expressed it certainly didn't help."
I have literally nothing more to add to that argument other than to point out that such a mentality is what ultimately underlies the PC tyranny of the left.
You are only exemplifying my point: liberals don't actually believe in freedom of speech.
Call it an insult if you want (it wasn't). The fact remains that it wasn't personal (directed against his person in particular). I didn't claim that I didn't trust the man because he was a liar. I claimed that I didn't trust what the man was saying because he's (at least hypothetically) a muslim.
There's a clear difference between the two.
1. Do you have a rational argument in favor of lying for a good end?
2. Do you have a scriptural verse which explicitly permits this? [Note, I'm not asking for a parable or a story which appears to present it in a good light.]
3. Do you have a traditional authority who makes such a claim?
To enforce the rules of conduct of the joint. Sure.
I'm assuming that you signed on voluntarily and that doing so made you obliged to those rules. Sure.
Foreseeable and fair, given.
I answered you on that a couple of times. You avoided the answer that would have put your complaint in less flattering relief. Again, everyone supports censorship. The only question is when and of what. I mostly prefer a contest of ideas, but everyone has a line. When you voluntarily accept someone else's you lose the right to complain when you break faith with your agreement.
Don't sound stupid if you're going to keep beating the "here's how smart I am" drum. Stupid people talk about lawyerly language.
Relative to the apparent rules and given a fair warning, sure. This isn't really the public square.
Complete nonsense wrapped in a bit of populist intellectual bubblegum.
This only makes the point that people can be highly educated and still be victimized by some preceding bias. It's less excusable in someone who should have been trained sufficiently in critical analysis to see it...sustaining my notion that law, in that regard, is a superior discipline. I'm not a liberal. And I do believe in freedom of speech. Like any sane person, I understand that liberty is necessarily limited by foreseeable factors and context.
The difference between us on that point is that you're declaring. I'm noting. No reasonable man would find being called dishonest less than an insult. Any Muslim would fall within that definition as you set it out. The other fellow was a Muslim...see, that's making a rational case, not declaring. You saying, however many times, that it wasn't what it demonstrably was, well, that's a declaration.
I already presented the argument by illustration, compared it with another moral ill or righteous action, the distinction dependent wholly on the purpose. Or, go read about Rahab.
Everyone lies when we deem it appropriate
