|
|
|
|
|
|
by _almosnow
4216 days ago
|
|
|
> This is where I really don't understand the concept of trying to force your law/will/idea(ls) on other people. You should have wrote: "on other people that live under the same legal jurisdiction". Your attitude towards the law is a real problematic attitude that is currently more common in this 'generation' (generation not referring exactly to people of a certain age, but more as people living in a certain time). Since we have internet now and there are many movements that promote 'freedom' in all of their possible interpretations, many people find it easy to go over the top and start demanding things like "Be aware of laws that pertain to you and respect them _or change them if you disagree_". You guys should take time to understand what law is and why is it good for it to exist, and also, why you should respect the jurisdiction pertaining to other regions or other people (EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH IT). If the majority of citizens in this world understood this really simple civical principle, most of the current problems with the world would be nonexistant. |
|
|
Some of us highly value open debate and discussion. Perhaps because it's a core value in some cultures around the world, but maybe that's overly romantic. I suspect many of us have just read Milton's Areopagitica [1] or Mill [2], and have yet to hear any convincing refutations.[3]
So those of us who recognize the value of open sharing of ideas will chafe at any suggestion that ideas are best refuted with suppression.
Others in the world don't share these views.
So we're left with a dilemma that cannot be resolved through mutual respect. You can't both openly debate controversial topics and be silent about them. There's no middle ground. There's no "respecting others beliefs" on this. These are strictly incompatible views on the world, on what information I'm allowed to discuss with my neighbor.
I don't believe any government should have the power of thought control, so I reject the attempt of (especially foreign governments) telling me what I can or cannot discuss with their citizens. I respect the people around the world, but I cannot always respect their laws.
[1] http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/608 [2] http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/58569584868/john-stua... [3] Unsurprisingly. How could anyone seriously argue against open discussion and debate while discussing and debating the ideas involved? It's inherently contradictory. Or, those in favor of suppressing speech should first lead by example.