Posts by Mark Torres14

If you ask me, humility is just a mask for frustration—it’s what people lean on when they feel worthless. The only exception is when someone acts humble just to score points later. But let's call that what it actually is: being manipulative, not humble.
Neither Jesus, nor Gandhi, nor Mother Teresa ever played the "humble" card with people they considered weaker than themselves. Far from it.

It seems like people can't wrap their heads around anything without trying to put it in a box first. In reality, boundaries don't exist—they’re just mental constructs we carry around.
The real trouble starts when those self-imposed "walls" get too damn rigid.😉

People who can't count see one grain of sand and think they've got a mountain.

I haven't met a single person yet who actually thinks they're stupid. Everyone walks around thinking they’re some kind of genius. 😁

hollowpuma762 said:I wouldn't suggest drawing conclusions using that kind of logic.

Sure, interpreting and putting value on these "deadly sins" makes sense on some level, but it feels like we're missing the point entirely. It ignores the deeper meaning behind them, not to mention the reality of a society that’s basically deaf to this entire moral code.

That’s not really "understandable." It's a matter of culture. And hopefully, you'll agree that in different cultures, the "seven deadly sins" would look completely different.
It's more like an exaggeration. Go ahead—name just one sin that doesn't have a positive side or could actually be seen as a virtue in a specific situation.

If disobedience is a mortal sin, then being too submissive is one too. Think of how many tragedies we could have avoided if people actually knew when to stand their ground.
Since the seven deadly sins are mostly about excess, it’s pretty obvious that extreme obedience counts as a sin itself. But at that point, you aren't even a person anymore—you're just clay.
Even Leopardij once noted that the ancient philosopher Bien said, "It's impossible to please the masses without becoming dough that everyone kneads and spreads however they please."

Brenda Cook4 said:There is a massive distinction here. I thought I was being clear. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, we might as well say "every thought is an action." Once some high-tech brain scanner or whatever comes along that can read your mind, it's game over—your very thoughts become subject to the criminal justice system.

It isn't obvious at all. If you publicly brand someone a predator, ruin their career, destroy their marriage, and ultimately drive them to suicide, that is a hell of a lot different than just arguing with them.

Brenda Cook4 said:I already gave you my answer on that: free speech doesn't exist if you start labeling a cartoon as a "provocation" or "mockery." It’s not just a lack of freedom; it’s over the top, even by medieval standards. Look at that phrase "mocking their sacred beliefs." That quote is perfectly relevant here—because if you aren't allowed to speak unless you're nodding along in agreement, or else you risk "losing your head," then that is textbook fascism. Are we going to follow this logic forever? Are we going to say it's wrong if someone "mocks" a President, or criticizes laws, court rulings, or government institutions?

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
” ― George Orwell

“This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.
” ― Euripides

Freedom of speech is a linguistic construct, much like liberal capitalism. In its pure, unadulterated form, it doesn't exist. Reality is way more complicated, and nowadays, people slap the label of "freedom of speech" on just about everything. In this specific case, the real question is how George Orwell would react to this caricature if he were still around.
We need to distinguish between the symbols and myths representing the human drive for free expression, and actual, concrete situations where a person has to judge whether their words toward others or certain communities constitute free speech or something else entirely.
Basically, what social criteria should we actually use to decide if a society has freedom of speech or not?

Brenda Cook4 said:Seriously? He published a cartoon, and you're asking me if that's "right"? Look, we’re balancing the right to criticize—which is free speech—against censorship, oppression, and tyranny. So, what would be "right"? We have to remember that humanity fought incredibly hard, and quite silently, just to reach this level of liberty. Now, suddenly, we should introduce "special pleading" for religion or certain "sacred" topics? Or start using terms like "offensiveness" and "respectability" to limit discourse? You see a dilemma here? I don't.

People are not disturbed by things,
but by the view they take of them.
- Epictetus

It's just like:

Freedom of speech is always under attack by Fascist mentality, which exists in all parts of the world, unfortunately.
Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Of course I see a dilemma. He posted a cartoon that two billion people across the globe find deeply offensive. No matter how much someone hides behind the shield of free speech, that fact is worth considering.
Besides, the whole point of a caricature is to make people laugh, to lighten the load of daily life, and to find some shared positive value—both for the subject and the artist.
When you look at the bigger picture, what "positive value" did this drawing actually provide, other than widening the rift between the Christian and Islamic worlds?
It's pure provocation.
And let's not ignore the blatant double standard. Those same Frenchmen would send the French Foreign Legion to teach a lesson to "primitives" from developing nations if they ever dared mock their own sacred values.

Quote : Freedom of speech is always under attack by Fascist mentality
Lawrence Ferlinghetti

I don't think that quote belongs in this discussion. As far as I know, none of us are fascists. People use "free speech" to mean whatever they want, which means you can always label someone a fascist just because they disagree with your definition of liberty. The real question is what actually constitutes free speech, and if it even truly exists anymore?

Brenda Cook4 said:I can't really give you an example from this planet or this particular incarnation, if I’m following your question correctly. As I mentioned before, freedom of speech is restricted everywhere—to varying degrees, sure, but it's universal. Honestly, even using the phrase "freedom of speech" feels a bit misplaced. It’s more of a myth than a reality. If we were to approach this from a philosophical standpoint, we shouldn't just argue about the limits; we should go back to the very foundation. We need to look at what the concept of "human rights" actually represents—both as an idea and as a practice. These rights were essentially spun out of the Enlightenment era, but let's be real: they are myths too. It's all just a sophisticated form of social control. You're granted exactly as much liberty as the powers that be decide is acceptable at any given moment. Then there's the idea of a "state of nature." Think about a cat. A cat meows when it wants to meow and howl whenever it damn well pleases. That’s instinct. If we're talking about true, raw expression, that's where the comparison lies.

Fine. But if you look at it that way, "freedom of speech" isn't a philosophical concept anymore. It becomes a sociological one, where the actual maturity of a society acts as the line between true freedom of speech and just having the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whoever you want.
What got me started on this was the editor of a newspaper invoking freedom of speech after publishing a cartoon. Nowadays, you could make the same argument for an American magazine that publishes explicit imagery.
Is that really how it works?

Brenda Cook4 said:Nothing would change, and nothing should change, because—to answer the second question—freedom of speech isn't truly "free" since it comes with boundaries. Those boundaries are what we call verbal offenses. And let's be honest: verbal offenses are pretty much the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Another thing to note before we engage with the harm principle is that we are in fact free to speak as we like. Hence, Freedom of speech differs from other types of free action. if the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available; current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal chords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree. //Encyclopedia Britannica//

Can you actually give me one single example of freedom of speech that isn't restricted by something?😕🤷

says:
Look, if you sue someone just because they started some fake story about you, you’re just going to look guilty.
On the flip side, if you just ignore it and keep doing your thing, you won't trigger that domino effect caused by some tabloid journalist looking for a cheap headline.

That guy was just an example. I'm talking about values.
I want to know if an individual—or a whole group—can use free speech to broadcast a public opinion (whether through the media or otherwise) regarding someone else's core values (like family, religion, or privacy), even if the person being targeted sees it as an insult or a lie. And obviously, it works both ways.
I get that there isn't one simple answer here since every situation is different.
But how do we draw the line between actual free speech and deliberate provocation, insults, smear campaigns, cynicism, or irony... things designed specifically to tear down and discredit someone just because they hold a different worldview or disagree with us?
Doesn't free speech actually require the freedom for dialogue?

Paul Anderson2 said:Well, those kinds of things happen. Freedom definitely has its dark side, I guess, but it really depends on the culture. If a society is just waiting to believe every single accusation without seeing any actual evidence, maybe that society isn't quite ready for total freedom of speech.

Fine. On one level, you can just ignore the individual. If they don't have any real influence, they can scream whatever they want, whenever they want. People will just write them off as crazy, drunk, or some delusional messiah... whatever. But that kind of "freedom" is basically useless. It’s the classic "you can say what you want, but you can't actually do anything" scenario.
It's a totally different story when a major media outlet steps in, claiming to speak for "freedom of speech" on behalf of a group, a community, or even the state. That's when someone—whether you agree with them or not—is essentially speaking for you, presenting their own version of reality to the public under the guise of your rights.
So, is free speech something that can be institutionalized through representation? Like, does having millions of readers at The New York Times mean those readers automatically back everything printed there? Or is free speech a supra-democratic principle—something that democracy itself must obey in order to actually function as a democracy? In the first case, "truth" is just whatever the majority thinks. In the second, "truth" is simply whatever follows the established rules.

Paul Anderson2 said:But then again, nobody knows what you actually believe until you say it out loud.

Let me push this further. If a person isn't allowed to speak, do they even have free speech?
I’m being serious here. We talk about free speech as this grand social concept. But at its core, it should mean we can discuss any value or situation without facing total ruin.
Look at this scenario: Someone runs a story in the New York Times claiming you're a predator. You're furious, so you sue to clear your name, but in the meantime, you get fired, your neighbors shun you, your spouse takes their own life, and your kids disown you. Then, the journalist hides behind "freedom of the press" to protect their sources.
In the end, it turns out you were innocent all along. So what now?
Are those of us who love to dissect other people's lives, religions, and opinions—all while hiding behind the shield of "free speech"—actually enlightened enough to let others do the same using their own standards of truth? Or do we just laugh it off as "free speech"?
Basically, where do we draw the line on free speech in society?

shadowcanyon3 said:In your eyes, does freedom of speech cover drawing a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad?
Does putting Muhammad in a cartoon inherently have to trigger global protests across Islamic nations, the torching of embassies, and the slaughter of people?
Tomorrow, it might be Christian churches next—and let's not forget Christians in the Middle East are already under fire.

Let me get straight to the point so I don't waste time: do you honestly think the actions taken by Muslims in Africa following those Paris publications are justified?

No.

Does putting Muhammad in a caricature necessarily have to lead to protests all over the Middle East, burning down embassies, and killing people? Tomorrow it might be Christian churches next—Christians in Arab countries are already under fire! And so on.

No. That's just pure vandalism.

Quick and simple question so I don't waste time: do you think what Muslims are doing in Africa after the Paris publication is justified?

No.

I think I’ve given you straight answers to your questions.
Now, I'd rather get back to the philosophy. What exactly is freedom of speech to you?

Harold Doyle3 said:In a democracy, what people actually mean when they say "freedom of speech" is the freedom to criticize.
That means you can criticize things without facing legal consequences for the act of criticizing itself.

However, for anything else said, there should be consequences. (Whether those are positive or negative.)
That’s how it works in democratic societies—you face the fallout if someone spreads disinformation, lies, truths, slander, opinions, or uses speech as artistic expression, etc.

So, in democratic societies (ideally speaking), "freedom of speech" doesn't actually exist, nor does a democracy demand it. What a democracy demands is the freedom to criticize.
Freedom of criticism belongs to democracy; freedom of speech belongs to anarchy (and maybe to the mentally ill or people talking to themselves).

And that just starts a vicious cycle. What even counts as "criticism"?
I could be dead certain that Pero Perić is a criminal and blast every judge who let him walk free. But how far does that "freedom" actually go? Can I picket someone's house, harass their kids at school to turn them against their dad, or run caricatures in the news just to mock them under the guise of free speech? Where do we draw the line?

Paul Anderson2 said:Free speech isn't really about private relationships. Free speech just means there isn't a law stopping you from speaking your mind, especially when it comes to criticizing politicians or those in power.

Survival is a different story. No one is guaranteeing your existence; you've got to handle that yourself.

Besides, plenty of people throughout history have valued free speech more than their own lives. They didn't budge on their convictions, even at the executioner's block.

The whole argument about laws not existing is sketchy. Real freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want without looking over your shoulder waiting for a penalty. I’m pretty sure there isn't a single country on this planet that actually has that kind of freedom. Besides, the political side is mostly regulated—you know, criticizing politicians or the ruling party. But when it comes to morality, religion, or private matters? That’s a different story. It's easy to sit around and judge the customs and habits of other nations, but I doubt people would be as tolerant if you brought that same energy into their own living rooms.
.
Does free speech actually require a moral compass to function? Or do you honestly believe anyone can just spout whatever nonsense pops into their head under the guise of "their truth"?

Besides, plenty of people throughout history have valued free speech more than their own lives. They wouldn't budge on their convictions, even if it meant facing the firing squad.

It’s not about free speech—it’s about conviction. Nobody ever got destroyed just because they spoke their mind. Free speech inherently assumes I have the right to lie, all under the guise that my lies somehow support my version of the truth.

Andrew Hayes8 said:Fine, I used the Earth as an example
but if people didn't have the right to speak freely, they probably would still believe the world is flat today
take, for example, how certain harmful traditions exist where girls are mutilated in places like Somalia; those practices must be criticized
if people just turn a blind eye or stay quiet out of some fake sense of respect—because let’s face it, it’s hard to respect those customs—then humanity makes zero progress
telling someone they are ugly if they actually are is better than lying to their face about being beautiful
honestly, physical appearance isn't even as vital as it has become in modern times
so telling an unattractive person the truth wouldn't even hurt them, because it's a completely insignificant fact

Except he might be ugly to you, but I think he looks great.
Is there even such a thing as being "objectively ugly"?

Andrew Hayes8 said:So, let me see if I have this straight,
some group, nation, or religion can act however they please, regardless of how much your own sanity tells you it’s wrong
and you're just expected to respect that and stay silent, simply because that's "their way"
It has been known since ancient times that the truth hurts most
but that doesn't mean it should go unsaid
In any case, I stand for freedom of speech; someone who has nothing to hide
has absolutely no reason to fear what others might say
The truth should always prevail
Human relationships would be far more transparent and straightforward if people actually said what they truly thought

Common sense tells you the earth is flat, doesn't it?

And you think that’s going to work? Please. You post and then you go silent.Yeah, because that’s just how they roll over there.
It’s common knowledge, plain and simple.

Exactly!👍

Human relationships would be a hell of a lot simpler if people just said what they actually meant.

Start with yourself. Do you always have to tell people exactly what’s on your mind just in the name of "the truth"? For example, if your friend is ugly, would you actually look her in the eye and say, "Don't get mad, but you're honestly hideous—and I'm going to print that in my newspaper because freedom of speech demands it"?

I find this whole "freedom of speech" argument pretty interesting. Where does that freedom even come from in the first place?
We live in a society where if you show up late to work, you get canned—and suddenly your entire livelihood and your family's stability are on the line. Yet, at the exact same time, that same "employer" tells you, I'll caricature it, that you have the freedom of speech to express any opinion or stance on social values.
And it’s not just about expressing it (you can always do that in the bathroom); it's about being able to say it publicly so everyone knows.
Is that actually how things work in Western democracies?