badgenome said:
IFireflyl said:
I get what you're saying, I do... but this just goes back to the slavery issue. There are other examples, I'm sure. Slavery is a big one, and it is one that can't be argued. Everyone knows it happened. People didn't get together and say, "You know what... it's probably not a good idea that we own another human being." They got together and said, "Make someone else work for me?? How much?!!?!?!!" It was a disgusting thing to do, and because their weren't laws against it people got on board. Because people weren't restricted they said, and did, what they wanted to do. A lot of people. A lot. So what happens if we let people freely speak out (publically) against the government/races/religions, and enough people agree? That kind of hate speech is what causes war and pandamonium. It causes people to turn on each other. It causes a rift between two or more entities. Your idea is great, but only if it works 100% of the time. We know that people are stubborn, so when stubborn people have opposite views, and they can publicly vent whatever they want it just causes problems. When it doesn't work, when people make the wrong choice, there is pain and suffering for generations. That kind of bad far outweighs any good.
|
That is absurd. Laws don't prevent things from happening. They are an attempt to enshrine in legal code what a society already values. Anywhere slavery has existed - and anywhere it continues to exist - as an institution, it has not been for a lack of laws. Instead, laws in such places have been on the side of slaveholders and restrict the speech of those opposed to slavery, just as any laws against speech will only restrict those who oppose the status quo.
|
You aren't making my point any less valid.
