Zkuq on 08 October 2017
| palou said: Here's a surely controversial one: I would like a detailed explanation on why freedom of speech, or rather, the freedom to spread information, should be *unquestionable*. I agree that letting people say and hear what they want is a net positive, in most cases, but I have some difficulty with it being used as an *axiom*, to which one can refer oneself as absolute truth. |
I'm not in your target group, but my impression is that basically limiting freedom of speech is seen as a slippery slope. On the other hand, people calling for unlimited freedom of speech seem pretty low in numbers.
| palou said: 1. Also - why treat action and inaction differently? What, specifically, differentiates the two?
2. I feel that any choice we make should be measured by evaluated by simply looking at decisions as a set of probability fields, evaluating the ideal situation to your specific choices. |
1. At first glance, they seem entirely different to me. What makes you think they're the same?
2. This sounds a lot like how I view almost everything. I'm not familiar with probability fields, but it sounds like they're close to the way I often think.
