= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Oct. 5 - Oct. 11, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (346)
And my point was and remains that you did not provide an answer. She didn't ask whether you can make up a deontological rule she violated. She asked whether there was a reasonable and practical rule you think she violated. Free speech absolutism isn't one. As to "but I do think", that's still not a deontological rule -- that's an ad hoc resolution which you happen to prefer.
Free speech absolutism absolutely is one. It's a common deontological rule that would have prevented AA from being banned.
All moral intuitions are ad hoc.
Common??
Show me a place where it is practiced. Spam folders do not count.
Actually, it would prevent all moderation. Would you like to learn one weird trick which would extend your manhood and make all women get naked and bring you offers to reclaim your wealth from a bank in Nigeria while stomping on pink commie faggots?
Free speech absolutism only applies to the reasons for free speech (discourse). Spam does not count - objectionable opinions do.