Therefore, any admission of an "is" belief is acceptable, including stating facts.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
The context behind my post was the wrong of pretending to allow free speech but outlawing the denial of historical atrocities.
In fact, it would be cool if there were a forum that was moderated based on those principles.
I.e. "ought" beliefs would be moderated against evil, such as Nazism, paedophilia, ethnic supremacy (but only on the moral level of "X 'superior' race is entitled to the land and resources of Y 'inferior' race", not on the factual level of "X race is on average better at Z skill than Y race"), promotion of other kinds of violence, totalitarian regimes, etc.
But "is" beliefs would be completely free, even when they seem (to minds who don't recognise the fact-value gap) to promote something evil.
I.e. "ought" beliefs would be moderated against evil, such as Nazism, paedophilia, ethnic supremacy (but only on the moral level of "X 'superior' race is entitled to the land and resources of Y 'inferior' race", not on the factual level of "X race is on average better at Z skill than Y race"), promotion of other kinds of violence, totalitarian regimes, etc.
But "is" beliefs would be completely free, even when they seem (to minds who don't recognise the fact-value gap) to promote something evil.
There'll always be judgement calls.
Personally, I would allow both of those things and rely on there being other people in the forum who can point out such flaws (I.e. because they have a motive due to having contrary opinions).
Another good idea would be encouraging good arguing practises such as steelmanning, not falling for fallacies, etc.
Personally, I would allow both of those things and rely on there being other people in the forum who can point out such flaws (I.e. because they have a motive due to having contrary opinions).
Another good idea would be encouraging good arguing practises such as steelmanning, not falling for fallacies, etc.