Thanks for the answers. So..
Well this is a really interesting question. You sound like you care about truth here. Like the absolute truth is what you're worried about and why you're against what people are saying, because it's not the truth.
I respect that. The absolute truth is the most important thing, always.
So here's the absolute truth in this situation - let's take something you find particularly egregious.. I'm guessing you find the idea that there are microchips in vaccines ridiculous.
So if what you care about is the truth, you should extend that to the fact that the truth is that you don't know for sure that's not true, right? I mean you couldn't possibly know that there are no covid vaccines that have microchips added to them, that the people that do tests on the vaccines wouldn't either be complicit or unable to detect the microchips, that they weren't added after testing etc etc etc
Now does that mean we all freak out about microchipped vaccines? No. In fact I find the idea that microchips are in vaccines highly unlikely and laughable precisely because if you wanted to achieve that you wouldn't need vaccines to do it, you could use tap water, food or whatever that didn't require a pandemic, so it's a logical fallacy from the beginning.
But you saying "My problem is people that don't know the truth acting like they do" is absolutely the definition of irony considering that you also have no way to know that what they're saying isn't truth. I think we can fairly both agree on that.
So the outcome of this is
opinions, yours versus theirs. Either of you acting like you know anything for sure is ridiculous with the absence of factual information to prove your opinion is a fact.
It means that being open to things that you may believe are highly unlikely is a more truthful and honest way to think than deluding yourself that you know something you absolutely do not.
Yes, I believe in absolute, pure freedom of expression.
Don't conflate that with freedom of choice though (as you're trying to do there).
I support 150% the rights for a nazi to stand out the front of my house and in a non-disruptive way tell me, my family or my neighbours about why they believe that their perspective on life is valid and what they believe in, but I don't support the freedom of choice to them round up Jewish people and send them to concentration camps.
Words and actions are distinct for a good reason. Words can expand the consciousnesses of people to see alternative perspectives - even if that perspective is a hatred of Jews, it's better to understand is it by hearing it than not understanding it, while acting out a hatred of Jews serves no one and is evil.
You're also (very sloppily) trying to conflate "do you believe in the freedom of expression" with "that opinions whether factually incorrect should not be challenged" and honestly, this kind of strawmanesque, tricky wording of pretty much every comment might work in different situations, but it's obvious right now.
Believing in the freedom of expression, of course, doesn't mean that you can't challenge factually incorrect opinions. I believe in your freedom of choice and I'm attempting to challenge some things that you've said. In fact the freedom of expression is precisely the same thing as the ability to challenge opinions that you think are factually incorrect, no?
I think you've got your wires crossed. As just mentioned, I support the most extreme diametrically-opposed opinions possible being debated.
Let's flip this point: Do you think that any person has a right to say any opinion out loud that they want, even if it is harmful against other people? Isn't it better to be balanced and have both competing arguments made? Or only the arguments that you deem to be acceptable?
This is for sure the first time you've answered these.
1. So you're coming at this from an altruistic point of view, caring about abut humanity as a whole.. which is a good reason to care about this point.
So a few points. I think it's fair to say that governments around the world are going above and beyond to produce, source and supply as much of the covid vaccine as they possibly can, right? So the people that want to get vaccinated will have the vaccine available to them, free of charge, from the richest to the poorest countries in the world.
In many cases it looks like people will be given the vaccine whether they want it or not, but what it doesn't look like is that there will be "people that can't be protected that would benefit from other people being protected".
Secondly, if your motivation is to altruistically help people you don't know to remain healthy and you care about people's rights to freedom of choice, then why doesn't your altruism carry over to caring as much about people that want to make a choice about the own health and no take something they consider risky?
Magnitudes of order larger amounts of people die from heart disease and fast food consumption than covid ever will, magnitudes upon magnitudes of order. Why aren't we slapping the big macs out of their hands to protect them too?
Before you say that heart disease from unhealthy eating isn't contagious, well it is - it's readily passed down from generation to generation, to people that I would argue are much more vulnerable than old people are to covid: children that "inherit" obesity.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...10.htm#:~:text=Summary:,a new study has found.
So before worrying about the comparatively low number of people that have died from covid, surely we should focus on fast food as a much greater risk and a much better receptacle of your altruism?
Obviously, that's being facetious, but you get my point. The concept that we should protect people against harm caused by other people is not the standard being applied to almost any other area of society. People are allowed free choice to get fat and make their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren fat as well. Because the alternative is a state where peoples' free choice is massively diminished to the point of an orwellian facist state.
2. Circling back, we established that you don't
know that what they're saying is untrue, and at best it's an informed guess on your part.
But it sounds like you're arguing from a pragmatic perspective more than from concern for your own health, being that you feel it's wrong to spread harmful misinformation.
While being able to spread harmful misinformation is something I include in the idea of freedom of expression, the way for that misinformation to die out is not stopping people from saying it or attacking them, but to put forward better alternative information that resonates with people and is delivered in a clear way.
The goal shouldn't be to stop people from saying dumb things, it should be to put forward measurably less dumb points. I think your heart is in the right place, and for a majority of what you've said I do agree with you.
