To win the information war we must have ZERO-CENSORSHIP

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How is this not obvious.
Do you accept the consequences that can happen?
What are you so afraid of?

The same skepticism and logic that will protect us from corporate liars will also protect us from AJ.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It's a primary AXIOM.

Human rights must begin with a right to one's own person.
Can you define axiom? 
An AXIOM is the basic building block of a Sound-Logical-Statement.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you suggesting that medical research should be secret?
It is a hypothetical. Do you think there is information too dangerous to know about?
No.

I reject the myth of the "noble lie" wholesale.

Have you watched the recent Chernobyl miniseries yet?

Did reality unravel when the Pentagon-Papers were published?  No, people just got smarter.

Did reality unravel when Snowden and Assange dumped their "shocking" secret data?  No, people just got smarter.

Only private-citizens should have iron-clad privacy.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I've been a LOGICZOMBIE for about 3 years now and I've converted at least 3 people that I know of.
How much time did you spend with them and do you think your asking too much from all/most/some people? The / is whatever you decide to choose.
If you are capable of speech you are capable of logically-coherent-skepticism.

I'm not sure how much time I spent converting people, it mostly felt like entertainment (edutainment?) to me anyway.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Explain to them what epistemological limits are and logical fallacies such as "appeal to authority".
How about people who have disdain to things they don't understand therefore don't actually take what you said to heart? 
Most people are skeptical about at least one thing.  That makes a good starting point to build common-ground.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So one person instead of multiple people? What if it was a joint effort into lets creating AI? Who gets sole ownership to the invention?
The minimum 1% (or whatever they can negotiate) would be split between all patent/copyright holders.

Why 20 years again?
Because it is a reasonable amount of time to build a business (and reward you for your innovation), but not enough time for you to retire for life (and for your children and grandchildren to retire for life) and revert to generations of pure rent-seeking (monopoly-seeking) behavior (like disney).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Even though I think cenorship is bad if people knew what was fact and opinion it wouldn't be a problem. 
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you teach people to distinguish FACT from OPINION, then slander will solve itself. 
This is just patently false.
I disagree.  Slander, even if factual, is an ad hominem attack.  An ad hominem attack does not disqualify any claims that person has made. 

All claims must be evaluated on their own merit.

No source is granted blanket infallibility.

Ad hominem attacks are naked RED-HERRINGS.

The line between truth and slander is often very small.
Slander is easy to spot.  Slander may contain some verifiable facts, but those facts alone do not constitute slander without some connective OPINIONS stringing them together, AND even iff some facts can be verified, ad hominem attacks DO NOT disqualify that person's logical claims or statements.

There is often some level of truth in the slander to sell it. You cannot ever teach people to be able to distinguish between the 2.
Slander is easy to identify.  It's riddled with logical fallacies.

It takes a great deal of work to do that and 99% of people wont do it.
It takes practically ZERO effort to identify the difference between sound logic and ad hominem attacks.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
They basically confirmed it through censorship.

Type his name into Youtube lol.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Censorship
What are you so afraid of?
People making the world bad but think they are doing good. Alex Jones lied about Sandy Hook. Doubting the very thing that gives us information. The government and the media. Now you can have healthy skepticism about what you read but I know for a fact that people who believed Alex Jones actually don't care about what is good or bad ideas just if my Jesus said it is or isn't. I think when people have too much freedom they tend to not use it to the best of their ability instead restrict themselves on what they like through no fault of their own.
An AXIOM is the basic building block of a Sound-Logical-Statement.
You told me what it is used for not what it means. Basically asking because I found variations of it in just 1 definition.
I reject the myth of the "noble lie" wholesale.
I don't think it is noble to do anything. I am merely saying I think knowing certain things is worse than lying to not bring less desirable consequences. This would be a white lie but I can give the most extreme example if you want. 
Only private-citizens should have iron-clad privacy.
Does this apply to Harvey Weinstein where he sexually assaulted women? He did do things privately but should he have iron-clad privacy?

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Logic-Zombie
If you are capable of speech you are capable of logically-coherent-skepticism.
Capable doesn't mean the person is going to do it. I could be capable to be a gardener but I have no real interest in it. What would make them want to be a logic zombie?
Most people are skeptical about at least one thing.  That makes a good starting point to build common-ground.
That would be under the assumption the person is willing to contest that point and will take your point seriously?
I don't think a Religious person would just accept what you say if they are skeptical about priests fucking kids. Yeah sure you can prove that certain priests have but they can say well that doesn't reject what I believe in. I was just curious. 

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Thank you
Even though I think cenorship is bad if people knew what was fact and opinion it wouldn't be a problem. 
Well stated.
That would be a reason why I would be for censorship. There are too many idiots to allow stuff like white supremacy, communism and anarchy to be associated with the highly regarded institutions. I don't believe in that in the market of ideas if we allow everything in we will get the best ideas out. That is some straight BS. If that was the case everyone would be neo-liberals but I don't hear about how much we are going to spend on helping immigrants settle in instead I hear about protectionist policies from people like Bernie who does have a chance of winning and from a current president Trump (bring back jobs slogan). 

I am okay with them being part of historical record but when I hear historical revisionism or people advocating for these ideas they should be punished. If there is a socialist professor remove his status as an authority on the subject. If there is a person advocating it on the streets have the person jailed for being a public nuisance. If the person is praying to Stalin in private, I don't care until he decides to bring other people to support what  they are doing as well.

Copyright
The minimum 1% (or whatever they can negotiate) would be split between all patent/copyright holders.
What if a party involved was a corporation who gave the funding to make this happen?
Because it is a reasonable amount of time to build a business (and reward you for your innovation)
I can agree with this.
but not enough time for you to retire for life (and for your children and grandchildren to retire for life) and revert to generations of pure rent-seeking (monopoly-seeking) behavior (like disney).
Well what if I invented the cure for cancer? I have 20 years to milk everyone dry of there money. Nearing the end I can continue to drop prices until every single person has the cure. At that point I would have accumulated so much wealth to reward my innovation but no one after 20 years will have any customers to sell what I created. I effectively created a market and ended it in 20 years. What do you think? 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,562
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I agree?
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
None have his name in the title lol.

Why are they protecting the whistle blower's identity? Is he not credible or do they have to follow some sort of whistle blower protection bs?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
None have his name in the title lol.
I know it's so creepy how the censor gods work.

You type in his name and you get results for whistleblower but not his actual name....
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,562
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
Why are they protecting the whistle blower's identity? 
They know it's a sham. Another deep state CIA shit

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why are they protecting the whistle blower's identity? 
They know it's a sham. Another deep state CIA shit
Ad hominem attacks don't change FACTS.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well what if I invented the cure for cancer? I have 20 years to milk everyone dry of there money. Nearing the end I can continue to drop prices until every single person has the cure. At that point I would have accumulated so much wealth to reward my innovation but no one after 20 years will have any customers to sell what I created. I effectively created a market and ended it in 20 years. What do you think? 
If you can accomplish that in 20 years, you deserve what you get.

The most profitable drugs are designed to treat patients without curing them.

That's why insulin is such a big money maker.

That's why pain-killers are making record-breaking profits.

They don't actually cure anything.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That would be a reason why I would be for censorship. There are too many idiots to allow stuff like...

white supremacy,
Don't you mean, "traditional family values and cultural pride"?

communism
Don't you mean, worker's rights, labor unions, employee owned businesses, and social safety-nets?

and anarchy
Don't you mean, "individual sovereignty"?

...to be associated with the highly regarded institutions.
What institutions do you consider "highly regarded"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The minimum 1% (or whatever they can negotiate) would be split between all patent/copyright holders.
What if a party involved was a corporation who gave the funding to make this happen?
A corporation is made up of people.  I don't believe a company should have the right to strip their employee's of any and all rights to their creativity.

That's why I set the minimum at 1%.

The corporate employer could take the other 99% under some contractual agreement.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If there is a socialist professor remove his status as an authority on the subject. If there is a person advocating it on the streets have the person jailed for being a public nuisance.
This seems slightly FASCIST.

Can you walk me step-by-step through your thought process on this?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How is this not obvious.
Do you accept the consequences that can happen?
What consequences are you talking about?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Do you care if information can lead to harm? 
Certainly...

Information can lead to harm and SECRECY can lead to harm.

I'd rather face the harm from information.

I simply don't have enough FAITH in authorities who keep SECRETS.

I simply don't have enough FAITH in authorities to police themselves (conflict-of-interest).

Private-CITIZENS should have an iron-clad right to privacy.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Hate speech will be categorized as broad-brush ad-hominems and the people advocating hate will be asked to support their statements with FACTS.
This wont ever happen. When someone says something stupid like "islam is a religion of hate and should be banned" you can find enough very specific details to sell that.
Any tactics used to "prove" such a claim could be used against all religions and or nations.  Did you know the KKK are devout Christians?

ON ITS VERY FACE THE CLAIM ITSELF IS OBVIOUSLY A STATEMENT OF PURE OPINION.

It doesn't matter that it is a gross misinterpretation, some people will believe it. If you allow people to do stuff like that, then hate and violence will be the result. 
Would you rather have some level of "hate and violence" with some hope of reasonable discussion, or would you rather have people living in a 1984 style walking nightmare where the thought-police can accuse you of thought-terrorism and torture you for literally imaginary crimes.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Copyright
If you can accomplish that in 20 years, you deserve what you get.
Okay. So your aim for the patent being 20 years is to give people enough time to capitalize on their discovery? What is your previous to that? Reduce harm, give people what they deserve or make sure individuals are free to do what they like? 
The most profitable drugs are designed to treat patients without curing them.
Given the need and willing people to buy the cure I don't need to be the most profitable by not curing them. I already addressed this and the other claims your brought up in my hypothetical. If it wasn't clear I will continually reduce prices until every single person with cancer has the cure. Effectively removing the market.
A corporation is made up of people. I don't believe a company should have the right to strip their employee's of any and all rights to their creativity.
What if the employee agreed to be paid out? Are you saying the employee does not have the right to exert his will to sign a contract to give away his part in the invention?

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Above
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I would tell them that they are super intelligent for not trusting any information they can't verify logically.
They can say back I don't care about logic only God or something essentially that whether it be good or bad faith. What do you have to say to that?
Anyone who says the "don't care about logic" disqualifies themselves.  Such a person can't believe anything. 

Such a person would be, by their own self-description, necessarily incoherent.

Most adults I've interacted with believe their views are (mostly) logical.
What if they say whatever is valid is what God says? Example: Mopac.
Mopac actually seems pretty coherent.  I'm not sure they would say "whatever god says is valid".

I think they'd say something more like, "when you truly love the truth and truly seek the truth, you will know what to do".

Which I sort-of agree with in a general sense, but it's not a very practical standard (unQuantifiable).

It's also a naked appeal to ignorance (private-information/gnosticism).

Mopac has said they don't believe the holy-scriptures should be considered some sort of "perfect-holy-rule-book" but rather more like a ridiculously complicated secret code to unlock your own inner-light, or something like that.

If I demonstrate that a 10-year-old can do it, this demonstration strongly implies that if they spend a little time practicing, they can probably do it as well.
How about people who are not able to do so? Disabled people, working all day etc.
If you can read, you can sort FACT from OPINION.

Given the adult is also older you would have to convince to them why they should do this instead of with a kid who just listens to their parents. How are you going to convince them?
Most people easily recognize logical fallacies in their ideological opponents.  I'd start with that, then move to Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.

When you understand that these are logical fallacies and recognize that each claim must stand on its own merit, that's a game-changer.
Okay. I have already asked a similar question, I was going to put here, above so no point in asking it again.
Feel free to ask whatever you'd like.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Thank you
Don't you mean, "traditional family values and cultural pride"?
Yeah sure.
Don't you mean, worker's rights, labor unions, employee owned businesses, and social safety-nets?
Nope. I don't accept this to be a communist idea. All of what you said relies on a capitalist framework. If we were working under a communist framework if it was working optimally everyone would be equal meaning there is no need for unions, co-ops or social safety nets. 
Don't you mean, "individual sovereignty"?
Complete individual sovereignty whatever that is worth. 
What institutions do you consider "highly regarded"?
Public education, government and trusted new sources. I guess private education as well but it would have to conform to what we know currently so no to Religious schools. 
This seems slightly FASCIST.
Define fascism.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Above again

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you can accomplish that in 20 years, you deserve what you get.
Okay. So your aim for the patent being 20 years is to give people enough time to capitalize on their discovery? What is your previous to that? Reduce harm, give people what they deserve or make sure individuals are free to do what they like? 
Copyrights and Patents are designed to PROTECT INDIVIDUALS.

The entire origin of Copyrights and Patents was the idea that WITHOUT Copyrights and Patents, BIG COMPANIES can steal your ideas and out-compete the inventor/innovator/creator in a perfectly FREE-MARKET.

But now the whole thing has mutated from PROTECTION of individuals into a WEAPON to DESTROY individuals.

It was intended to protect people from corporations and now it does the exact opposite.