Venomous wrote:What criminal advice? I don't know what you're talking about! Virtual private networks and anonymous browsers are perfectly legal and used by governments and law enforcement every day. There's nothing illegal about them. =)
Yes, but making others aware that these recourses are useful for undertaking criminal endeavors is definitely criminal advice, no matter how you look at it. Yeah, that's right. Don't try to deny it, you've been showing us quite a bit of your deviant side lately. And that's a good thing, shouldn't you be the one to set the example for us anyway?
SuperEgo wrote:I don't think it's wrong for an authority to ban the word "nigger" for example. If you and I were black, we wouldn't want to hear white racists barraging us with that word.
I do believe it's wrong. Once we ban one word, more will follow, and eventually our speech is so censored we can't even have a normal conservation anymore. Maybe it's not fun to hear slurs, but I always think that the people who are hurt by these words have a far bigger mentality problem than the ones who use the slurs. Did you know black people use the word nigger far more than white people do? Did you know white people are generally far more offended by the term nigger than black people? It's something to think about.
SuperEgo wrote:Let's say you and I are standing behind a "veil of ignorance", and will be simulated into society. In this society, one of us will be black, and the other will be a racist who hates black people. Standing behind the veil of ignorance, we don't know who will be who.
So we ask ourselves, would we want to simulate such a society? Would we want to live in a society where one of us will be discriminated against because we happened to be born with black skin?
Clearly, the answer is "No". We wouldn't want to live in such a society.
The concept of the veil of ignorance is new to me, so correct me if I am wrong, but from what I read it means you have to create a new society. But the catch is you won't know what kind of society it will be or how you are going to end up in it. You won't know how everything is governed. You won't know how the political climate will be, how the economy will be, how the social workings operate. You also don't know if you'll be healthy, what your physical or mental state will be, you won't know if you'll be surrounded by people or if you're all along, you won't know how you'll live your life there... so you have to think “what kind of society do I want to see?”, realizing you have no idea who you are going to be or what kind of world you will live in.
It's an interesting idea, clearly something cooked up by a philosopher. The concept is entirely theoretical, and most of the time what seems great in theory is not possible in practice. The veil of ignorance is a good example of that. But let's say, for example, we would take a group of people who are considered both smart and intelligent, put them in a state of artificial sleep, and strip them of their knowledge and memories of who they are. Then connect their consciences with some sci-fi tech, and let them create their plans for a new type of society, thus truly operating behind the veil of ignorance. This would take a kind of technology that is currently not available. But assuming we had this tech, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. If I look at our current situation, almost anything would be an improvement.
SuperEgo wrote:Would we want to live in a society where one of us will be discriminated against because we happened to be born with black skin?
Look, these things are unavoidable because everyone is prejudiced, racist, and close-minded to a certain extend. In recent times, it's very popular to pick on those who are being open and honest about these feelings they harbor. Ironically the ones who scream “racist” and “discrimination” the hardest, are usually also the most racist and oppressive people in existence. You're better off in a society where everyone can call you whatever they want, but you won't have to worry about more serious issues.
SuperEgo wrote:That is why I am understanding when authorities make a certain word illegal. John Rawls' meta-ethical framework justifies it.
I really cannot support this. The mentality and the type of people who support censored speech, also support very backwards forms of oppression and discrimination for the sake of appearing good natured. As a matter of fact, that's the sort of society we live in right now. And it's pretty damn horrible.