What's worse : free speech, altho possibly offensive to some, or the banning of certain opinions?

Question

Dr Watson, DNA pioneer, is predictably under fire for saying blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. The important and fascinating study of comparative genetics was progressing rapidly before WW11 but has been shut down as politically incorrect since then. People with no real morality of their own are the first to scream outrage at anyone who dares to break this taboo. Such essentially fake indignation boosts their essentially fake moral stance.

daljack : if I phrased the question as you wish, YOU'D be the first to scream outrage. You are gay, aren't you?

Answer 1

There is a faction of the country that wants to prevent any speech that they disagree with! Instead of an exchange of ideas, they use terms like bigot, racist, homophobes, or the all inclusive "insensitive" to try to pressure people not to say things that they disagree with!!

The idea of "political correctness" is offensive to me, but that does not matter to them! They want to control how we speak and what we think. There were others who wanted the same thing. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Bin Laden all come to mind!

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it! Free speech should not be limited!!

Answer 2

Everybody already used my quote "Don't agree but will defend to the death..." so I'll hafta get original. Of course free speech, regardless of how ignorant or offensive. Two reasons: First, if you start censoring speech, that gives the censors right to dictate the public discourse. That's Stalinism. Or the Comstock law. Second, if you force the bigots to stay silent, they'll never be challenged by rational arguments. A silent bigot can live a whole life believing s/he is right. A vocal bigot has to best me in an argument. As for intelligence across races, well...just remember that there is no such thing as race. A geneticist can't tell the difference between a chocolate lab and a black one. The same thing applies to people. Any psuedo-scientific speculation on racial charateristics is flawed from the get-go, since science doesn't really recognize races in the first place.

Answer 3

I would say that any study that is claiming to compare the intelligence of races will always be inherently flawed. Even if science bore out the conclusion that certain races scored lower on various intelligence tests it would be impossible to account for the cultural influences on the test results. And there is no way to raise people in vacuums in order to get them to the point where they can be tested sufficiently. Without human interaction people don't develop the neural pathways necessary to communicate (see the stories of children raised by feral dogs). Someone smart enough to discover DNA should realize this and should carefully weigh the repercussions of using his elevated pedestal to espouse his opinions.

However I agree w/ the headline that free speech and expression, no matter how offensive, should be protected at all costs. Who is to make the determination of what is "ok" if we don't? The masses? That's obviously flawed. Some court system? Flawed again.

Answer 4

Free speech is always the superior option, when compared to censorship of any kind.

But your question isn't really about that, but rather a veiled attempt at furthering Watson's own questionable assertions.
However, I agree with your premise: it is ridiculous that the studies were halted due to political reasons, since as long as the science is undetermined, it will allow specious arguments claiming the genetic inferiority of other races.

Answer 5

Yeah people have free speech... but it is a privilege and to "earn" the right to use it, you are supposed to have a certain level of morality and empathy, meaning you don't spout on offensively. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.... but not to preach to everyone else about it. We all have to live along side each other... for that to have a hope in hell it means having a basic level of respect for other people. Tolerance for people who hold different opinions to your own.

In my opinion, no one has the right to be down right inoffensive, rude or to discriminate against others; be that on the grounds of age, sex, religion, colour, creed, country of origin, ethnicity, sexuality, social class or status.... etc.

If your "free speech" is to state some flawed research from 40-50 years ago saying black people are less intelligent, then you have to accept that "free speech" allows the 95% of the population who are not into the BNP and who are not racist fasists, to scream outrage and racism.

Answer 6

That's like asking: would you rather have your heart cut out, or your brain? If you're looking for personal opinions, mine is that banning of certain opinions is worse. My reasoning is that while some things people can say because of free speech are extremely offensive, at least they're allowed to have that opinion (however horrible it may be). It's not like everyone has to agree with that opinion, and sometimes people's opinions can change.

Answer 7

word the countries from which the issue comes. they are all ruled by using non secular nuts. Totalitarianism is alive and properly. The UN is a accumulating of human beings from many countries meaning the evil nuts are there additionally and that they are in a position to introduce all kinds of nonsense. the stable information is that the UN truly would not quantity to a hill of beans whilst it includes the genuine international. in simple terms check out how effective their "sanctions" are against any u . s .. no person listens to them and all human beings does in spite of the fact that they decide for. The UN is a humorous tale so a techniques as being a international ability or having any impact in any respect. it fairly is in basic terms a level on which to stand and croon so as that the international information businesses can document on your ravings. each and every time any u . s . decides to do something a pair of genuine issue they many times finally end up doing it with out the help of the UN besides. So my factor is what distinction does it probably make interior the genuine international what the UN passes? unfastened countries like the US will forget with reference to the stupid determination and those muslim countries you point out will kill or imprison every person who speaks against them with or with out the UN's sanction besides.

Answer 8

It's more offensive to ban opinions than to speak freely.

But hatred and discrimination are more offensive again.

Discussing these ideas is a good thing. Agreeing with them...well, I don't, but a difference of opinions is always necessary to have a good discussion.

But there's a difference between believing something and constantly voicing your beliefs and using them to insult people.

Personally, I find Watson's statement repulsive. As mentioned by other posters, it's fundamentally flawed in that genes aren't the only things that affect intelligence. It seems to me that people with these beliefs are just breeding hatred, putting a pseudo-acceptable mask onto the face of extreme prejudice.

How is comparative genetics 'important'? What lives will it save? There are other, more important fields of genetic research, and ones with less catastrophic consequences. Comparative genetics has been 'shut down' since WWII for a reason...look what it led to then.

People should be able to exist in harmony, regardless of their race, without the fear and humiliation of being regarded as inferior to other humans because of an arbitrary aspect of their physical appearance.

What's going to happen next? How far are we going to let this go without saying something? Is it going to get to the point where people with brown eyes are locked away as a deterrent because they're considered to be "genetically more likely to commit crimes"? Are tall people going to be ridiculed in the street because somebody says they're "genetically terrible in bed"?

The problem with free speech is that people take it to mean free action. One day, you're thinking that one group of people is less intelligent. The next day, you're telling them and everyone else that. The day afterwards, you're campaigning to have them excluded from universities. The next, you're voting to pass a law that stops them from breeding with, and polluting, the 'more intelligent' white race. The next, you're thinking, "we might as well just kill them all so that our society is on average more intelligent".

Believe what you like. Say what you like. But, always, fight for equality. Even if you really do believe that some people are inferior, please give them the opportunity to prove you wrong.

It starts with one aspect of the community. They're "scientifically proven" to be inferior in one way or another, and if people don't unite against the hatred inherent in this kind of "science" then it escalates until more and more groups are singled out.

Nobody will be safe, and our society will become increasingly filled with fear and suspicion.

Answer 9

banning certain opinions is more harmful.how are we to know who to respect if we know not, in our opinion, who is acceptable and who is unacceptable. Everyone in this world comes from a different background, is a different person and without that how would our world be.

It takes the bad to appreciate the good. It takes us to recognise the bad to understand the good. Without the freedom of speech, restricitions, in my own personal opinion would, in fact, increase violence and hatred, misery and suffering, because repression only magnifies the negativity.embrace the freedom.
x

Answer 10

The banning of some opinions is much worse than keeping free speech even if it is very offensive. As Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I complete agree and even if you say something horrible wrong I couldn't stop you because it is your right in this country to say it.