On of the most challenging moderation decisions I had to do at another forum was whether someone who argues the position “Homosexuality is a crime. In my country it’s punishable with death. I like the laws of my country” should have his right of free speech. I think the author of the post was living in Uganda.
The basic question is, should someone who’s been raised in Uganda feel free to share his moral views? Even if those views are offensive to Western ears and people might die based on those views?
If you want to have a open discussion about morality I think it’s very valuable to have people who aren’t raised in Western society participating openly in the discussion.
I don’t think LessWrong is supposed to be a place where someone from Uganda should be prevented from arguing the moral views in which he believes.
When it comes to politics, communists argue frequently for the necessarity of a revolution. A revolution is an illegal act that includes violence against real people.
Moldburg argues frequently for the necessity of a coup d’état.
This policy allows for censoring both the political philosophy of communism as well as the political philosophy of moldbuggianism. Even when I disagree with both political philosophies I think they should stay within the realm of discourse on LessWrong.
A community which has the goal of finding the correct moral system shouldn’t ban ideas because they conflict with the basic Western moral consensus.
TDT suggests that one should push the fat man. It’s a thought exercise and it’s easy to say “I would push the fat man”. In a discussion about pushing fat man’s on trolly I think it’s valid to switch the discussion from trolly cars to real world examples.
Discussion of torture is similar. If you say “Policemen should torture kidnappers to get the location where the kidnapper hid the victim” you are advocating a crime against real people.
Corporal punishment is illegal violence.
Given the examples I listed in this posts, which are cases where you would choose to censor? Do you think that you could articulate a public criteria about which cases you censor and which you will allow?
Okay, you can argue whether it does. Regardles, that’s an argument that should be possible in depth. And it should be possible to exchange the trolly cars for more real world examples.
Discussion of torture is similar. If you say “Policemen should torture kidnappers to get the location where the kidnapper hid the victim” you are advocating a crime against real people.
No you’re advocating changing the law. It’s not a crime once/if the law is changed.
No you’re advocating changing the law. It’s not a crime once/if the law is changed.
No, that sentence doesn’t include the word law. It’s a valid position to argue that a policeman has the moral duty to do everything he can to safe a life even when that involves breaking the law.
On of the most challenging moderation decisions I had to do at another forum was whether someone who argues the position “Homosexuality is a crime. In my country it’s punishable with death. I like the laws of my country” should have his right of free speech. I think the author of the post was living in Uganda.
The basic question is, should someone who’s been raised in Uganda feel free to share his moral views? Even if those views are offensive to Western ears and people might die based on those views?
If you want to have a open discussion about morality I think it’s very valuable to have people who aren’t raised in Western society participating openly in the discussion. I don’t think LessWrong is supposed to be a place where someone from Uganda should be prevented from arguing the moral views in which he believes.
When it comes to politics, communists argue frequently for the necessarity of a revolution. A revolution is an illegal act that includes violence against real people. Moldburg argues frequently for the necessity of a coup d’état.
This policy allows for censoring both the political philosophy of communism as well as the political philosophy of moldbuggianism.
Even when I disagree with both political philosophies I think they should stay within the realm of discourse on LessWrong.
A community which has the goal of finding the correct moral system shouldn’t ban ideas because they conflict with the basic Western moral consensus.
TDT suggests that one should push the fat man. It’s a thought exercise and it’s easy to say “I would push the fat man”. In a discussion about pushing fat man’s on trolly I think it’s valid to switch the discussion from trolly cars to real world examples.
Discussion of torture is similar. If you say “Policemen should torture kidnappers to get the location where the kidnapper hid the victim” you are advocating a crime against real people.
Corporal punishment is illegal violence.
Given the examples I listed in this posts, which are cases where you would choose to censor? Do you think that you could articulate a public criteria about which cases you censor and which you will allow?
Does it? CDT most certainly does, but...
Okay, you can argue whether it does. Regardles, that’s an argument that should be possible in depth. And it should be possible to exchange the trolly cars for more real world examples.
No you’re advocating changing the law. It’s not a crime once/if the law is changed.
Depends on where you are.
No, that sentence doesn’t include the word law. It’s a valid position to argue that a policeman has the moral duty to do everything he can to safe a life even when that involves breaking the law.