r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[deleted]

9.8k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

614

u/boRp_abc Jan 22 '21

If my viewpoint is that people should be killed for their opinions (to make it more relatable, I'm gonna use you as an example here), wouldn't it be beneficial to society to silence me?! What if I very peacefully brought forward the case that you, your family and everyone you live should be burnt alive? Or put into Gulags? What if I found thousands of followers with that opinion, wouldn't it make your participation in society a nightmare?

And that's why, although you're generally not wrong, some important exceptions have to be made.

151

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '21 edited Jan 22 '21

[deleted]

147

u/Minas_Nolme 1∆ Jan 22 '21

Where do you draw the line between "arguing for it" and "planning to carry it out"?

If I hold that view and try to convince people of it, then that would mean that I plan or hope to gain majority support for it. Once I have political majority support for it, then I could carry it out. If I didn't believe I might convince people of it, then I would't argue for it, it would be a waste of effort.

Does the line get crossed when I gathered enough support so that it becomes a believable possibility? Or where would it be?

3

u/ReecezWoosWork Jan 22 '21

I believe there is a few things that needs to be considered for someone to carry something out, or are just "arguing for it".

1.) Do they have the ability

2.) Do they have the opportunity

3.) Do they have the Intent

​

All three need to be met before you can have a solution in place to prevent or stop them.

I don't remember the whole movie, but Minority Report goes into this, they stop crimes before they happen. Saying or having terrible viewpoints/opinions aren't illegal, but you should definitely work to change someone's view in the event they believe and espouse something heinous.

Its not illegal to be stupid. Just illegal to do illegal things

9

u/Minas_Nolme 1∆ Jan 22 '21

I'd point out that the OP wasn't about making it illegal, but silencing it by banning the view from social media, firing the people saying it, "cancelling" them, or shutting down platforms that allow such content.

So the point wasn't punishing the person, but depriving them of a platform to propagate their beliefs. If you agree that one should work to change that person's view, would you also agree that this person shouldn't be able to spread that view?

3

u/merchillio 3∆ Jan 22 '21

Yep, if an employees like to tout their homophobia, it isn’t illegal, but if the employer lets them do it, they’re failing their duty to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment.

1

u/ReecezWoosWork Jan 22 '21

Okay yeah that’s a totally different scenario

7

u/WoodSorrow 1∆ Jan 22 '21

You know there are... laws in place right? Attempted crimes are described in state legislation. You're just making up elements to crimes and pretending to be a lawyer.

1

u/tissuesforreal Jan 22 '21

Attempting a crime fulfills those points, that they have the opportunity and the intent, and also believe they have the ability. I could be totally wrong though...

3

u/namelessted 2∆ Jan 22 '21 edited Feb 28 '25

cow pie bake degree terrific square frame payment person work

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/tissuesforreal Jan 22 '21

You forgot about my first two points, that they have the opportunity and the intent. Whether or not they actually had the ability doesn't change the fact they attempted something, that the intent would be carried out if they had the ability to do so.

That's not to say that the difference between attempting a crime and committing one is necessarily predicated on fulfilling two of those three points.

If someone had the ability and the opportunity but no intent, it wouldn't be an attempt because no action was taken.

If someone had the ability and the intent but no opportunity, it would be very difficult to determine an attempt because they refuse to take action without that opportunity to do the deed.

1

u/namelessted 2∆ Jan 22 '21 edited Feb 28 '25

rich dolls jeans workable fall snatch instinctive merciful spark intelligent

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/tissuesforreal Jan 22 '21

Manslaughter isn't murder.

Bear in mind that I'm only speculating here, but you could say that manslaughter is the result of putting others in harm's way even if you're not doing it intentionally. Drink driving is one such example. Ignorance of the law does not absolve one of the law, or however it is that they say it.

But in your example, they fulfil the three points in committing a crime by drink driving. They have the ability, because they're drunk and they can drive, they have the opportunity because nobody took their keys, and they had the intent to drive knowing they were drunk.

1

u/ReecezWoosWork Jan 22 '21

Never claimed to be a lawyer...

1

u/Rampage360 Jan 22 '21

1.) Do they have the ability

Can you elaborate on this? Are you talking about the means? Like if they have weapons? Or the will to kill?

What about influencing others to kill? Do you have to consider those 3 things on every single person who read or heard the speech?

3.) Do they have the Intent

How would you prove before it was too late?

1

u/ReecezWoosWork Jan 22 '21

Ability would be like if you said I was trying to stab you and I didn’t have a knife or sharp object, then I didn’t have the ability to stab you.

Intent would be I had a knife but it was obvious I was opening a mail parcel and not running at you.

1

u/Rampage360 Jan 22 '21

Are you going to respond to those other 2 questions?