Pants-of-dog wrote:I was fairly certain you would keep discussing definitions and ignoring the actual argument.
An argument's validity can only be properly assessed via the use of precise definitions.
So, given the mere definition of attack you provided only references verbal attacks in the following sense:
: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words a politician verbally attacked by critics
and assuming that we can agree that a direct threat of violence or the attempt to incite violence should both be illegal. (please state otherwise if you disagree)
Then, would it follow, from the definition you gave, that only such speech as qualifies as a form of ad-hominem,
purely on a discriminatory basis, would qualify as hate speech?
I will give ten examples below of "is not hate speech" and is "hate speech" and you can quote them individually in your response and simply write "agree" or "disagree" so I can know that we are on the same page. I will not included threats that we both view as illegal, though I would allow that threats can also be hate speech. I am presenting these examples and keeping an open mind to possibly coming to an agreement, but I want to know implications because I think the Left can be deceptive on this issue in order to suppress opposition and opinions they find "offensive." Depending on how you answer, will tell me whether this is so or not.
1. the statement "You are a filthy N*****." would be hate speech as a discriminatory verbal attack (ad-hominem) under this definition.
2. the statement: "Because you are a N*****, your opinion on this matter is invalid" would also be hate speech as a discriminatory verbal attack (ad-hominem) under this definition.
3. the statement: "Blacks have statistically lower I.Q.s and higher levels of testosterone and are therefore more biologically predisposed to negative conflict resolutions" WOULD NOT
be hate speech because it is not an ad-hominem
, but merely a propositional claim that must be verified or disproven through reasoned analysis.
4. The statement: "the black race is destined to European subjugation, for the curse transmitted to the descendants of Ham is an irrevocable divine decree." WOULD NOT
be hate speech because it is likewise a claim, even if religious, that is not a direct attack, but a proposition that must be analyzed as either true or false, whether theologically, or otherwise.
5. the statement: "You are a Christian and therefore must be a hypocrite that ought not to be taken seriously," would be hate speech.
6. the statements that: "Christianity is a false religion" and "Islam is morally wicked" both would not count as hate speech, but as statements to be verified.
7. the statement that: "You are white, therefore you are disqualified from discussing matters pertaining to race-relations" would be hate speech, because it is an ad-hominem( verbal attack), grounded on a discriminating characteristic.
8. the statement: "homosexuality is a damnable sin, and ought to be illegal." would not be hate speech because it is not an ad-hominem
, but expressed political opinion that must be weighed on its merits of lack thereof.
9. the statement: "queers don't squeak when they fart" in a comedic context, would not be hate speech.
10. the statement: "white boys always be worrying about their hair-loss" in a comedic context, would not be hate speech.
I am genuinely curious about your answers to these. I would like to see @The Immortal Goon
, and @Wellsy
, answers as well.