Freedom of expression
peace.
Your opinion on freedom of expression is very independent (as is known), the main argument you make is: We are not supposed to decide what a person is allowed to hear and which arguments to accept.
That is: we should let matters flow naturally (it cannot be argued that if he wants to, he can think from all sides on his own). If so, from that assumption, I do not understand why it is permissible to use in an argument tools that convince the person (or at least incline him) to give excessive weight to one side, such as cynicism or pathos, and why not put the dry arguments aside and let him decide whatever he decides? Unless you are saying that these methods are not convincing tools but at most motivate him to reexamine the argument, then why can’t the same discussion be held on this itself (I understand that there is a fallacy, I want to know what). B. There is a person with authority (substantial…) and without all the tools, he would be taken seriously (like the Rabbi…) Please enlighten me on this. (Although I hate you, Haredi Hasidim Heshoch, who lives in Brooklyn (what could be worse than that? And fortunately the filters here do not block the rabbi’s website) and in any case I learned from you that one should address the arguments and not the person, and therefore I am curious about your opinions and will ask you to meet face to face)
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you. But even in preventing freedom of expression, we do not really dictate the decision-making process in advance (after all, it is really impossible to determine what a person will think), but rather influence the decision-making process to be different from what it would be if he had heard these arguments, as well as the means of persuasion. In other words, why do you think it is immoral to prohibit freedom of expression in relation to various things that in my opinion are true and someone who hears the opposing arguments is not smart enough to stand up for the truth, so that if he hears the other side, he will buy the lie? The answer: It does not matter whether it is true or not, you are not supposed to decide what the other person will think. You are not his master who will decide for him. You also answered, "These are means of persuasion." The problem here is that the very thing you want to convince him of is problematic, why convince him? Let him think what he wants. In short, the means of persuasion influence his position, and this is definitely immoral in your opinion, because his choice is what you want? (Unless the means of persuasion are so that he doesn't look down on you, and that should also be discussed)
I do not support freedom of expression in order not to prevent a person from making a decision. There is an obligation to give him the tools to make a decision. Therefore, it is not enough that I do not prevent him from making a decision.
I did not understand your question about persuasion. I do not see the slightest problem there. I did not say anywhere that it is forbidden to influence a person's decisions. On the contrary, I am in favor of everyone trying to convince others of what they believe.
Thank you very much.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
