Whether or not they are in fact paying tax is irrelevant to being taxpayer as in: subject to tax. Its just another way of saying: being citizen, with rights and responsibilities, like everyone else. The article puts it this way:

"The fact that a publicly funded facility would permit their premises to be used for a gathering of racists boggles the mind," wrote Bernie Farber, former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Fromm told CBC Toronto that he "and all the attendees are taxpayers, many in the city of Toronto. We paid for the library. It is public and should be open to our use.

which while obvious is a legitimate argument. Especially since Bernie Faber seems to think that racists cannot gather in public space.

IMO even if they didn't pay any tax, a public space is meant for all, even racist bigots.

I would feel uneasy if they had used that space to push racist ideals, but even then I would concede that they should be permitted to do it. I'd have been sure to shout something like, "Not everyone's white, get the F!!! over it!".

Did it at Pride once to some evangelical homophobic protesters: "There's probably no god!". They all shouted about sin in a chaotic mess simultaneously over the top of each other ^_^

tuco wrote:Whether or not they are in fact paying tax is irrelevant to being taxpayer as in: subject to tax. Its just another way of saying: being citizen, with rights and responsibilities, like everyone else. The article puts it this way:

"The fact that a publicly funded facility would permit their premises to be used for a gathering of racists boggles the mind," wrote Bernie Farber, former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Fromm told CBC Toronto that he "and all the attendees are taxpayers, many in the city of Toronto. We paid for the library. It is public and should be open to our use.

which while obvious is a legitimate argument. Especially since Bernie Faber seems to think that racists cannot gather in public space.

In general the topic of 'dangerous opinions" is being reduced to "the set of opinions about which we can become outraged". You know, the way Bernie Farber did; it's a tautology, but so it goes with amateur ethics convos. Just having a category of 'dangerous opinions' is sort of underwriting people's propensity to become outraged about something. If they get outraged enough, they commit arson or flounce. To really show your technicolor gonads, shout, "There's probably no god" at some theists.

In Hamburg recently, there was a lot of vandalism associated with protesting the G20 or globalization, or whatever, but they trashed the wrong people's stuff, in the lefty neighborhood where they have the most support. Outraged people either aren't thinking very clearly, or they're not really outraged, and just enjoy vandalism for its own sake. Hard to figure out, isn't it?

This thread is full of teensy-weensy expressions of outrage, such as outrage over somebody's 'rudeness' or 'hostility'. If you're really that bent out of shape by dangerous opinions, go fucking set fire to something small, like your undershorts, which you should take off before lighting. You have my complete support, until you get arrested for it. You can see it in plenty of other threads, the righteous indignation that is really only done right by people who believe in God. Elsewhere, it's people who are habitually getting their knickers in a knot. Why? Because ethics? Cry me a river, because it's just you against me. Don't cry; make a fist and use it nonviolently. Hold your breath until you turn blue. In any event, don't quit until you get that ice cream cone.

Yeah, tell me about it, outrage. btw I tend to lean towards: not thinking hypothesis, I am kind and naive like that :)

tuco wrote:Yeah, tell me about it, outrage. btw I tend to lean towards: not thinking hypothesis, I am kind and naive like that

How you mean, tovarishch? You mean outrage shows lack of thinking? Or you mean it's naive hypothesis? If latter, you could be right, but that leads to hypothesis that outrage comes from thinking too much. What we want is Goldilocks ethics.

I'd say justification for outrage comes from thinking too much but not the outrage itself.

As Eddie Izzard says, people should be free to be racist and homophobic, so long as they do it behind closed doors.

tuco wrote:I'd say justification for outrage comes from thinking too much but not the outrage itself.

Well, that's how it goes, isn't it? If we agree, we might be more inclined to say 'justified'. You're not going to like this, but it's something from the Department of Tautology Department. Solid justification is harder to come by, and that's for logicians. It's hard to imagine a logician becoming outraged, but I guess we must allow for it, at least in the cases of fake logicians, or real logicians getting in a twist about fake ones.

I'd like it if we could combine them. I've only seen it done in programming circles. There was a legendary Lisp weenie called Erik Naggum who always shoved political outrage into his Lisp rants, such as saying that C++'s enforcement of class member access explained who people voted for George Bush.

Not necessarily. Logician could be not outraged and not thinking. Then do some thinking and get outraged. In this case going backwards, to justify, is possible but not necessary.

---
edit: oh wait.. yeah I like the Department of Tautology Department :)

VazScep wrote:As Eddie Izzard says, people should be free to be racist and homophobic, so long as they do it behind closed doors.

And then Brexit happens ^_^

All my father-in-law's opinions are dangerous, at least to my equilibrium. And he has a metric fuckton of them. Probably 75% of everything he says starts with "I am of the opinion that..."

Just shut up. Shut....the....fuck....up.

Paul1 wrote:

VazScep wrote:As Eddie Izzard says, people should be free to be racist and homophobic, so long as they do it behind closed doors.

And then Brexit happens ^_^

Yes, it is easy to say that all opinions must be allowed. However when they rely on playing on peoples prejudices, they can be dangerous.
Rwanda
Bosnia
Nazi Germany

Yes, see post #120.

Dangerous opinions should be split off from the general discussion.

Zündel has died. Praise the Lord.

juju7 wrote:

Paul1 wrote:

VazScep wrote:As Eddie Izzard says, people should be free to be racist and homophobic, so long as they do it behind closed doors.

And then Brexit happens ^_^

Yes, it is easy to say that all opinions must be allowed. However when they rely on playing on peoples prejudices, they can be dangerous.
Rwanda
Bosnia
Nazi Germany

Surely we're no better than Nazi Germany if we go around banning certain opinions? I mean, communist China has certainly done a great job at keeping peace in China through its restrictive policies. Nothing about the Han people practically colonising Tibet...

NineBerry wrote:Zündel has died. Praise the Lord.

Agreed.

He would have been funny if he weren't so awful.

War on dangerous ideas is like war on drugs. As long as there will be demand, there will be supply.