Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "I Was FIRED for Hate Speech After Being URGED to Give My Views on Marriage" video.

  1. Critique of Law, logic and semantics: In discoursing with the left, you have to remember that they think and reason in accordance within a certain legal, logic and semantis frame. thing to note is although they appear to be having one of their free and "open discussions" as a process of "creative dialogue", in reality their discursive moves as an apparent process (in discourse as anaphoric cataphoric chains that can be open) are already framed a priori around a fixed legal logic that is structured around a legal deductive logic that takes certain "propositions" or "prescriptions" as synthetic a priori. pre fixed a priori mean a structure (a legal logic) they have before they begin discourse. This is both a structure of legalistic definitions and deduction that is a static and fixed moving image of eternity, for them, in all discourse. That is certain apparent empirical statements are impossible to discursively assert, or their negations and perhaps opposites are discursively unsayable. So in the tradition of rationalism definition and universality and necessity we have Descartes "I think therefore I am". It look like an empirical statement, so its must be negatable and still make sense eg "I don't think". Also Analytic and synthetic sematic structure eg as a statement can be constructed from interchangeable semantics parts "I think" "I feel" etc "I eat" maybe "I sleep"(?). Bellow I can make explicit how something like this works I think: 1. Not "safe space" must be "dangerous Space" or Opposite of "safe space" is "dangerous space" 2. Not "inclusion" must be "exclusion" or opposite of "inclusion" is "exclusion". Now who could begin a discourse with these negations and opposites, its very difficult to see let alone express to someone, and so the assertions "safe space" have a kind of a both: empirical look "Safe space" is a kind of space lie the statement "larger space"; but it has an a priori look in that unlike large space, that can be negated to not large space ort small space "safe space" seems not be like like this. So now just like in law these statements function, their semantics is like universals and necessities, but they are used, as if laws by left discoursers, to close and silence, but also to entrap, if someone is not aware of the logic semantic legal structure they have to what they regard as all their discursive possibilities. Buy then they use this in terms of evidence collection "speaking out and calling out practice" and then some quaisi legal objectivity like a review board or "friendly meeting" or "ethics committee" or board or even the headmasters office. The left practitioners are not judge jury and punishment themselves, event though their attitude is like that, rather they are evidence collectors and police enforcement like a caution. The immediate reason this is related to politics, on the one hand it places any opponent in an apparent impossible position eg "exclusion", then it also forms a lexographical ordering of many different policies all under this apparently undeniable structure of statements eg internal policy policy constancy, and it focuses political action on institutions rules and laws for change since these are what the left regard as rule a priori and objective publicly at least "who is going to deny the latest left law. Now set against this left closing down structure, opponents then have a problem, and so what has happened is they have copied the left structure themselves, although they would call it natural law ethics it has the same pre-framing effect in discursive exchange. T Then we get the traditional response or reaction to this from US cultural context of legality expressed as "pro life". Which then apparently works in the same way as not "pro life" must mean "against life" or "pro death". To be pro death seems like a kind of impossible "death sentence" like suicide is to base of self interest. no one who is alive can really say they should have been denied life, so its kind of non negatable statements as the a priori. We then have apparent open discourse is really two people with a priori fixed deductive structure grounded in statements its seems impossible to deny or their denial impossible to assert. These two closed systems are down stream from a prior mutually exclusive but not as such mutually contradictory in any simple way, they offer unsayable place for each others position in their own. I am drawing here on Natural law critique and revision from Kant, and the 20th century critique of it eg Moore and Pritchard "naturalistic fallacy": but also transcendental philosophy reimagining of it like in J. L. Austin (Kenny and Cottingham on Descartes) Ironically it was some of the early Critical left that had a go at exposing this sort of thing this eg J. F. Lyotard in "Just Gaming" "The Differand" and the "Post Modern Condition". For me this issue cuts into Roberts Pippin's recent book on Hegel's Logic, that compares the "notions" of "negation" and "opposition" in this regard. You could go full on A.J. Ayer though and just ask, of any statements they make and any justifications "What do you mean" or "What does that mean". You wont "win" as such since for them the whole macrocosm cosmos depends on their microcosm a priori statements but, they have habit of looking up or across when this is done as if they are looking towards an outer example of an institution in their minds for assistance and ground. Generally you will get "oh that' a bit deep" or its outside of todays lesson plan or we haven't got time or clever people universality know the answer to that. that too philosophical and we have an aim and objective in todays seminar we are contracted to do and there is no time. eg teleology of "their" lesson in the end.
    1
  2. I suppose that may people who argue for freedom of speech try a copy this quasi natural law grounding in some way. they see it as a legalistic reason too. i think this whole approach is inappropriate for a conservative notion of reason. the problem is political conservativism seems to think it must create policy capability and the numbers for a political movement as Capacity, and so in a certain way appears to need to follow the instituional image of natural law to do policy and so like the left and right must think about discourse in the same way as a priori deductive jsut with different a priori statements at the base. The key is for me from Kant's Third Critique that agreement in judgement is not based in agreement in natural law. This is what Kant meant by legitimacy. is aesthetic in complex ways CJ #9 and others. c.f Roger Scruton in this and his massive book on Modern Philosophy 1990's. not the short 17-20 th century history one
    1
  3. At the micro level of discourse we have people really taking past each other, but this can quickly then becomes an issue of who's institution with who's a priori is in power over the domain. But then this is quickly about a conflict between and within the body politic, and internecine then between institutions. their idea of legitimacy and politics is to put their institution in charge over the others. So quickly, and for seasoned left activists, it is this image of conflicted politicised institutions in logico sematic opposition and struggle with each other that is fore front in their minds and the discourse is a token of this political instituional struggle. Of of many of Kant's genius was to see this "disunity" or lack of harmony of institutions (faculties/powers of the state) as key, and a problem not soluble in deduction pure reason and natural law. in deed following such a path of rational disharmony makes for no solution at best or Civil War in Hobbes sense of a conflict between institutions "within" the "state" (is their still a state under these conditions ?) that have come apart and operate autonomously. Eg Thirty Years War showed that since institutions are transnational and inter-national this is not a Sovereignty solipsism internal conflict, but spread as others are drawn in via other state instituional alignments. Cf. alos The fall of the Soviet Union and the submarine base sending the army in to force the electricity "unit" to put the power back on. when arguing with the left over who's round it is next they are thinking in terms of the decision in respect to the Russian Fleet and the UN decertation no. 666.
    1
  4. Nice point from 21:00mins by Ben Dybowski. I was at a seminar or helping in a seminar once, a couple of years ago, and we were asked to tell three stories about our selves one of which was false, and the others had to try and find out which was the false one for each person in Q&A exchanges. So I'm in my late 50's and one of my stories was that i was at the first Beatles Gig when Beatle Mania began, which was October 1963. So they thought this was the untrue one. But my mum was there 10 months pregnant with me. So is my story true or false? and by what, or which, justification?
    1
  5. the example of the layers approach Ben Dybowski gives at 32:00mins is how the left in general understand semantics and discourse, that is a case or example as a "construction in law". So if you argue for free speech, they will maker a move though the legal logical sematic space and say "what about shouting danger fire in a cinema". its not odd when you think of the reason in context for "p" has to be expressed as law in terms of it wider lawfulness or as suitable for expressing as legislation a law or a policy (in the end as universal legislation universal legitimacy). Making his work is pure Hegel in that praxis must sublate all context into universal law. That is as prohibitions (negations) and what is "outside" this prohibition space is also to be transformed and reason made explicit as rules into into prohibitions or not prohibited. they privilege the negative space of legislative prohibition over the already and prior "belonging in" space in Kant they privilege a representational phenomena semantics with a nominal from of life. Life for the left is always under process of legislative reconstruction a process and praxis to institutionalise life out of what they think of as only the negative space of legislations, or of a legislation to come. Then the connection between "who's round is it" and shouting a "fire" in a cinema makes perfect sense legislatively.
    1
  6. on the proposal for a Christian Church version of natural law as opposition to the lefts post modern morality which it isn't really of course its got the structure of natural law so is neither postmodern or a morality. Well apart from just creating the kind internecine conflict in ground and between institutions, wont such a praxis jsut reproduce the same phenomena and action of the left. What do you do with the fornicators and single mothers etc etc etc. Now that seems like a lefty legalist inflation by me, but i have known many Christians and they all think institutionally and in terms of laws and rules and absolutes and go on their own mission of tyranny and destruction of tradition "the context that affords drinking and smoking is to be removed". They were clever how the left and the Christians came together to try and get rid of all the Bars. For the left they facilitated drinking and risk to women, for the Christians they wanted the Bar space for their own sinister projects. Probably burning Beatles records or i guess a now deleting a Song file on an i phone is not as dramatic a spectacle as a record burning. So probably need to re think the praxis on this one.
    1