Senal

They could just be deeply confused about how a conversation generally works?

Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you'll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.

Prove that god exists and i'll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.

Just so we're clear, faith isn't proof, in fact its definition is almost universally "belief, in the absence of proof"

Lots of people believing also doesn't equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”

Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that "would or would not allow" something then we can get on to the conversation part.

Just in case there's any confusion, i'm all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.

Note the "organised", it's important.

Also the "religions are just socially acceptable cults" train.

It might seem like I'm on two trains but in reality it's a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it's basically a complete overlap.

See the above.

The above wasn't addressing any of the points so I'm not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.

Just in case it's unintentional, I'll try again, but with more describing.

The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with "belief" in a being.

One of those things is a "being"/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or "construct".

Also the first "quote i used" was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.

So you'd be good with phrases such as "God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time" to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people's shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn't make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

"God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

vs

"Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time"

That's reasonable

it's Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he's actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn't necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the "stereotypical white guy" dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I'd imagine that's why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?

if someone pointing out that you are saying "fact" but aren't meeting any of the definitions of a fact seems like an attack to you i suspect you're probably having a bad time on the internet. Again you dodge most of the actual points of the conversation, probably intentionally.

Also i'm pretty sure "Fucking lmfao." has a redundant "Fucking" in it , but I'm not holding my breath on you caring about that given how this has gone so far.

Doesn't seem like this is going to go anywhere interesting, so I'll just add you to the blocklist and be happy nothing of value(to me) was lost.

Here is one example

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I mean you can just find in page for "United States"

Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.

The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.

I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we've skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.

I'll just assume you don't have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.

Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.

edit: added answer to your question

Did you mean to reply to me? Or the person above?

Describe what you mean by "freedom of speech" here, I'm assuming you don't mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).

Given the above I'm not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?

You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it "fact" i suppose, but it's not really accurate unless it's an actual fact.

Unless accuracy isn't what you were going for ?

In case you were wondering : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact