One thing that goes unspoken is, if you have a great reputation it can't be harmed by a single individual! This single individual only harms himself when he spreads lies about someone with a great reputation. We have all been around the contention spreader and we try to avoid them. The lie spreader only hurts himself.
This could be true, however the shock of what's said and the psychological tactics to further that statement beguile the listener into obedient acceptance and worship. Claim some current social talking point as your crutch and the mob will swoon no matter how obtuse the lie.
Have you seen the Atlas Society's pages on "Rage and Objectivism" or "Open Objectivism"? If so, what are your thoughts after reading them? Objectivism is closed in what sense? That the basics are unquestionable? For some context, I am not entirely sure about this topic. I am leaning towards the closed system, but I have not in all my years exposed to Objectivism, paid much attention to this.
If I'm upset about someone for spreading truth about me, to bad. If my reputation is being hurt because someone is telling the truth about me then it is I who have hurt my own reputation. If I'm loosing business because a customer of mine is telling others how I screwed him over then it is I who has lost my own business for screwing my customers. What's so hard about that?
Wouldn't it be easy to just insure your reputation? Then the insurance companies are obliged to either pay for the losses or try to restore your reputation when someone spreads a false rumor about you.
This is a perfect example of how and why everything is so fouled up in our country. It's simple don't lie about someone in writing or in speech. As long as your speech or writing is true then the 1st amendment should apply. If one is upset about someones writing or speech to bad unless that someone is writing lies or speaking lies. What's so hard about that?
I would say Criminal Libel is going way pass the line in regards to Censorship. With Civil Libel it would be an option if Actual Damages can be Proven, tho I wouldn't encourage it and should be reserved for the more egregious cases
32:30 "Speech ought to be free, period." And so should consequences. You are an agent of deceptive understanding, and if you were the start of the removal of corporate liability, you should be jailed for life.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
One thing that goes unspoken is, if you have a great reputation it can't be harmed by a single individual! This single individual only harms himself when he spreads lies about someone with a great reputation. We have all been around the contention spreader and we try to avoid them. The lie spreader only hurts himself.
This could be true, however the shock of what's said and the psychological tactics to further that statement beguile the listener into obedient acceptance and worship. Claim some current social talking point as your crutch and the mob will swoon no matter how obtuse the lie.
Have you seen the Atlas Society's pages on "Rage and Objectivism" or "Open Objectivism"? If so, what are your thoughts after reading them? Objectivism is closed in what sense? That the basics are unquestionable?
For some context, I am not entirely sure about this topic. I am leaning towards the closed system, but I have not in all my years exposed to Objectivism, paid much attention to this.
If I'm upset about someone for spreading truth about me, to bad. If my reputation is being hurt because someone is telling the truth about me then it is I who have hurt my own reputation. If I'm loosing business because a customer of mine is telling others how I screwed him over then it is I who has lost my own business for screwing my customers. What's so hard about that?
Wouldn't it be easy to just insure your reputation? Then the insurance companies are obliged to either pay for the losses or try to restore your reputation when someone spreads a false rumor about you.
What do you think about that expulsion? Is objectivism "open" or "closed"?
This is a perfect example of how and why everything is so fouled up in our country. It's simple don't lie about someone in writing or in speech. As long as your speech or writing is true then the 1st amendment should apply. If one is upset about someones writing or speech to bad unless that someone is writing lies or speaking lies. What's so hard about that?
I would say Criminal Libel is going way pass the line in regards to Censorship. With Civil Libel it would be an option if Actual Damages can be Proven, tho I wouldn't encourage it and should be reserved for the more egregious cases
32:30 "Speech ought to be free, period."
And so should consequences.
You are an agent of deceptive understanding, and if you were the start of the removal of corporate liability, you should be jailed for life.