Two essential lines of expostulations permeate this focus. Firstly, there is the assertion that Skepticism contradicts itself. A true Skeptic cannot possibly assent to a doctrine or system, and by this notion, cannot engage in any form of explicitness. Whatever a Skeptic may intend to state would contradict his or her own sense. The Skeptic must engage in a life out of the sphere of discourse only to let the philosophers guide discussion that may influence the State whether they or by proxy of other members of the political class.
Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority . While hate speech should be better understood, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases. hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there is a discussion if free speech should protect it. The main opposition against free speech being an
Where do I draw the line between these two things? It is not so easy technically, just like one cannot tell what exact moment the line is between day and night. This is pretty much personal call. But if one was to define a generic understanding of where is the line, he would say that any free speech becomes hate speech the moment anyone's expressions and supporting actions during so called free speech threaten and or antagonize the existence of party being made fun of. One can keep n number of opinions judgmental about others, express them as disapproval but the moment one denies their right to exist in its own world, he is hate speech.
These differences between particular communities that Walzer identifies may explain why we have the right as a political community i.e nation, to exclude and decide who can enter the country/community, and in addition explain the responsibilities that we have to asylum seekers (1983:35-36). Political communities he states is not like the family community because the political community will defend your rights and your citizenship but your family cannot defend these rights
They came up with contradicting conclusions about morality. One of it was their stand about moral rules in the way which different communities also govern its people in different ways. For me, an example of which is that (The way how ‘community X’ govern its people is way too different with the way how ‘community Y’ govern its peo-ple; therefore the way how ‘community X’ govern its people is not and will never be applicable in the ‘community Y’). Sophists also believe that moral rules are unnatural because the Sophists noticed that people only obey the moral rules for the fact that they can only be judged afterwards if they would not follow it. My example for this theory is that: (The government said that piracy is a crime and that people must not commit this mistake, meanwhile, some people doesn’t really want to obey it but because of the fact that they would be put into jail for this crime then they would come up with the decision to just follow the moral rule, morality in this sense is really unnatural.)
The topic of political correctness in communications deserves to be researched further in depth for many reasons. The first reason as to why political correctness is worthy of a study, is because it in itself has begun to isolate individuals.. While the initial intention of political correctness was to reject derogatory terms in order to create more respect for one another, it has ultimately made society more uncomfortable with people who fit the conditions of these politically charged terms. According to Gallagher (2013), “the effect of political correctness has been to make everyone avoid these topics altogether -- thereby hindering our ability to get comfortable in living and working with those who are different from us.” (para. 6).
Our racism here is institutionalised, it is a veiled racism, it is a racism considered taboo. Instead of discussing racism and fighting against it, our society began to fight against the idea that racism exists, as it would be much easier than dealing with the real problem. This makes me very sad about my country! Instead of questioning, it seems easier to forget that the problem exists, or simply give up the fight. Today’s we even ask ourselves more about the social ills that afflict us, but unfortunately, we are going through a dark period in which people who fight for a more just and egalitarian society are having their voices
In addition, technology should not be used up to the point that invading individual privacy even for security purpose. Though national security as a whole might seem more crucial than privacy, the right of every individual should be considered as more important for several reasons. First and foremost, to prevent the existence of excessive totalitarianism. According to , if the individuals knew their actions are being observed, most of them find it much harder to do anything that stand apart and different from others (Solove, 2014). Then, they tend to follow the social norm and force themselves to live under control of dictatorship.
Imagine a world where the content of literature was solely allegorical. I believe that it would affect our society and not allow us to be a fully functional human being. We would consume literature in such a way that we are unable to have the ability to convey our freedom of expression. The symbols and metaphors would guide us and formulate the proper procedure in how we should handle each circumstance that may arise, but that does not come without a cost—an illusion of choice. The allegory can be elusive and its ability to influence our existence tips the scale in favor of determinism over free will.
It can be concluded that exit is not a feasible option in response to a government policy as there might be possibility that an individual faces the same problem wherever he goes. India is a democratic country and people have right to choose the government. If something is not going correct in the body which itself is made by the citizens of this country, rather than leaving, people should choose to stay and fight back. This is because every decision made by this government indirectly points towards the decision made by the people at the time of