What exactly are you trying to say here? What are the ontological underpinnings? Is this just semantics? A definition isn't any less "wrong" than a fact. Is the scientific consensus on gender going to boomerang back to being synonymous with sex in the next decade? Is the current thinking regarding this topic really that tentative?
Freedom of speech and freedom are two things that do not exist, despite what people may think.
trendingpolitics.com
I am saying that a definition cannot be right or wrong, it is a question of consensus, while a fact can be right or wrong and even if most people agree on it it might be wrong.
There are societies with more free speech and societies with less free speech, so it exists.
Why does this kind of point need to be emphasized when the people who'd prefer to deny people rights and dignity in life do not care about facts, definitions, or science in the first place?
The fact that you had to say "more" proves my point.
Because you make it easier for them to strenghten their view. If you leave the basis of facts yourself and just use definitions or claims like "my body my choice" or "transwomen are women", then you are going into a field where facts do not matter, and that makes it easy for those who want to ignore facts anyway to fight against you.
No. It does not. Obviously, the fact that some countries are bigger and some are smaller implies that countries have size, while some countries being more free than others implies there is such a thing as freedom.
Yes I would need to say more, because there is a scale to it with more than two states.
Show me where this is effective?
There is freedom of speech somewhere just as much as it is hot somewhere.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Long term, facts usually prevail. For example, the case against hitting children became far more effective when science started suggesting its negative effects on children. The debate was not "it is mean" anymore, which is just a moral statement, it was that it has provably bad effects on children, which led doctors, teachers and generally the people who educate them and later politicians to reconsider, even tho a lot of the people still believed it is ok to do so.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
You said there's freedom of speech, yet you keep saying "more" and can't give me any evidence or a place that does have freedom of speech.
Usually, if we go by history, republicans are elected, and the economy goes down, often by a lot, whereas democrats that come after them manage to get the economy back up. "SoCiAlIsM bAd" saved USA from total ruin, when FDR came into power, and even the silly "pull yourselves by your bootstraps!" people ended up doing what he wanted Americans to do, and they benefitted from it.im expecting 4 future:
2024-2028 republicans elected, nothing good happens for 4 years, slow spreading DEPRESSION.
2028-2036 democrats elected, does nothing good short or long term, economy CRASHES, standard of living drops, no climate action, political polarization and many go crazy due to depression from staring at screen 24/7 and crazy radical democrat ideas,etc .
2036-2038 Rapid deterioration of United States. GREAT DEPRESSION! No one working cus socialist/communist takeover and/or civil war. Climate change has gotten too bad, debt stunts the growth of the economy that is already destroyed, No one goes to school, population is too high for equal adequate amounts of healthcare/housing but too low for significant labor. Major increase in democrats and crime destroying everything! Mass immigration destroying the culture and spirit of The 50 States and turning USA into 3rd world country.
2038-2042 America COLLAPSES bringing down the rest of the world and/or Nukess!