U missing my point entirely. How can a subjective experience of offence be hatespeach?
The method for evaluation is irrelevant. My argument is that a subjective experience can be anything by anyone.
My argument is not that its impossible to determine but thats since we disagree its impossible to reconcile hate speach and free speach for everyone our definitions of the 2 are different. Thus this answers ops question with a firm no its impossible. This conversion itself is proof. We are the counter example thus the alternative cannot be true. Proof by contradiction.
This is not how proof by contradiction works. And Iβm not versed enough in the subject of proofs to explain how.
Itβs not the subjective experience of the offended what makes it hate speech, but the perceived intention of the offender.
You havenβt answered any of my questions friend.
This is not how proof by contradiction works. And Iβm not versed enough in the subject of proofs to explain how.
Im trying to prove its impossible. I assumed that u can reconcile free/hate speach. We are arguing about what is hate speach thus proving we cant reconcile the concepts therefore the assumption cannot be true therefore it must be impossible.
βA proof by contradiction is a method of proving a statement by assuming the opposite statement is true, and then showing that this assumption leads to a logical contradiction.β - dr gpt
Itβs not the subjective experience of the offended what makes it hate speech, but the perceived intention of the offender.
hate speech noun [ U ]
public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):
- Cambridge dictionary
So its about the expression of hate by the speach itself not the intention or perception of either party.
This raises the question what is hate?
hate
verb [ I or T ]
to dislike someone or something very much:
- Cambridge dictionary
Misgendering someone is not an βexpression of dislike towards someone or something very muchβ as it is passing no judgement (well unless ur a sexist who sees sex/gender as a value judgement). Its not encouraging violence and its not doing any of this based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
You havenβt answered any of my questions friend.
None of ur questions are relevent to disproving my clear and concise logical argument. You have failed to address my argument the first time and i simply assumed i didnt explain it clearly enough hence why i ignored the questions that didnt relate to the argument itself and chose to explain my argument more clearly in what i though where simpler terms.
