No.

So you think that it is so obvious that procreation is ethical that any argument that leads to the contrary conclusion must have a false premise? — Bartricks

No, you're putting words in my mouth. The conclusion of anti-natalism is that it's immoral to have children. There are justifiable grounds to reject that conclusion. I do think that it's obvious to most what those grounds are. It's probably obvious to anti-natalists, too, although they'd of course deny that it's justifiable grounds.

That's similar to the intuition, again widely felt, that there is something immoral about homosexual relations. — Bartricks

No it isn't.

So you're not claiming that any academic source suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism? — Terrapin Station

I'm claiming that anyone with half a brain can work out the implications of what the judge was saying, and that your typical response of requesting an explicit statement which you know isn't there in the quote is just a lame workaround to avoid conceding.

I find your tactic of trying to gain the upper hand in this debate by making unreasonable requests of very specific and explicit statements of your choosing, and then treating the lack of compliance as some sort of defeat, frankly ridiculous. You're just grasping at straws to avoid conceding.

Nah, it's just your comprehension skills are shite. — Janus

Nah, it's that you repeatedly make the same error of wording statements stronger than is warranted, then get called out, then backtrack.

You'll probably do it again in the next ethics discussion. You remind me of a puffer fish.

I don't recall this topic being discussed from just this angle before. As presented here by Matias it's not antinatalism per se — Janus

It's just anti-natalism with a different premise. The conclusion in itself warrants rejection.

I said I think there is a continuum between constraint and freedom, I didn't say I know the will is partly free. — Janus

Okay, Mr. Pedantic. Then why do you think that?

To you it may "seem" that determinism is "more supportable". That says more about you than anything else. — Janus

Yes, it says that it seems to me that it's more supportable for reasons x, y, z, and your reply says that you were in a petty and unhelpful mood at the time you came up with that response.

So the judge suggested that prohibiting some speech would help us control terrorism? Was that in his written decision? — Terrapin Station

Anyone with half a brain can work out the implications of what he was saying.

I think it’s fine if you want to remain ignorant of what he says. But I would rather know, personally, mostly so I can combat his ideas. — NOS4A2

So you'd rather have his speech published to a wide audience, which is exactly what he wants. And if, out of that audience, a number of people are converted to his ideology, and maybe even go on to commit serious crimes in the name of that ideology, then that's alright with you.

Yes, hate speech laws have little if anything to do with terrorism. — NOS4A2

What on earth are you saying "yes" to? Are you talking to yourself? Because I said nothing of the sort.

But censoring someone like Choudary leaves us all ignorant of his extremism. — NOS4A2

No, it wouldn't. Think it through. The media publishes news about censored content all the time. We don't need to know the full details of his hate speech to be informed that he committed that crime.

So what evidence is there that having hate speech restrictions controls anything about terrorism? — Terrapin Station

Do you think that you know better than the judge that presided over the court case of Anjem Choudary?

Sorry old chap, it appears I beat you to the punch in my edit.

But a cat without arms is not. Unless it doesn't have legs either, in which case it is a snake, as Professor S has so perspicaciously noted. — T Clark

Yes. And a slug is just a tiny, toothless snake. Or a tiny, toothless cat with no arms or legs. Which is a different way of saying the same thing.

The US has no hate speech laws and less terrorist incidents than the UK.
The UK has hate speech laws and more terrorist incidents than the US. — NOS4A2

And that's not enough of a basis to reasonably draw any relevant conclusion. If we didn't have hate speech laws in the U.K., then we might have had even more terrorist incidents. And if the U.S. had've had hate speech laws, then they might've had even less.

The idea isn't that intelligence work would be infallible. — Terrapin Station

I know. The idea is to prevent terrorism, and where intelligence work can and does fail, there are other potential means.

Again, there's zero evidence that controlling hate speech would have anything to do with controlling terrorism. — Terrapin Station

No, there's not zero evidence, there's zero evidence that you're willing to acknowledge as evidence because you're biased.

Terrorism isn't the primary problem we've had in the U.S. over the past 20-25 years anyway. It's violence related to other crimes (the illegal drug trade, gangs, etc.) and loony locals who want to shoot up folks for all sorts of reasons . . . or no reason at all in some cases. — Terrapin Station

Whether that's true or false, it's irrelevant. It doesn't have to be the "primary" problem.

Intelligence work seems to be doing the job fairly well. — Terrapin Station

Intelligence work failed to prevent the acts of terrorism mentioned in The Guardian article, whereas the enforcement of hate speech law at an earlier stage might have done.

You're talking about me, aren't you? :smirk:

You've offered no constructive criticism. Could hate speech legislation be improved? Possibly. And the way to go about that would be to get expert advice and then to build a case. A bunch of complete amateurs discussing the matter on a philosophy forum isn't going to achieve anything. You mentioned criticism of Israel being misconstrued as hate speech. And this is based on what exactly? Your personal opinion? We have procedures in place for the reporting of alleged crimes, for law enforcement, for courts, sentencing, appeals. It isn't simply a matter of opinion. Your little anecdotes are worthless, and have no bearing on anything. Get a sense of perspective.

And since when doesn't "already expressed umpteen times" apply to 84.23% of the threads on the forum. — T Clark

It's 84.25%, actually.

I'd try to prevent terrorist attacks in some ways, not in other ways. — Terrapin Station

Right, so in your world, law enforcement is out of the window with regard to terrorist inspiring hate speech produced by the likes of Anjem Choudary, Tommy Robinson, and Jayda Fransen, so you'd do what exactly? Ask them kindly to stop?

I thought you might know where, thanks for the charitable interpretation of my question not request and the sweet message, role modeling future discourse for us all. — Coben

You're welcome. :ok:

Sure. I believe what I said was [that] it was not so simple. You couched the issue in utterly simplistic binary terms. — Coben

I put it just fine, and you responded with unconstructive worries. "Ooh, but what if the wording isn't quite right?", "Ooh, but what if someone interprets it all funny like?", "Ooooooh...". :scream:

The alternative is when discussing the issue to not make it all simple and binary. — Coben

Writing laws is best left to professionals, not members of a philosophy forum. There's hardly a better example than if it was down to someone like Terrapin Station.

I would want to see what is considered inciting hatred. — Coben

Then look up the case history. I've already given examples. What more do you want? Here's an idea: why don't you do your own research?

With a stress on that verb and also to see how the courts would or would not let the law slide or expand over time before couching the options we have in such simplistic terms you did. I have seen the way, for example, criticism of Israel gets turned into hate speech as anti-semitism and I have seen policies at universities that shut out vast swathes of potential and actual dialogue. I have seen people with economic concerns about immigration labelled racists, including immigrants who had those concerns, and seen them lose jobs. (I am in a European country right now though ex pat american.)

I worked in an organization that had a similar policy, though broader, including gender and sexuality and religion. I was appointed the person to deal with complaints. It certainly did help in some situations, but it became clear that almost everything was open season and I was pressured to censor and censure people who, I felt, were not inciting hatred against groups, but one could interpret the rule to include their speech acts.

Just to be preemtive: just because I say these things does not mean there should be no law. This is all in response to your simplistic version of the options. — Coben

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, if you're arrogant enough to think that you can do better, then be my guest. But there's no way that I'd trust that responsibility to you over the actual professionals whose job it is to come up with this sort of legislation.

Page number thirty-find-it-yourself.

I don't think it's so simple. You gotta word that law and then the courts wil interpret it and it will change over time and interpretations will vary. Why doesn't the pro-limitation side come up with a version of the law and we can see what that might lead to. — Coben

It doesn't need to be foolproof. It just has to work well enough, which it has done in securing convinctions like that of Jayda Fransen and others. What's the alternative? Have nothing in place because it isn't perfect? And Isaac has cited the definition in full multiple times now.

But he's making perfect sense. Allow me to relay his argument for free will:

You know how ships travel behind the horizon and back, and that that implies that the earth is roughly spherical, and not flat?

Yeah, well free will's just like that.

See? I've convinced you, haven't I?

You two are on a bit of a tangent, anyway. Forget about noise complaints and plaid shirts for just a minute.

The crux of the matter is whether or not you're in favour of the major benefit of preventing terrorist attacks and other serious crimes, at the minor "cost" of not being free to spread condemnable hate speech.

The crow and the vampire are insane enough to be against, and are stubborn enough to ardently resist having the good sense to ever change their minds on the matter, whilst the rest of us do not block out what reason and common sense have to say on the matter, and are therefore in favour.

That's all there is to it. Finito.

That's an incorrect bias, as it firstly doesn't have to be invented, secondly it would be proposed, not invented, and lastly an innate understanding isn't something limited to the human species. — Shamshir

Perhaps I should ask my cat about free will then, given your reluctance.

I haven't. I told you, and you can quote me, it's an innate understanding with basis in observations that should be plainly obvious. — Shamshir

We can forget about the appeal to funny feelings, or "innate understandings", as you call them. Just get on with describing these observations and put together a valid argument with them as a premise.

To use the ship example - you observe ships hind and forth the horizon; and you either get what it means, or you don't.
No amount of analysis is going to change that; which I also implied earlier on. — Shamshir

I'm not questioning the shape of the earth. Get on with it. I haven't got all day. Things to see, people to do.

8. Oysters, irritation, pearls. — csalisbury

Pearl necklace!

It's not a funny feeling but a logical observation. Like how ships traveling behind the horizon and back would imply the world is rounded. — Shamshir

You've changed your tune. I thought that it was an "innate understanding", i.e. a funny feeling. Those are your words, and I don't see why my interpretation of them is really any different, in practical terms. What's the difference? I have an innate understanding that ghosts are real. I have a funny feeling that God exists. And so on.

If it's logical, then you should be able to put together an argument in logical form. But you haven't done so in response to my enquiries. I have no reason to believe that it's anything like your example about the shape of the earth. You don't even have a premise, do you? What's the observation that's supposed to be like that of observing ships travelling behind the horizon and back?

I do, on the other hand, have reason to believe that it's like the meme above.

Will?!?

A fully determined world is fully mechanical; it doesn't support will. — Shamshir

Then there would only be what seems to be will, but isn't. And that's the point: from what you've said about the idea of free will, you don't really know that we have it, but are just going by a funny feeling you have.

If you had read my post (not only the title) you would have seen that the content and the arguments are different from those made in the context of "antinatalism". — Matias

It's not drastically different. Anyone with extreme enough views about climate change will agree, and anyone who is already an anti-natalist for different reasons already expressed umpteen times will agree with the conclusion, and the rest of us will have the exact same opinion on the matter which has also been expressed umpteen times before, and can easily be looked up.

I would not cry. — Matias

That's a shame. I wanted to lick the tears from your face to see what misery tastes like.

Do you really expect newbies to scroll through thousands of thread titles to check if the this topic has already been discussed? — Matias

No, not thousands. The search function narrows it down considerably, and in this case, you only have to scroll down to the end of the homepage to find a discussion on anti-natalism.

Also, section d) under "Starting new discussions" in the Site Guidelines states:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are:

d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active.

Oh for goodness' sake, not another one. Just read the numerous discussions on this topic that we already have.

I'm having trouble finding good uses of the law that would show why it's necessary to be honest. — Baden

As mentioned earlier, the case of Anjem Choudary.

It says that he was convicted of terrorism offences, because they were obviously going to nail him for a more severe crime if they could, but it's hate speech.

It’s well worth reading the remarks delivered by the judge in Choudary’s sentencing. Despite only finally falling foul of the law after being found to have pledged support to Isis, Holyrode points out that Choudary used his platform to spread his messages of division and violence long before he was arrested. Choudary is said to have “taken every opportunity to address audiences by various means”. He said to Choudary: “You wanted to address a large audience because you know that you were held in high regard by your followers, and that they could therefore be expected to be influenced by what you said.”

“Those who already held views in favour of Isis would no doubt have been encouraged and strengthened in those views by what you said, and that in itself makes your offending serious; but you were also aiming at a wider audience,” the judgment continues.

Choudary’s views, and more importantly his ability to communicate and share them, led to his extremism being propagated. What’s more, we know they contributed to encouraging others to engage in acts of indiscriminate, abhorrent violence. He was linked to one of the men who killed the soldier Lee Rigby, and the London Bridge attacker, Khuram Butt. His words are said to have influenced at least 100 British jihadists. — The Guardian

From here.

And from the same article linked above, with regard to Darren Osbourne, perpetrator of the Finsbury Park mosque terrorist attack:

Police say it took just three or four weeks for Osborne’s extremism to emerge – evidence from devices he used show that he accessed posts by Tommy Robinson, Britain First and others. — The Guardian

And oh, look:

Tommy Robinson banned from Facebook and Instagram over hate speech

Jayda Fransen: Ex-Britain First deputy leader convicted over hate speech

I think there is a continuum between constraint and freedom. It is not a black and white polarity. — Janus

Okay, so you also think that will is only partly free. Can you do any better than Shamshir at providing an acceptable basis for how you supposedly know this to be the case? The determined part seems more supportable, whereas this idea of free will seems only to warrant scepticism at best.

A cat with arms is a fucked up cat. — Hanover

Your cat has yet to evolve arms?

A cat with no arms and legs is a snake.

Lol. I wish I would have thought of that, to be honest. — NOS4A2

Thought of what?

No, you were supposed to reply, "That".