I think part of the problem is the terms being used, some baggage on a few that seems to be causing confusion.
You are essentially talking about referencing a standard, right? You accept the initial subjectivity of whether or not someone values morality or reason, but once they do there are certain standards they are agreeing to operate from that do not change based on l subjective whims?
Is that right?

I think you are talking about two different things, and thats why it seems confused fiction to you.

There's nothing else to talk about, though. — Terrapin Station

There is though, and thats what other people are talking about when you think (or pretending to think) they are talking about the subjective premiss.

You are just referencing back to the subjective premiss. Sure, if you dont want to be consistent, or be rational, or operate within reason then there is nothing that forces you to do so. These are things that are subjective, choices based on how you feel about something if that's the way you want to put it.
Im not talking about that, and I dont S is either.

I don’t think either of them are referencing an objective world with desires/subjective feeling, but rather an objective standard that makes sense from a premise or axiom.
So you are focused on how one values or feels about, say, not dying. They are talking about what makes sense (regardless of feeling) with the subjective value as the premise or axiom. Once you (subjectively) determine the value of not dying, certain things either make sense to that end or do not, and can be correct or incorrect on whether it leads to dying.
In moral terms, replace “not dying” with something like “flourishing well being of mankind” or “maximum happiness”. Even if you think those terms are nebulous, what is meant by each can be refined case by case and what it means to achieve or service that premise either makes sense or it doesnt.

Because anti-Clinton people are not called bigots, and anti Islamic people are called bigots. People would get banned for the latter, not the former. Since we were talking about banning, naturally I would be focusing on the islam bit.
Why? I don’t understand what you are trying to imply.

The former, but I didn't the see the error. S pointed it out already lol

So what about that bartricks guy? Why hasnt he been banned yet?

:lol:
Fuck you lol

Seemed like all he did was spam, made worse by his anti-discussion attitude. Like that guy who started the moral subjectivity thread. He banned yet?
I find people prosthetising to be much more intolerable than speaking out against islam as part of some conspiracy theory.

THAT got him banned? Not his ceaseless topic spamming and discussion killing soapboxing?
Islam is the magic word I guess?

Well first, I am not convinced anything is any different in a delayed response as you describe. That you find it funny is still involuntary, your not deciding to find it funny or unfunny just because it takes longer to process.
Second, even if that were the case that would just be noticing a particular kind of joke that didnt have an involuntary reaction. Unless you want to now claim that laughter is never an involuntary reaction, then you still have to deal with that in your view.
Would you agree that thus far you havent dealt with it?

Then HE is the jerk.

Doesn’t matter, again the salient point is that its involuntary (at times).
Are you now changing your mind about laughter at least some of the time being involuntary? I don’t even think it compromises your point of view to accept it is here honestly. It doesnt mean you cannot still be against hate speech bans, it just means you can’t say speech has no influence over actions without contradiction. So just incorporate it, recognise that in some cases speech can in fact influence certain kinds of actions, just not the kind people have in mind when they claim hate speech causes violent action.

Well thats not fair at all, what the fuck am I supposed to do with a name like “S”?! No play on words when it just 1 letter. What a jerk.

Maybe, sure. The point is that in at least some instances of joke/laughter, it is involuntary. Thats what you have to deal with in your view, imo. Your going to have to incorporate that fact into your view somehow.

Think about when you don’t understanding the joke initially, but “get it” later. You’ve heard the words but your understanding fails to evoke the response of laughter until a later time, mich after the fact, when you finally understand it. — NOS4A2

Yes, I anticipated this and used the word “can”.... it CAN be an involuntary response. My point stands I think.

So are you for people dying in car accidents? Thats the implication. You like people dying? Thats the implication of your views on the speed limit, people dying.
So if im for terrorism, you are for people dying. (So am I, by implication of my views on terrorism which are implied by my views on hate speech).
I think you are smart enough to know that we can both get silly with that so lets not.
Where we disagree is the level at which hate speech informs violent behaviour. You think its a big factor, I think its small, negligible.
I have another, more practical view of why we shouldn't have hate speech laws...I think its wiser to let those people speak so they stay out in the open where I can see them.
And then the third reason I dont believe in hate speech laws is because I do not trust that the mechanism will not be abused once in place, by people who see it as a tool of control.
Knock those 3 down and I will have to re-evaluate my position, though one at a time would be best I think. Wanna pick one, or are they so dazzling YOU are going to re-evaluate YOUR position? :joke:

Hypnotism doesn't force people to do anything, or even to feel anything other than a light separation from activities. That's my understanding of it anyway, so I wouldn't include it as a difficulty for your view. Things like laughter do though.
And um, your welcome I guess? Lol

Laughter can be an involuntary response. There are other such responses from speech of certain kinds aa well. How have you factored these into your view?

Well we’ve just been over it haven't we? Am I remembering wrong?
Ok, let me answer to that then. Sorta.
Are you in favour of a speed limit of 50km, or whatever the speed limit is where you live?

Oh come on! Lol
You did that in purpose. Is the influence of speech on a spectrum?

Ok, so what about in the case of laughing at a joke? (Or other emotional reactions to words). How does that factor into your view?

Ok, so as to whether the influence of speech is a spectrum...yes, but your free speech absolutism is based on other things than whether or not its on a spectrum. Is that right?
(Or just “is influence on a spectrum?”..thats what I want to know most.)

Right, hence my pre-apology. Alot was said by alot of people so I just wanted to confirm as the essentially same discussion starts up again.
Also, I didnt say anything about force, I was asking about influence. I think we agree speech doesnt compell/force anyone to commit acts of violence.

So you seem to imply that there is a spectrum of influence, is that fair to say? If there is a spectrum, why would you be a free speech absolutist? Is it because you associate too high a cost with any limits on free speech? (Sorry, can’t recall if you addressed this somewhere in that other thread).

Then you're for acts of terrorism, like those committed by acolytes of Anjem Choudary, the infamous preacher of hate speech who influenced their later actions and was sentenced to years in prison as a result. You're suggesting that that's a cost which you're willing to accept. — S

No Im not for ACTS of terrorism. Anyway, we’ve been through this. I cannot remember how much of my views we went over, but I remember yours so im good on you repeating it yet another time.

Ok, so those measurable effects do not include reactions in others? Is that right?

K gotchya. :up:

I don't care about you saying that words have zero power over human beings when that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You've been given a million examples evidencing this, and any response from you which just misinterprets that claim as I understand it is just missing the point. — S

What do you mean by “power”, that makes it sound like a compulsion of some kind, is that what you mean?

Again, I don’t think there are any effects of speech beyond the measurable. I believe humans have agency, not the words. We act upon words and not the other way about. — NOS4A2

That doesnt really answer my question. Perhaps I could have framed it better, but remember Im not for censorship, even of hate speech.
Agency is not what Im asking about. Lets use your terms: do you think that there are any measurable effects of speech? If so, then have you considered that what we are talking about here (in this thread) is something that involves both the speaker and the listener?

Is there a middle ground you would consider, where the speaker and listener both contribute to the effects of speech? This would be an alternative explanation as to why speech effects peoples actions sometimes and other times not rather than explaining that as you are doing. (Saying that speech never effects peoples actions).

Maybe not, always hard to tell. Regardless, complete waste of time. I dont think its how wedded he is to his argument though, there is something else going on there.
I don't know what's wrong with him and I don't really care, Im just irritated that so many are acting as though its a discussion, its not. My motivation is purely selfish, lets get back to something interesting for me to read over :razz:

I suspect a 4chan high level troll or somesuch, work has gone into the illusion I alluded to.
Ill grant that it was a pretty good fake (suckered in two of the more high level posters), but surely we’ve had a good enough look now?

We’ve had enough of this guy now...right? I understand that he presents a philosophical puzzle that tempts that philosophical part of the brain that brings us all here but its an illusion.
Please, in the name of baby jeebus and Almighty Oprah above, someone please tell me Im not the only one who sees that?!
Its an illusion, both his argument, and the thought that this guy is going to listen. Illusion. Seems real...not real.
Anyone?

Whats stopping you from just ignoring them on your own?

I think you are wrong on that, I dont think religious apologisers know how it sounds. I don’t even think some of them realise they are exercising apologetics. Its just that entrenched and familiar they are already well on the road before they have a chance to question the sense of it all.

Agreed, pretty lame none the less. My point is, its ignorance (of logic and the new testament Shimshir, Im not making a generalisation about you being an ignorant person about everything) rather than delusion. Ignorance at least can be corrected, I have no remedy for delusion.

Ok, but surely you see how (and why, obviously) he is using a diluted definition from which his point follows? Wrong, but not non-sensical. What I mean is, his point follows from his admittedly faulty way of defining “Christian” but thats not the same as the contradictory or nonsense you are comparing it to.
You understand the point he is trying to make right? He is making a no true Scotsmen fallacy, but not spouting complete nonsense.

Ok, but I hope by extending that courtesy you will in turn do me the courtesy of answering my question.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on Earth: I came not to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be those in his own household.

Mathew 10.34

There are loads of immoral such passages, contrary to what most Christians think. I could do more, but a proper google search should be able to get a bunch of them for you.
So, the counter-argument will be some sort of bending over backwards interpretation of Jesus meaning “enlightenment” rather than “sword” or that the passage is about uniting people under god rather than dividing families and turning the against each other. Ridiculous, but fine, ill just grant that its open to interpretation.
What makes yours the correct one?