That's really interesting and l agree with placing truth values on metaethic statements but I think that they belong to realm of logic and language . They are outside the domain of ethics in my opinion.

As I said previously, I won't criticize other countries that find their own ways of protecting speech.

Is it possible for the government to censor hate speech and protect all other forms of free speech. Yes, it is.
— Wittgenstein

No it isn't.

You are criticizing other countries for how they protect free speech, ( which includes banning hate speech) by
specifying it is impossible to ban hate speech and
enforce other forms of free speech.

How about having a matrice A.X=Y where A,X and Y have infinite number of rows and columns,X is the solution set which contains the secret, a row or a column in the matrix can specify the operations to perform on A to obtain A inverse. That can obviously be either transmitted via matrice element position or be a common understanding between the reciever and transmitter. This sounds really naive and stupid but l hope you can suggest improvements to using matrices in cryptography.

With certain assumptions/rules yes. So if something like "Lying is wrong" is a starting assumtion then

1. Yes, if we allow assumptions we can get far but we may end up confused when facing moral dilemma. Would you lie to a murderer knocking at your door inquiring about your family members ? Most people will lie in those circumstances because they weren't taking
"lying is wrong " as a principal or a true statement but as an emotive statement which can neither be true or false.

2. Do you think we can assign truth values to basic moral assumptions ?

I would divide emotivism into two further categories.
1.Overt emotivism regards the utterance of moral statements as attitudes in a descriptive form.
Hence the statement "killing is bad" is a description of the statement "l hate killing". So according to overt emotivist we can replace these two statements. This theory is really week in my opinion.
2.Covert emotivism may be a little tricky since they tend to replace hate,despise, fear etc with bad , evil , immoral and so on in moral statements but they do not express attitudes as you have mentioned rightly.

, it seems obvious to me that people don't just express an emotion when they make moral statements.

Mind you, you can obviously disagree with the distinction but l think it's useful ( at least for me ) .
Do you think covert emotivism is really common among public especially when they tend to defend some moral statements with ridiculous arguments. If it is common with public, academic are only good at hiding it and justifying the use of truth values.

It was the question you were asking i.e. ‘how can ‘God’ see if He doesn’t have eyes?’ To me, it conveyed incomprehension of the subject

" How does God see? " is a valid question as it allows us to understand the usage of "see" when describing attribute of God. If l told you someone is playing football without using legs, you would question the use of "play" here, as it may imply playing a video game, not the physical act itself. So, how does God see ?

yes, if you situate the discussion in the context within which the basic terms of metaphysics - being, essence, reality, contingency and necessity - are meaningful.

Are those terms meaningful according to you. If you suggest that their meaning changes with the change of domain of discourse. I would contend that such changes imply that the terms are falsely constructed ( either one domain has got it right or all are wrong) since they all point to single reality ,the world. Metaphysics covers the foundation of many empirical subjects and hence it is not purely a theoretical enterprise but a practical one, which tends to be misguided.

Your words don't convey any real understanding of religious discourse.

How is discussing the attributes of God irrelevant to religious discourse. How do you define religious discourse. Since you keep using the word discourse, can you justify the existence of different discourses for the same topic as legitimate on their own. Is it all language games and not real philosophical problems ?
In philosophy there is a grand underlying method of reasoning and the interaction of different discourse happens all the time and causes confusion.

But in the context of the Western intellectual tradition, really understanding metaphysics takes some education in the foundational texts, beginning with Plato, and then a lot of further reading. (There's a useful index here.) But it also takes quite a bit of understanding of cultural psychology and the history of ideas. For instance, that the 'scientific revolution' embodied a very specific metaphysical framework, in which our own culture is now so thoroughly embedded that it's almost impossible to see, because we always look through it, rather than at it.

Regarding the current metaphysics behind physics and natural sciences. Do you believe that the laws of science are the natural phenomena or an explanation of them. There was a philosopher who argued that there a many sets of system to explain the natural phenomena and science is just one of them. I think he was sick of scientism but l won't go as far as him.

I've thought about time a lot. So, I guess the questions is - is it real. Yes, I think it makes sense to think of it as real. We measure it. Other properties and behavior of matter and energy depend on it. We can manipulate physical phenomena and affect time. Look up the arrow of time or the direction of time. Wikipedia has a good summary as do other places. Personally, I am most comfortable with the thermodynamic explanation of the direction of time, although, as you'll see, there are many explanations which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If the measurements are affected by the relative motion between observer and an object, does that make it less real. Entropy of a closed system will increase with time but consider this thought experiment, suppose two observers, one at rest and the other moving relative to the system observe it, will there be a difference in the observed entropy at a particular instance for both observers ? However,the system is one and its entropy should be same regardless of the observers of it.I would like to discuss time with a philosophical bent.
What if time is a closed cycle in some way, and let's say a being outside time, like God would see us traveling through time but to him, there is no time. There is a starting point in time, and we maybe be moving along a closed curve and we can't really tell till we reach the beginning point again. It will be moving forward and at sametime backward in a sense. I hope it doesn't sound ridiculous.

I would definitely say it's a metaphysical question. I personally like my understanding of the Taoist understanding of existence. See below. But there are lots of other valid ways of see existence, depending on the context.

I can see my thinking on existence going along those lines, but l would replace toa with something else. It appears that the infinity possibility of beings in this world and the uniqueness of each being in a sense of being irreplaceable indicates that a transcendental being ( God) is trying to reveal himself to his creation and he allows the manifestation of his attributes. It is also difficult to understand his essence because it is beyond our comprehension and existence is of his essence. Hence the ultimate existence cannot be understood, it can only be believed in by those who want to. I feel that the driving force behind existence is always love, whether it be the love of the parents for their child or the love of an artist for his craft.

Whether or not there is free will is a metaphysical question. I've always thought it is a question whether or not it makes sense to hold ourselves and others responsible for our actions. Looking at my own life, I think it usually does. I recognize there are situations where it would make more sense not to.

We do consciously act and in a sense we tend to experience free will but the determinist believe that our brain has some sort of chain reaction due to cause/effect and we are not in control of this process. From stimulus and sense data to the thought process and finally the act itself are all interlinked in such a way that we do not participate actively. I think there is a middle ground between strict determinism and absolute free will.

As for the soul and God - things brings up a fly in my ointment. Religious issues are usually lumped in with metaphysics when I think it often doesn't make sense, e.g the existence of a God that exists independent of ourselves and the universe. That seems to me to be a matter of fact, and therefore does not belong as a part of metaphysics. On the other hand, I think the general question of whether it makes sense in some situations to think of the universe as a living, perhaps conscious thing is metaphysical question

After seeing countless debates on the existence of God, l can sense your frustrations. I think people believe in God for other reasons and using philosophy as hand maiden of religion will always create loopholes in the arguments and pointless debates. It belongs to metaphysics but as l far as l am concerned, it cannot be solved with reason.

You haven't mentioned anything about rules yet, l have given few objections on the process of making rules and following them.

Galois fields? Pick a prime power p^n and carry out all arithmetic modulo p^n. Approximately all algebraic structure that exists over infinite/countable will turn out undamaged!

The cryptography technique using weierstrass equations that you mentioned uses finite field , like galois field.
Can l redirect your question back to you, as to suggest a cryptography system from an infinite field.
I think it is possible to use an infinite field but more difficult than a finite field.

I think it is meaningful because it is the grounds upon which entire foundations are built. For instance determinists believe in causality and thats why we do not have

It can serve as the ground for physics or psychology for example but can metaphysics provide answers that can be verified logically since their verification by empirical means are not possible. However l think physics can stand on it's own and other fields too without the need of metaphysics, as its role is not essential but helpful.

For instance determinists believe in causality and thats why we do not have free will. If you refute causality you effectively refute determinism.

Casaulity as in how the brain is structured or the external influence from the world ? l believe that we have free will and l also believe in casuality. I don't think our mind works in a linear manner, it can handle and link both our choice with the chains of events that impress upon our mind.
Refuting causality is almost like trying to refute the existence of time, they are beyond our minds and we sort of need them as foundations for our mind to reason. It's like a computer trying to prove that software doesn't exist.

Its really difficult to pinpoint these words to a single definition and their usage too. What really matters is how we use them.

Maybe that would be true if metaphysical questions had true or false answers. They don't. Metaphysics is a matter of agreement, consensus. It's the rules we agree to play by.

If l am not mistaken, l think you are suggesting that discussions of metaphysics are language games. A lot of people would disagree with that stance and the scientific attitude usually adopted when discussing metaphysics explains that people do take certain answers as facts, for instance those people who believe that their soul exists besides their body and they believe in mind-body duality.
Unlike the rules of football and cricket which are clear and easy to follow around. Setting up rules when discussing metaphysical problems may not help that much.
Rules in of themselves are nothing. They can have different Interpretation and we cannot continue setting up rules on how to follow rules. Second of all, what kind of rules do you suggest and doesn't setting up rules restrict others to respond to you, as in some cases the rules are not justified with respect to the question. There are a lot of gaps to fill in the details. We should generalize this case and take it outside of the forum/OP stuff.

I would like you to respond to my examples or give your own examples and see how setting rules would help solving such problems. You should try rules that you find acceptable and those which you don't. You can also discuss the different approaches. Ironically defining terms in metaphysics will create another discussion since those words are at the center point of most problems.

It wasn’t just plain ol’ no, because that wasn’t the question he actually asked.

Let's not split hairs over this. It wasn't a simple no, he reasoned it out.In the present philosophical literature, there are countless references linking whether metaphysics is possible with Kant. It Kant be a mistake.
The question, whether metaphysics is possible did not end in how those questions arise but how it is impossible to find their solutions.

“...Yet, in a certain sense, this kind of knowledge is to be looked upon as given; that is to say, metaphysics actually exists, if not as a science, yet still as a natural disposition of the human mind.....(...) And so we have the question: "How is metaphysics, as a natural disposition, possible?" That is, how, from the nature of universal human reason, do those questions arise which pure reason propounds to itself, and which it is impelled by its own need to answer as best as it can?...”

No one here challenged its existence and Kant here is just beginning to answer why do we try to engage in metaphysics and how do we raise such questions and you haven't quoted his conclusion.

Metaphysics itself was never in doubt; metaphysics as a science, never was at all. The Critique’s whole raison d’etre was to determine under what conditions it could become one.

It could never become one due to limitations of human mind according to kant. You Kant deny that.

And yes, the discussion of metaphysics is meaningful, if kept within its proper domain.

It isn't really a problem of domain but the nature of questions, method and many other variables involved when discussing metaphysics.

There is a branch of philosophy called meta metaphysics.
It sounds funny but it is out there and really important.

First, a small irony - "Is discussing metaphysics meaningful ?" is a metaphysical question.

I think the question is partly metaphysical and partly linguistic in nature, it sort of transcends metaphysics, as
Kant asked a very similar question.

Is metaphysics possible ?

His answer was no.It is like Godels incompleteness theorem, it belongs to the logical system but at the same time comments on the nature of such systems and the limitations.

Rather than answer your specific examples, I'll make three comments. First - discussing metaphysics and epistemology has had a great influence on me intellectually. I'm an engineer. My job is to understand things and how I know what I know. Discussions here on the forum, including reading I've done at other members suggestion, have been enjoyable and eye-opening.

I am far from being an engineer but l think we all benefit from discussing philosophical problems and it certainly opens our mind.This question does not take into consideration the benefits derived from discussing metaphysical problems and l should have specified that, ironically l didn't. We usually argue for a certain theory when discussing a metaphysical problem and pretty much like a scientific theory, we try our best to improve it by giving relevant examples. Sometimes there is a fault with the topic we are discussing and if all approaches are equally right regarding the world, won't that be a contradiction as there is a single reality out there ?
Second of all, if all approaches have their own merit, why do we adopt a certain position when tackling metaphysical problems and does that mean 1000 years of philosophy was simply based on misunderstanding.

Second - most issues typically considered part of metaphysics are not matters of fact and aren't true or false, they are matters of viewpoint, approach, usefulness. Examples - free will vs. determinism; the existence of objective reality; the meaning of "truth."

I agree with you on this point but that raises some problems as l have mentioned above.The most common approach in tackling metaphysical theories is to adopt a scientific strategy, especially in english philosophy lately and try to pinpoint each terms, have them defined and that causes problems precisely because metaphysical objects are either falsely constructed or they do not need to have an objective reality attached to them.

Third - A lot of the issues you decry could be addressed if people would define their terms at the beginning of the discussion, preferably in the OP.

It can be more than just defining terms in some cases like l have mentioned above, people may never even agree on the terms to begin with and there are countless other problems too.

The confusion caused by language in philosophy was addressed by positivists. You stated that we should deal with problems rather than terms in which they are discussed. Like here below

Too much attention payed to the nature of words, not enough to the nature of the world.

The world is full of obscurantists.

Especially philosophy.

Avicenna? John Scotus Eriugena had a similar idea

It was ibn Arabi and l am actually surprised on the similarities between john and ibn arabi. Ibn arabi would go on and establish man as a microcosm, standing between God and creation. It was sufism and philosophy put together. He was condemned by literalist.

Metaphysics makes perfect sense within a domain of discourse. That is why for instance Thomism makes perfect sense for Christians.

I have a problem with that. Most abrahamic religion believe that God can see but since God is unlike any other creation as a creator, he is above comprehension. He sees without eyes and hears without ears. He exists but unlike creation, he is above space and time. Do they really understand the words see, hear and exist ( as used in the their expression) ?
Since how God does these things is unknown to them.
The domain of discourse allows people to use words which lack meaning and they often end up creating a fuss out of nothing.

Is it possible to resurrect the positivists from the 20th century. Did the positivist defeat themselves and do you agree with most of their ideas ?

I think pi is finite, as it is less than 4, even 3.15 is greater than pi.You can give a mathematical definition of a number.

They were narrow minded and that led to their downfall but can you briefly explain what they got wrong ?

Logical positivists were dumb ? :smile:

Not sure. For example, if there is a rewrite rule "x/0 = ∞" for x not zero, the symbol could start popping up in output expressions. If you feed that output expression into your function F(x), it depends on whether F will accept it as an argument, and if so, if can successfully associate an output to it. Not sure at all.

It won't since your language is a computer based language, you can only involve numbers or characters.
F(a)=F(b)=F(c)……………=1, F(abc)=3
F(abc) =F(a)+F(b)+F(c)
So inserting F(1/0) will be undefined not infinity.

rewrite rule: ab-->cd

Whether you want to replace --> with =, they are relations and quantification over infinite terms does not makes sense. That's my point.

It is just an example of an algebraic structure in which adding a concept of infinity keeps the entire system consistent. Otherwise, the domain has no identity element, and then is no longer a group.

I understand that cryptography requires an abelaian group for keeping all values of operations under the group but l can assure you the point at infinity is not related to infinity we are discussing here. There is no operation in solving weierstrass equations which involves the infinity symbol.

Therefore, it is a bit late in the game to argue whether extending a domain with the infinity symbol makes sense.

Finitist mathematics is not meant to discount the standard mathematics, we are just exploring a new world which is limited. Theory is more important than application

What is the standard definition of number ?

I hope you understand my point after reading this.
It explains my point.
Given that a mathematical extension is a symbol (‘sign’) or a finite concatenation of symbols extended in space, there is a categorical difference between mathematical intensions and (finite) mathematical extensions, from which it follows that “the mathematical infinite” resides only in recursive rules (i.e., intensions). An infinite mathematical extension (i.e., a completed, infinite mathematical extension) is a contradiction-in-terms.

What is the standard definition of number ?

Meaningful may not be the best word but in the context of philosophy, meaningful discussions use clear terms and the people have a common understanding of the usage of words. I don't think that is possible for a few reasons and examples given above.

The West will support free speech, the danger are "caveats" like hate speech which are misused. A dismantlement of free speech would certainly come under the guise of something like this and really, that's already happening. Most western countries do allow things like Islam to be criticised and etc but it's not hard to see that this is coming under threat, a problem, a concern, which wasn't there before.

That's why it is important to discuss hate speech. In the present day and age, we can see the rise of right wing political parties in many European countries and USA obviously. I don't think that would be a cause of restrictions placed on hate speeches. I am not saying that right wing politics is primarily linked to hate speeches but they do overlap. This may have been caused by a certain phobia of other cultures and also the negative interactions and the lack of integration from the minority or immigrants but in my opinion human race as a whole will one day cherish freedom of expression and the barriers which cause misunderstandings will be removed. Hate speech originates from a desire to suppress others and freedom of expression desires to liberate the human mind. If hate is lessened and tolerance builds in an ideal society, we may not need to ban hate speech as it would be rare.

I think you've understood our point, we don't claim there is no harm from what you call "hate speech," only that there is more harm, much more harm, from restricting it.

I never characterized disclosure of classified information as hate speech as you can see "There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm " . I used the phrase, another form of free speech. What l meant by harm wasn't equivalent to the harm done by hate speeches. If a document reveals certain military operations conducted by a country in which war crimes were committed. It harms the person in authority and it is well deserved a lot of the time. It may also damage the legitimacy of moral high ground of certain powerful people, again it is well placed. The benefit is always greater but in a different context. Hate speech does not carry any benefit and is harmful most of the time. I do understand your points but l don't agree with you on most of them.

Again, I think you've missed the point - restrictions against what you call "hate speech," perfect or imperfect, cause severe damage to the exercise of "unalienable rights." Imperfect would be better than perfect. Non-existent would be much better.

Is it possible for the government to censor hate speech and protect all other forms of free speech. Yes, it is.

Can the government censor legitimate free speech as the next step , once they censor hate speech. Yes , that's possible too.

That's why its important to know who you are voting for and to always know when the government is crossing the line. The public decides what is hate speech and the government implements restriction on it. That does not happen in a capitalist democracy because the reins of power are controlled by the capitalist. It does not happen in a authoritarian government for reasons obvious. In feudal democracy, as in most developing countries, that does not happen. However there are other possibilities such as socialist democracy where such legal maneuvering manages to preserve freedom of speech.
There are many western countries that do not allow hate speech and still manage to be safe havens for advocates of free speech.

When I look at the West today, it seems to me that free speech shouldn't be taken for granted at all. Criticising religions like Islam is already hard in many Western countries and that's just one example.

The choice of words here is really important. There are muslims who regard mockery of their religion to fall in category of hate speech and most of them allow criticism in an academic way, but many westerners regard mockery as also a part of criticism and in broader context, freedom of expression. Would you allow ISIS narrative in your country under the banner of free speech ?

Do not incite violence, don't compare a race of people to rodents and other extremes seem like easy bans. Why allow such rhetoric when it has no merit at all. It isn't that kind of stuff that I want to protect. Will people be allowed to criticise religions freely, will they be able to express their thoughts on gender honestly, will people be free to challenge the government on immigration policies. Some Western countries already consider some of those things to be hate speech.

I think we are on the same page, as you wouldn't mind banning racist speech or those which instigate violence.
But in my opinion, most western countries do allow discussion on religions,gender and immigration policies too but sometimes they are not politically correct topics to talk about. For example in the UK, a lot of pedophilic rings are reported among south asian mans but the media won't talk in such terms. There are countless other topics which media sweeps under the rug for winning popular support.There should a be counter culture for most of the political incorrect topics so that people are not afraid to speak about them.

If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences. Because of that, I don't think you should do X. How is that a slippery slope argument?

To me, it was more like if you do X, Y can be triggered too. We can separate free speech and hate speech and a lot of
countries have a general understanding of the differences and the public too.There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm, or even no harm in most cases.The speech act in which classified information is unveiled before the public's eye which can be potentially harmful for those in power.Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are great examples and heroes.

There is only one thing that can really help ensure free speech rights, and that's the rule of law. In the US, that means the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; tradition and common law; and the courts. Of course it's imperfect and fallible, but it's all we've got.

The case of Julian Assange is a clear example of violation of human rights and limiting freedom of expression. He is resisting his extradition to the USA, simply because he does not trust the system to protect him as the elite want him behind bars and to silent him.I am sure that you are opposed to political victimization of Julian Assange and most liberal Americans are too. I understand the power of the law but the citizens can always elect leaders that can separate hate speech and other forms of speech and if we go down that road, we may end up being afraid of making politically sensitive laws, lest something that is good is also thrown under the bus and even if it does happen, the people can always raise their voice.l dont think prohibiting hate speech will stop hate speech, it will discourage it.

I won't criticize any other country because their protections are imperfect, just as I don't expect perfection from our own protections.

I agree with this statement 100 percent. I would go on and say that the enforcement against hate speech will also be imperfect and such legal works are always adopted to minimize certain deeds as they can never totally wipe them out.

. Great Britain solved their resource problem with empire; the Americans did the same thing on the North American land mass. France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Italy, the Turks, the Austrian-Hungarians, Japan, Russia -- all had accumulated colonies or used territorial expansion, much to their economic advantage

Before the first world war, the German colonial empire ( 1884-1914 ) was the third largest empire at that time, it was short lived but if the first world war wouldn't have happened, Germany was self sufficient with regards to their resources. There is evidence of industrial development in German colonies during that period, hence it would be outrageous to suppose that the Germans were desperate to solve their resource problem at that time.Hitler did mention in his Mein kampf various measures that could resolve the economic problems faced by germans and he avidly disregarded population growth control as a tool for solving resource problem.
He explicitly suggested that growth of population is dire for overcoming other European countries. It's true that most countries or empires did solve their resources problem by colonizing areas filled with natural resources.
Since all the "good" land was taken by European countries, Hitler suggested invading them was the only option left.
The population around 1933 was 67 million and roughly 9 percent of population was killed during the second world war. I think the economic problems could have been solved by other means and the fact that Hitler was ready for another War, despite being a soilder in WW1 and knowing that it would be a global disaster. He was simply magnifying the problems and delivering false promises and building false hope. He was filled with vengeance and the crowd identified with him as they couldn't see the man he truly was behind all the rhetoric.

So, the point to all this is, Hitler wasn't just about hate. Hate was a tool. His grand design was intended to solve the German natural resource problem--Lebensraum, and more.

I agree with you on this point. Hate speech can never stand on it's own and it is always used as a tool. I would like to shift this discussion a little. In recent times, people have raised concerns over forcing religion down a childs throat and many count it as brainwashing. Also the topic of religious education being taught at school. After all, it is a conversation revolving around influence of speech on the mind and body.Can we trust the public with hate speech. By trust, l mean believing that the public is capable of dealing with hate speech without enforcing it and carrying out terrible deeds and if not, can they give up their desire to be living in a peaceful and a tolerable place?

It's the same with hate speech. It's better to have the bigots out there in the open where their ideas can be challenged than to have them pretend to not be bigots until they get into a position of power and then, when they do, they can legislate against the rest of us.

If these people want to openly reveal how monstrous they are: let them. Don't let them go into hiding and only reveal themselves after they have power.

I would agree with you in principle but disagree in practice. It is always better to have terrible ideas in the public domain as long as they can be refuted and be rejected by society. In most sensible countries, the hate speeches are deemed valid by a minority and they seldom rise to power anyways, even if they were wolf in sheep's clothing, they would be a minority. The problem arises when they begin to garner support ( they can harm society when in minority too (racist rampages for example ) ) and it is always too late to fight back when the words turn into deeds and those at the "wrong" end face a lot of harm.
I don't think it's easy to answer this question because of the numerous factors involved but we can weigh out the pros and cons.

Can we trust each other individually and the society collectively to handle hate speech responsibly without any serious consequences ?

Hitler was backed up by the Sturmabteilung, literally Storm Detachment, which was the Nazi Party's original paramilitary. The Storm Troupers and the Freikorps left over from WWI backed up Hitler's speeches with liberal doses of blunt violence.

I think they did play a significant role but to the extend of providing security and oppressing rival parties. That
did certainly help to provide a platform for the nazi party to convey ideas to the public but the message conveyed, particularly anti-semitism, military expansionism and fanatic patriotism were all the focal point of Nazi party winning public support. I did simplify Hitler's rise to power but in my opinion, oratory and the policies played the most significant role in the rise of Hitler to power.

The Germans were not disenfranchised. True, the were defeated in WWI, but they weren't occupied. True, the Treaty of Versailles was intended to cripple their future military intentions, but the allies were busy with their own problems and the Germans were initially discrete.

Sovereignty of a country is given prime importance when forming any foreign policy and having the ability to regulate the army according to the geo-political situation in neighboring countries is paramount to safeguarding it.
The germans as a nation lost the right to protect their homeland under the pretext of preventing future backlash from the defeated countries. They could not employ troops on certain areas and the military figures were fixed.
The economic aggression was terrible too, even those countries that won the war suffered. To make matters worse, Germany had to pay war indemnity and the depression era as you have mentioned made things unbearable for a country that had just lost a war.
The measures clearly violated their right to sustenance, right to having a shelter and the right to live a dignified life. It does not justify waging a war and all the other atrocities committed but the Germans were genuinely disenfranchised. Hitler exploited their feelings and added fuel to the fire by carefully executed hate speeches.

It is actually difficult to exactly pinpoint the driving force behind Hitler's rise but speaking on broad terms, it is likely the aftermath of WW1 and the treaty of Versailles if were honest. Hate speech always needs a context and an environment.

If hate speech is ever disallowed then those same people should also be disallowed a right to vote for the same reason.

Democratic institutes do not ban a certain group to vote but ban parties that may be racist/fascist which may threaten democracy itself and the well being of people if they are elected .I don't see how hate speech is linked with the right to vote. There is a fundamental freedom of choice but within the framework of mutual respect for others rights too. If your speech deprives other people from having a right to live a dignified life, and in some severe cases the right to life. Society will in retribution redefine certain rights to protect a more broad spectrum of human rights.

It isn’t a matter of stifling subjective expressions of opinion (deemed hateful or not). It’s a matter of educating people to be aware that these are subjective expressions of opinion, and their own thoughts, words or actions in response are their own responsibility. This is the case regardless of the power, influence or control we may have handed over.

The transfer of power and responsibility is the key aspect of this conversation. If a leader of an extreme group continues to inspire his followers to commit crimes and he cannot be convicted, that would give him even more authority. Where is the thin gap between ordering and instigating and should it matter ? If a soft stance towards hate speech causes chaos and disruption of order in society, will you revoke it or clutch to it stubbornly ?
The keen problem with almost all social theories is, they tend to ignore ground realities and tend to fail miserably when applied. More than often, hateful preachers do not tolerate other people's opinions. The demographic which tends to argue for allowing hate speech is usually the one unaffected by it. People don't really need to be educated about how responsibility works cause the society is based on rights and duties. There are other rights which are not usually talked about. As individuals in society we have a duty to spread peace and stop acts of violence and hate, otherwise we may end up on the receiving end. The problem with your stance is that the world cannot behave in such a way, it would wipe itself out. Could you imagine leaders starting nuclear war over extreme nationalism and ending up destroying the human race. That is a far fetched comparison but it applies to even basic social units like towns.

Cause and effect then retains all rights but passes all responsibility up the chain of command. It seems like there is no choice, but the truth is that the alternatives are freely rejected

Generally the law holds people accountable to the degree of their involvement in a crime. No one argued that we should allow those who physically commit hate crimes to go free and chill, they should be primarily punished for their offenses but stopping justice right there won't stop hate crimes from recurring. An important principle behind law and prosecution is that implementation of law should bring more stability and lessen crimes. If we were to allow hate speech, we would end up in a vicious cycle of crimes and the law would fail to serve its purpose.

I don't think l am dangerous and banning hate speech isn't even new. I won't even claim that it's my idea, l am here for discussion only and frankly l am neutral on the issue. German government has banned neo-nazi parties and all the gestures, symbols associated with the nazi party. Last time l checked Germany wasn't a dictatorship, it's a democratic government and they haven't forgotten their history , particularly the harm that can be caused by hate speech.

you want to ban hate speech - and criticism of religion and ideologies? Criticism is hate speech?

I categorically state that we should never ever ban criticism of religion and ideologies. Are you happy now.
Would you ban a neo-nazi ideology or an ISIS ideology in your country ?

Who could be trusted with that power?

If the question is raised in the context of a democratic government. The people have the power and no one should be trusted with authority except under the observation and the support of general public. I don't see how this could happen in a democratic government unless the people were blind and sheeps. Obviously in an authoritarian government, such Bills which deal with speech acts will always restrict legitimate criticism too and no one in their right mind would argue for that.

You call it "hate speech" and it appears you want to give the government the power to both define it and enforce it. In the late 1790s, Congress passed the Sedition Act which severely restricted protest against the government. That's what happens when you give the government the power - it restricts legitimate speech. It's true everywhere and always. That's how governments work. That's why we need the Constitution and the will not to let it be eroded.

I think the gist of your argument is ; when we restrict hate speech and give government the power to do so, we may end up restricting legitimate speech. That's clearly a slippery slope argument. It is the responsibility of the people to oppose government policies that aim to take away their human rights as in any democratic state.
Taking us back to 1790s and using an example from over 200 years ago and applying it to 2019 won't strengthen your case. Constitution doesn't really help since the judges can interpret it differently. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution. In the west it may be a strong pillar and a cornerstone but if you take a closer look around the world, when people partake in revolutions, they tend to overthrow the constitutions and replace. It is the collective consciousness of society that prevents those in charge from committing immoral acts. That's precisely why dictators try to brainwash people because a piece of paper cannot prevent violation of human rights, it's the people who prevent and raise a voice.

Say that there exists the following rewrite rule in the system: kk* --> k+, with k any arbitrary subexpression, then we can rewite the expression xyabc(abc)*rs --> xy(abc)+rs. This has no "meaning". The resulting expression is just the result of the mechanical application of the rewrite rule on the original expression.

If we look closely, you are in fact using k an arbitrary sub expression repeatedly. Let's say abcRefg where R is a relation or to simplify pRq, where the R can be an equal symbol or an inequality. Let's say we want to generate numbers from this system by a function F(x), where the input is a string of characters and the output is a number.
Can you generate infinity from that function ? I dont think so, unless you think we can construct an infinite number of characters in a string.
Let's consider your example KK*-->K+, how about this case abK*-->cd+ . Would that be rule if and only if ab=cd.
An absolute formal view will lead to many problems and there is also another problem with this language as it allows a function to take itself as an argument, that may lead to paradoxical self referential statements. Like a set of all sets for example.

Infinity itself is a Platonic abstraction that is compatible with numbers, which are themselves also Platonic abstractions. Numbers are themselves no real-world objects either. Infinity is compatible when you can extend the rules for arithmetic to support the inclusion of infinity. while not damaging the algebraic structure.

By alleging infinity to be a platonic abstraction doesn't help us understand its nature at all. I don't think there is a platonic world where all mathematical ideas can be found and the existence of non euclidean geometry proves that we have to create new maths a lot times by simply dropping some axioms ( parallel line axiom) and hence modify our system.
There is a transfer principle, to extend real to hyperreal and it is actually consistent as you mentioned in your earlier posts.

Elliptic curve arithmetic has obviously nothing to do with the real, physical world. It was not abstracted away from the real, physical world. Elliptic curve arithmetic is a Platonic abstraction that has characteristics and properties that turn out to be interesting, while adding a point at infinity is not only a requirement for consistency, but it also happens to work absolutely fine.

I just read about elliptic curves, the point at infinity isn't something lying at infinity. They use that term when they draw an elliptic graph on a 2d plane however in 3 dimensional geometry a line does intersect the elliptic curve at 3 points, case closed. Even, the real line can have a point at infinity by simply curling it around and making it meet at and end. This is in no way related to infinity as a concept. I think there is a misunderstanding here . I don't know much about elliptic curves but consider the aymtotoes of a hyperbola(x^2/a^2-y^2/b^2)=0 and then you get two aymtotoes and we say that they intersect the hyperbole at infinity, that does not mean they do. They keep getting closer and closer. You can never give the point of intersection there.
[0,1,0] is used as the point at infinity sometimes so that the equation p+q+r=0 is satisfied or some other form. When the need arises they let p+0=0 so l dont see how the point at infinity is related to infinity that we are discussing here. We also use the word intersect in different sense sometimes, for example if l say two parallel lines intersect each other at imaginary points, l am not referring to the normal case of intersection.

Take Jefferson. Take Mandela. Take Walesa. Take Aquino. Take Havel

Except, none of them used hate speech to my knowledge.
In the context of arguments before, we were arguing against letting leaders get away with inciting violence under the banner of free speech.

Free speech rights are rights granted to people as protection against government restrictions. The government does not need such protection. They have the power.

Commands can also be ordered by cult figures, religious figures. Government is just one form of power that may not need the protection but in most of the cases, people who issue commands are not immune to prosecution. Right before elections, some politicians may resort to extreme speech ( arguably hate speech ) to win a certain fraction of people as in case of Trump in America or Modi in India. Nuff said .

Depends on how you define the word "number". If you define it narrowly, to mean "a natural number", then you're right, infinity is not a number. But that's not how most people define it. Likewise, if you define the word "set" narrowly, to mean "a finite collection of elements", then you're right, there are no infinite sets. But again, that's not how most people define it.

In case of sets, we use natural numbers to determine the cardinality but putting that aside, l would say there is 1-1 correspondence between all real numbers and a point on real number line, infinity doesn't lie there. How do you define numbers ? Most people do define a set in mathematics as a collection of well defined and distinct elements. Infinity is not an element even in the infinite natural set( or any other infinite sets). If you regard infinity as number, that implies that it is finite, since all numbers are finite.Hence a contradiction in terms.How do you define numbers ( the real numbers ) ? How can you justify infinity as a number ?

Make sure you don't confuse conceptual existence with empirical existence. The existence of the concept of infinite set is one thing and the existence of infinite collections of physical objects out there in the world is another. The former kind of existence is clearly real, the latter can be disputed.

I never compared the physical world with the mathematical one. Even if you consider the "conceptual existence " we cannot construct infinity even with all the symbols and operations in a system. This is not a physical limitation but a conceptual one. The concept of infinity does not allow it to be constructed out of numbers. Consider the case of halting problem precisely that of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running (i.e., halt) or continue to run forever. It was proven to be impossible and this is a conceptual restraint not an empirical one. Similar case applies to infinity.
Can you justify the infinity axiom.

Yes. I've already said a couple times that people shouldn't follow orders just because they're given. That we have a culture like that is a big part of the problem.

I am really glad that you are willing to die for others and save their lives but everyone isn't. Even if you want the world to be like that, it is not possible simply due to the way power works. If people could simply overcome orders,there would be no authority in this world. Is the world like that now, No. I think we have to be pragmatic when we take a stance. There will always be a hierarchy of power due to uneven distribution of resources.

I think that's a fair point. How about if a leader is in a position of authority where he uses those below his rank for heinous crimes. Do they really decide and have a free will. Let's say you are a nazi soldier who is ordered to kill an innocent Jewish women and if you refuse to obey the orders, you could get yourself executed. When a person of authority commands you to do a certain act, he is using you as a tool for his crime like a murderer using a gun to kill someone. Would you consider commands to also fall under free speech ?