@DasGegenmittel

I don't believe the differentiation between forced violence and coercive violence matters to the ultimate disagreement, as I dont think either is justifed in this instance and so I find such a distinction is irrelevant.

From our conversation, I find that you clearly aren't willing to argue in good-faith, focusing on flairing your moral view rather than focusing on the philosophy at hand. The sheer amount of it is quite surprisingly, considering I've not responded to it directly until now.

If you spent some time simply asking me to expand on my view of violence, rather than falsely presuming, you might have found we agree that its a spectrum, and I could have explained why I didnt find the distinction at all neccesary to my argument, which you've seemingly taken my statement out of context from.

However, it's clear you're not actually interested in taking my position into consideration, especially from your non-response to my previous comment simply dismissing me, which frankly was pretting insulting to the time I put into it. Either way, I have enjoyed spending the time to put my ideas into words, so thank you for the discussion. Although I dont think any further discussion between us would be productive.

I think maybe people are not understanding the definition of violence? — Ourora Aureis

Do you mean "your" definition? For the vast, vast majority of people violence is harmful force. That seems the definition too. For that reason, its possible similar things are being said in different terms. I would never call the enforcement, through proper channels, of a law, "violence" without some discussion about (for instance) resisting arrest leading to violent police behaviour. So seem to agree, but then claim:

It should be considered the same type of violence that enforces taxes and all other laws. — Ourora Aureis

Like... what the fuck lol. They are not, in any way, equivalent.

I personally dont have a reason for disliking certain genres, I just dont resonate with them. — Ourora Aureis

Which shows that this is not intolerance, its discrimination. Which is totally fine.

Arbitrary Intolerances don't seem to be that inappropriate at all, because they're simply expressions of ones emotions rather than beliefs. — Ourora Aureis

I don't thikn you're adequately hearing the word 'intolerance' which is a visceral, "absolutley not" type of feeling. Not just a preference.

Clearly we believe expressions of sexual preference to be okay, so I fail to see why this should be different on non-sexual grounds. — Ourora Aureis

Well, it is fine. Discriminating, even in bad-taste ways (eg preferring one's own ethnic group) is fine and generally allowed in law and socially. It eventually gets to a point of being arbitrary (like requiring a Dcotor to be of a certain ethnicity for instance) and that's where people don't get on with it, and the law tends to step in. This has changed slightly recently, in a way I disagree with. Some claims of this kind are now allowed in law, but only for certain groups and often to the detriment of others.

wrong to dismiss certain intolerant expressions outright as it presumes they have no requisite reasons. — Ourora Aureis

I agree. Discussion is required. That's how you figure out if something is arbitrary. I am not an absolutist, but I am far more toward absolutism than some of the censorious forms advocated in this thread.

The important factor there being that empirical arguments can be argued for and against with evidence, rather than being entirely normative claims like DasGegenmittel suggested. — Ourora Aureis

This is definitely true, and perhaps people like that simply don't want to have that conversation. Too fucking bad imo. You live in the world. Have the conversation. Grow up.

Do you mean "your" definition? — AmadeusD

Yes, I should of wrote "I think people are not understanding my definition of violence?" to be more clear. Perhaps I am using a unique definition but I do think its a singular coherent idea I'm trying to get across.

I percieve violence as being loosely defined as the causing of harm toward another. As such, I extend the term to the intentional creation of circumstances that themselves lead to harm. For example, if you were to lock someone in a room and let them starve.

I also believe the term applies even if no harm was to be created, but the threat of harm is present. For example: If someone loads a single bullet into a revolver, spins it, points it at you, and shoots, then even if no bullet exits the gun, I'd still see the action as being violent. In the same light, I see the creation of a governmental threat against something to be inherently "violent", although I'm sure theres a more precise term for what I'm attempting to get at.

I should be clear that I recognise the term I use extends to much more than harmful force, and that I dont think all forms of violence are unjustifed or always particularly extreme in nature.

Which shows that this is not intolerance, its discrimination. — AmadeusD

How would you define intolerance? Personally, I think of it as equivalent to discrimination, although I understand I could be missing some nuance as I dont particularly use the word often. Is it directly related to an extreme emotional response toward something?

@Ourora Aureis, our disagreement isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that the stance you’ve put forward is dogmatic, internally unstable, arbitrary, and laced with needless contempt—your own words prove each point.

You start, without a shred of argument, by announcing: “I simply state a truth—denying free speech is psychological torture.” That’s textbook begging the question: you christen your claim as “truth” before you defend it. Moments later you declare I’m “not actually interested” in understanding your view—an ad hominem circumstantial that attacks my motives instead of my reasoning.

Elsewhere you proclaim, “All laws are upheld with the threat of physical violence by the state,” but you condemn that “violence” only when it applies to my proposals. For your own bans—“Harassment, slander and misinformation should be banned”—the charge of violence mysteriously disappears. That’s an equivocation on the word “violence” and a self-contradiction: if every law is violent, you’re endorsing the very violence you denounce.

You draw the line just as arbitrarily when you say: “If someone writes intolerant sentences in a private diary, that’s fine; if they post the same words in a public forum, it should be criminal.” Identical words shift from harmless to heinous depending solely on audience size—a classic case of special pleading.

The causal standard shifts, too. On one hand, “Ideas cannot cause anything at all,” yet my ideas supposedly amount to “psychological torture.” This false dichotomy turns ideas into either harmless air or torture devices, whichever suits your momentary needs.

To heighten the drama you roll out a slippery-slope flourish: restricting speech means tasers, tear gas, rubber bullets—as though fines or forum rules were already police brutality. And you finish with poisoning the well: my view is “narcissistic,” “disgusting,” tantamount to “torture.” Insults replace analysis.

These passages show that what you offer isn’t philosophical rigor but moral show-boating: you lay down dogmas, swap definitions when convenient, redraw boundaries on a whim, and season it all with contempt. Sad.

Let’s end our discussion here, then.

It's false. I can open the blinds by saying "Siri, open the blinds." — Michael

But sometimes Siri does not open the blinds. How do you explain that and wouldn't that mean there's a more immediate cause of the blinds opening or not rather than just your voice saying "Siri, open the blinds".

But sometimes Siri does not open the blinds. How do you explain that — Harry Hindu

It’s turned off or broken.

Much like sometimes when I flick the light switch the light doesn’t turn on, perhaps because of faulty wiring or a power cut. But it’s still the case that I can and do often cause the light to turn on by flicking the switch.

What is so difficult to understand about this? You seem to think I’m saying something I’m not and I don’t know what that is.

It’s turned off or broken.

Much like sometimes when I flick the light switch the light doesn’t turn on, perhaps because of faulty wiring or a power cut. But it’s still the case that I can and do often cause the light to turn on by flicking the switch.

What is so difficult to understand about this? You seem to think I’m saying something I’m not and I don’t know what that is. — Michael

There are many other possible causes. What if a hacker hacked your home network and now Siri unlocks your doors instead of opening the blinds? Who would you call to fix the issue - a linguist, a political scientist, an electrician, or an information technology expert?

It is only the case that you often do cause the light to turn on by flicking the switch because the intervening technology is reliable - far more reliable than your speech's effect on other people. So how do you explain the discrepancy between the reliable outcome of your light turning on vs the unreliable outcomes of your speech?

What if a hacker hacked your home network and now Siri unlocks your doors instead of opening the blinds? — Harry Hindu

Then saying "Siri, open the blinds" will cause the doors to open.

Who would you call to fix the issue - a linguist, a political scientist, an electrician, or an information technology expert? — Harry Hindu

An information technology expert.

It is only the case that you often do cause the light to turn on by flicking the switch because the intervening technology is reliable - far more reliable than your speech's effect on other people. So how do you explain the discrepancy between the reliable outcome of your light turning on vs the unreliable outcomes of your speech? — Harry Hindu

The "reliable" outcome is that my speech will cause the listener's ears to send an electrical signal to their brain (unless they're deaf). This is where NOS4A2 disagrees, and is the extent of my argument with him (notwithstanding the corollary debate on the nature of free will).

Again, you seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. What do you think I'm saying?

Then saying "Siri, open the blinds" will cause the doors to open. — Michael

Whose goals are being realized - yours or the hacker's? Who had more control over what happens when you say, "Siri, open the blinds." You or the hacker?

The "reliable" outcome is that my speech will cause the listener's ears to send an electrical signal to their brain (unless they're deaf). This is where NOS4A2 disagrees, and is the extent of my argument with him (notwithstanding the corollary debate on the nature of free will).

Again, you seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. What do you think I'm saying? — Michael

I'm not sure. I'm still trying to figure that out.

You can talk about what happens between the listener's ears and their brain, but what happens after that? You seem to be thinking that that is where the story ends, but it isn't. The sound of your voice enters everyone's ear within earshot and their ears all send signals to their brains, but some of them do not respond to your speech as you intended. That is what we are pointing to. You continue to point everywhere else (at strawmen).

Whose goals are being realized - yours or the hacker's? — Harry Hindu

The hacker's.

Who had more control over what happens when you say, "Siri, open the blinds." You or the hacker? — Harry Hindu

I don't quite understand the question. All I am saying is that I cause the doors to open by saying "Siri, open the blinds."

You seem to be thinking that that is where the story ends. — Harry Hindu

No, I don't. I'm not yet addressing that, because NOS4A2 can't even accept that sounds can cause the ears to send an electrical signal to the brain. He can't even accept that sounds can cause the lights to turn on.

You continue to point everywhere else (at strawmen). — Harry Hindu

I am simply responding to this claim made by NOS4A2:

So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.

His claim is false. I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands.

I'm not sure. I'm still trying to figure that out. — Harry Hindu

I'm saying exactly what I'm saying, nothing more. You are trying to read something else into it that just isn't there.

It's not as far as the causal influence goes. I turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands or by pushing a button.

You seemed to accept this before.

You can move diaphragms in microphones and flick switches. As far as influence goes, that’s not much.

My computer displays these words on my screen as I type them because I type them. It's not a mere coincidence that they correlate. There is a causal chain of events. What is so difficult to understand about this?

I understand it, I just think causal reasoning is unsound on these matters. There are multitudes of events and causes you’re leaving out. Your time interval from when the event begins and when it ends is arbitrary, especially for a determinist. Isn’t it me that moved you to type those words? Without including an accounting of all the causal factors relevant to the occurrence your assertions are invariably false, and it is nearly impossible to give a full accounting.

What interests me is the ultimate source of your actions. Why do you begin your causal chain at you pushing the keys, and not, say, in the words you see before replying?

But if you want to argue that we have free will and that determinism is false then your only apparent options are interactionist dualism (in which case eliminative materialism, and physicalism in general, is false) and quantum indeterminacy without hidden variables (in which case some things are just random, but still the effect of some physical cause).

That’s just not the case.

A person acts of her own free will only if she is its ultimate source. If determinism is true, no one is the ultimate source of her actions. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#DeteSour

You can move diaphragms in microphones and flick switches. As far as influence goes, that’s not much. — NOS4A2

And I can turn on the lights.

There are multitudes of events and causes you’re leaving out — NOS4A2

Because they're not relevant to the discussion. It should go without saying that I can only turn on the lights if there is a power supply to my house.

The fact that there are multiple causes does not entail that I am not one of these causes.

A person acts of her own free will only if she is its ultimate source. — NOS4A2

I don't know what it means to be an "ultimate" source.

But, again, the only way to avoid determinism is by arguing for either quantum indeterminacy without hidden variables (in which case some things are just random, but nonetheless the effect of some physical cause) or interactionist dualism. So which is it?

And I can turn on the lights.

Not without Siri, apparently.

Because they're not relevant to the discussion. It should go without saying that I can only turn on the lights if there is a power supply to my house.

The fact that there are multiple causes does not entail that I am not one of these causes.

They're not relevant to your argument, but they are relevant to turning on lights. In any case, that's not the only objection I had to your causal reasoning.

I don't know what it means to be an "ultimate" source.

But, again, the only way to avoid determinism is by arguing for either quantum indeterminacy without hidden variables (in which case some things are just random, but nonetheless the effect of some physical cause) or interactionist dualism. So which is it?

Neither.

By "ultimate source" I mean an agent's action originates within the agent, and nowhere else. Your "causal chains" begin within the agent. I think intuitively you believe this is well, as your causal chains in all of your examples always start with you and not something else.

I’ll copy and paste the full incompatibalist source hood argument and you can let me know which premise you disagree with.

• Any agent, x, performs an any act, a, of her own free will iff x has control over a.
  x has control over a only if x is the ultimate source of a.
• If x is the ultimate source of a, then some condition, b, necessary for a, originates with x.
• If any condition, b, originates with x, then there are no conditions sufficient for b independent of x.
• If determinism is true, then the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future.
• If the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future, then for any condition, b, necessary for any action, a, performed by any agent, x, there are conditions independent of x (in x’s remote past, before x’s birth) that are sufficient for b.
• If, for any condition, b, necessary for any action, a, performed by any agent, x, there are conditions independent of x that are sufficient for b, then no agent, x, is the ultimate source of any action, a. (This follows from C and D.)
• If determinism is true, then no agent, x, is the ultimate source of any action, a. (This follows from E, F, and G.)
• Therefore, if determinism is true, then no agent, x, performs any action, a, of her own free will. (This follows from A, B, and H.)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#DeteSour

Not without Siri, apparently. — NOS4A2

With Siri or by clapping my hands or by flicking a switch or by pulling a chord. There are many ways to turn on the lights.

But I can turn on the lights. So causal influence doesn't end at "mov[ing] diaphragms in microphones and flick[ing] switches" as you claim.

Neither. — NOS4A2

If physicalism is true and if hidden-variable theory is true then determinism is true. There's no avoiding this. So if determinism is false then either physicalism is false or hidden-variable theory is false. Which is it? If the latter then that just means that some things are random.

By "ultimate source" I mean an agent's action originates within the agent, and nowhere else. Your "causal chains" begin within the agent. — NOS4A2

So you want an uncaused cause occurring within the human body. This is incompatible with physics. Your position on free will requires a non-physical agent/non-physical agency yet you endorse eliminative materialism. You must relinquish one of these to avoid contradiction.

I’ll copy and paste the full incompatibalist source hood argument and you can let me know which premise you disagree with.

1. Any agent, x, performs an any act, a, of her own free will iff x has control over a.
x has control over a only if x is the ultimate source of a. — NOS4A2

I disagree with "x has control over a only if x is the ultimate source of a."

Whose goals are being realized - yours or the hacker's?
— Harry Hindu

The hacker's. — Michael

Now, who should be arrested for what Siri does?

No, I don't. I'm not yet addressing that, because NOS4A2 can't even accept that sounds can cause the ears to send an electrical signal to the brain. He can't even accept that sounds can cause the lights to turn on. — Michael

He has accepted that but you keep dancing around the issue with your over simplistic assertions.

Then the hacker is at fault for what Siri does, and not you - the speaker. In other words, your own example can be used to show what I am trying to show you - that there are other, more immediate intervening causes to one's behavior than the sounds that enter one's ear and send signals to the brain.

I am simply responding to this claim made by NOS4A2:

So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols.

His claim is false. I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights" or by clapping my hands. — Michael

Then what you're saying is that you and NOS4A2 have gone off-topic arguing about the validity of eliminative materialism.

I, however, am focused on the topic at hand - Free Speech and who is culpable for the actions of an individual - someone that makes sounds with their mouth, or the one that decides what to do when hearing those sounds. The validity of eliminative materialism is irrelevant to the topic and does not need to be settled to settle the issue of who is culpable for one's actions.

I have shown that there is a more immediate cause to a behavior than your voice that explains why there are different responses to hearing the same sound, and does not contradict the fact that speech is part of the causal sequence that preceded one's actions - but so is their mother giving birth to them, and the Big Bang.

We award and punish people based on their actions, not the actions of another because what other people do is not the FINAL cause of one's actions. It is your decision about what to do when you hear certain words or see others behaving a certain way and allow the mob's behavior influence your own into committing immoral acts.

I have also equated freedom to full access to all information. In a society that has a free press with various points of view, everyone has access to most information so if you choose to listen to only one view, and are then influenced by others that share that view to commit violence against others because you've closed yourself off from the information that would show what was being said is false - that is your fault because that was your decision to live in a bubble.

Now, if we do not live in a free society and live under a government that suppresses information and runs the media then we have no freedom of thought or speech anyway and have no way to argue against what some authority is saying and would be easily influenced by their speech.

With Siri or by clapping my hands or by flicking a switch or by pulling a chord. There are many ways to turn on the lights.

But I can turn on the lights. So causal influence doesn't end at "mov[ing] diaphragms in microphones and flick[ing] switches" as you claim.

Yes, you can turn on lights, but it doesn’t mean you’re in there “causally influencing” the inner workings of a device.

If physicalism is true and if hidden-variable theory is true then determinism is true. There's no avoiding this. So if determinism is false then either physicalism is false or hidden-variable theory is false. Which is it? If the latter then that just means that some things are random.

I don’t know the answer. I know nothing of quantum mechanics and I’m not sure I’m a physicalist, so will reserve judgement.

So you want an uncaused cause occurring within the human body. This is incompatible with physics. Your position on free will requires a non-physical agent/non-physical agency yet you endorse eliminative materialism. You must relinquish one of these to avoid contradiction.

Uncaused cause? No. The agent is the source of all actions. I don’t need to relinquish anything because it can be demonstrated on empirical grounds. Try raising your arm and then tell me from where else in the universe it comes from.

I disagree with "x has control over a only if x is the ultimate source of a."

Then what besides the agent controls the agent’s arm?

Yes, you can turn on lights — NOS4A2

So I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."

Therefore, I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."

Therefore, the spoken words "Siri, turn on the lights" can cause the lights to turn on.

Therefore, "symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols."

Uncaused cause? No. — NOS4A2

Then what do you mean by "an agent's action originates within the agent" and "Your 'causal chains' begin within the agent"?

For any given physical event A, either some physical event B caused A to happen, in which case A is not the beginning of a causal chain, or A is an uncaused event.

As an example, consider the hair cells in the inner ear converting mechanical energy into electrical signals. This is not an uncaused event. It is not the beginning of a causal chain. It is a causally determined response to this mechanical energy. And this mechanical energy is not an uncaused event. It is not the beginning of a causal chain. It is a causally determined response to soundwaves interacting with the ear drum. And so on.

Then what besides the agent controls the agent’s arm? — NOS4A2

The agent controls the arm.

I am saying that x can have control over a even if x is not the "ultimate source" of a.

As an example, Siri has control over the lights even though its control over the lights is causally determined by other things (such as my commands and an energy supply).

Then what you're saying is that you and NOS4A2 have gone off-topic — Harry Hindu

Yes. His defense of free speech argues that soundwaves do not cause the hairs in the inner ear to convert mechanical energy into electrical signals. I have only been trying to explain that this interpretation of causation is false, and so his defense of free speech fails.

So I can turn on the lights by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."

Therefore, I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."

Therefore, "symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols."

You can turn on the lights. You cannot move the components of the device, the energy within the system, or heat the filament in a bulb with your voice. In other words, you cannot affect or move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of your symbols.

Then what do you mean by "an agent's action originates within the agent" and "Your 'causal chains' begin within the agent”?

I mean simply that you begin the process of your actions, that your actions find their genesis in you and nowhere else.

For any given physical event A, either some physical event B caused A to happen, in which case A is not the beginning of a causal chain, or A is an uncaused event.

I’m still not sold on causal reasoning in general. When does physical event A begin and when does physical event B end? At what point in your temporal series does the cause occur?

As an example, consider the hair cells in the inner ear converting mechanical energy into electrical signals. This is not an uncaused event. It is not the beginning of a causal chain. It is a causally determined response to that mechanical energy. And this mechanical energy is not an uncaused event. It is not the beginning of a causal chain. It is a causally determined response to soundwaves interacting with the ear drum. And so on.

Humans have been hearing for the better part of their lives, even in the womb, and so the process of hearing begins as soon as the organism forms and begins to function in such a way. It doesn’t stop and then begin again in discrete temporal units and at the discretion of external sound waves. You’re speaking of chain reactions and treating organisms like Rube Golberg machines or dominos.

The agent controls the arm.

I am saying that x can have control over a even if x is not the "ultimate source" of a.

As an example, Siri has control over the lights even though its control over the lights is causally determined by other things (such as my commands and an energy supply).

So then what object or force begins the process of lifting your arm?

You can turn on the lights. You cannot move the components of the device, the energy within the system, or heat the filament in a bulb with your voice. — NOS4A2

It makes no sense to say that I cause the light to turn on but don't cause the [whatever] to heat the filament in the bulb given that these are one and the same.

I mean simply that you begin the process of your actions, that your actions find their genesis in you and nowhere else. — NOS4A2

Which makes no sense unless there is an uncaused cause within the human body.

When does physical event A begin and when does physical event B end? At what point in your temporal series does the cause occur? — NOS4A2

This is like asking me how long a piece of string is.

Humans have been hearing for the better part of their lives, even in the womb, and so the process of hearing begins as soon as the organism forms and begins to function in such a way. It doesn’t stop and then begin again in discrete temporal units and at the discretion of external sound waves. — NOS4A2

And it's the case that the sound waves cause the ear drum to vibrate which cause the ossicles to vibrate which cause the hair cells in the cochlea to bend which cause potassium and calcium ions to enter the opening which cause the release of neurotransmitters – and so it's the case that speech causes transduction in the ear.

So then what object or force begins the process of lifting your arm? — NOS4A2

The only beginning is the Big Bang because there are no uncaused events in physics. This is causal determinism:

Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe.

...

Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that has no cause or is self-caused. Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions.

Unless eliminative materialism is false and interactionist dualism is true, in which case it's possible that some non-physical volition is the beginning. Are you willing to commit to that?

Yes. His defense of free speech argues that soundwaves do not cause the hairs in the inner ear to convert mechanical energy into electrical signals. I have only been trying to explain that this interpretation of causation is false, and so his defense of free speech fails. — Michael

Personally, I don't care.

I'll interpret the lack of any rebuttal on your part to everything else I said regarding free speech as an agreement with what I said about free speech.

I'll interpret the lack of any rebuttal on your part to everything else I said regarding free speech as an agreement with what I said about free speech. — Harry Hindu

You can take it as me not engaging with an argument that I wasn't addressing.

The only beginning is the Big Bang because there are no uncaused events in physics. This is causal determinism:

And here we have it. The Big Bang begins the process of raising your arm and turning on the lights. So you’ve caused nothing, really.

Just on the final bit here, which is crucial: Intolerance is as it sounds: a lack of tolerance.
Preference, in contrast, is just a preference. 'I prefer chocolate to vanilla" =/= "I cannot stand vanilla; it makes me sick and my psychology is sent awry by it"

And here we have it. The Big Bang begins the process of raising your arm and turning on the lights. So you’ve caused nothing, really. — NOS4A2

I cause many things. Your claim that A causes B only if A is uncaused is false, as is your claim that there are uncaused causes within the human body.

Symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols. I can use speech to cause the lights to turn on and I can use speech to cause your ears to send neurotransmitters to your brain. This is the reality of physics; not superstition or magical thinking. Your attempt at a defense of free speech fails.

I don't think its worth it. The boil-down is this:

Words literally cause mindstates, when heard in certain contexts. Those mindstates are considered irresistible in some circumstances. Those mindstates are either supervenient or overwhelmingly causative of the actions in question. This is a causal chain which is morally brought back to the inciter.

He doesn't get this. It's hard to see where 'reason' would come in if so.

Words literally cause mindstates, when heard in certain contexts. — AmadeusD

Unfortunately we haven't even reached this stage. He can't even accept that sound waves cause the cochlea to release neurotransmitters.

I cause many things. Your claim that A causes B only if A is uncaused is false, as is your claim that there are uncaused causes within the human body.

I never made such a claim. It is you who is arbitrarily beginning causal chains and events despite saying there is only one beginning. What I claimed was that you begin the process of your actions.

Symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols. I can use speech to cause the lights to turn on and I can use speech to cause your ears to send neurotransmitters to your brain. This is the reality of physics; not superstition or magical thinking. Your attempt at a defense of free speech fails.

Also, you treat human bodies and computer devices like Rube Goldberg machines or dominos. And you won’t account for any other intervening forces or objects in your events. That’s not how either work, I’m afraid.

LOL yeah, seems so.

It is you who is arbitrarily beginning causal chains and events despite saying there is only one beginning. — NOS4A2

I'm not arbitrarily beginning any chain. I'm saying that I can cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights." Nowhere have I said that I am the beginning of this causal chain.

You are the one who arbitrarily begins chains, arguing that anything the ear does is the beginning and not the effect of sound wave stimulation. But then can’t appear to make up your mind over whether the behaviour of a radio receiver is the beginning or the effect of radio wave stimulation.

What I claimed was that you begin the process of your actions. — NOS4A2

Which requires the existence of an uncaused cause within the human body which is incompatible with known physics.

You will understand this if you don't ignore the trees for the forest. It's not enough to just say "the human causes his arm to move." You need to ask; what caused the muscles to contract? What caused the neurotransmitter to be delivered to the muscles? What caused these neurons to release a neurotransmitter? What caused these neurons to activate? Continue along this chain and you realize the reality that many of the body's behaviours are a causal response to stimulation and thus some stimulus. This just is what it means to sense the environment.

Also, you treat human bodies and computer devices like Rube Goldberg machines or dominos. And you won’t account for any other intervening forces or objects in your events. — NOS4A2

I do account for intervening forces or objects. I've mentioned them several times. As an example, a powered Apple device connected to the lights is usually required for me to cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."

It's still the case that I cause the lights to turn on by saying "Siri, turn on the lights."