When we're talking causality, there's only one option. — Terrapin Station

No, you still need to explain yourself properly. This is going to be a needlessly lengthy discussion if you keep responding like that. Why don't you start from the beginning instead of somewhere in the middle? That would make more sense, would it not?

So if your speaking has consequences for you via biological mechanisms, then what biological barrier is in place to prevent those same consequences in others?

By the very fact that your biology is not my biology.

Why would I use the noun “consequence” instead of the verb “contribute”? No I do not understand. — NOS4A2

You do realise that "contribute" is not a variation in verb form of the noun "consequence", right?

You should have stuck to talking about consequences if you wanted to avoid committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts. Your interlocutor made a point in response to your point about consequences, but you then moved the goalposts by framing your question in reply to him as though you had been talking about contributions, when you had not. Do you find it difficult to stay on point?

Your eyes are not your brain, they are connected, but they aren't the same thing. — Necrofantasia

Where did I say they are the same thing? We're talking about causality. It is sufficient that they are connected for effects in one to have consequences on the other.

By the very fact that your biology is not my biology. — NOS4A2

You do know sound travels through air don't you?

Even if 'hate speech' (whatever that may be, really..) would cause an increase in violence, freedom of speech should be universal and never be impeded upon. — Tzeentch

What if the speech sparks violence, and consequently violence sparks genocide, and consequently genocide sparks the annihilation of the human race?

What is the reason to allow for this possibility, rather than bar it?
It is a parasite - and like any parasite has the right to live, but would you pardon its hindrance to other life?

I think at the core of it is the fact you insist, time and time again, that correlation is causation. It is functional conflation even if it isn't literal.
That, and the isolation of a single factor without considering the larger variable pool that affects individual and group behaviour.

People don't necessarily arrive to the same conclusions from the same isolated bits of sensory input and knowledge, because the internal variables that factor in processing that input are never identical.
I don't know how to word this in a way that you will get, and I've already illustrated it from several different angles only to have them disregarded, so I just give up.

You need a mind more eloquent than mine.

Why couldn't you do a "what if" in the same vein about any arbitrary thing?

"What if anger about being spurned romantically sparks violence, and that violence sparks revenge, and that revenge sparks genocide?" etc.

So let's prohibit romantic spurning.

We could prohibit any and everything with such speculation.

You do know sound travels through air don't you? — Isaac

:brow:

No, dear.
It's not romantic spurning to be prohibited, but the advocation of violence as a fair mean to settle an issue.

The problem is not with the speech or the spurning, but the violence they advocate.

It's not romantic spurning to be prohibited, but the advocation of violence as a fair mean to settle an issue.

The problem is not with the speech or the spurning, but the violence they advocate. — Shamshir

Wait, so you don't have a problem with the violence/genocide/etc. itself, but just the advocating of violence?

Advocation of violence is itself violence.

Advocation of violence is itself violence. — Shamshir

Why are you bringing up the idea of it sparking violence, then genocide, etc.?

That's its purpose, dear. First the spark, then the inferno.
Wait your turn, please.

That's its purpose, dear. First the spark, then the inferno. — Shamshir

So if something else caused violence, genocide, etc. that's no problem?

Anything that causes violence is an advocate of violence.
It is not a difficult idea to grasp.

There are things much less fundamental to human freedom, and much (much) more likely to bring about the end of mankind, which we accept as being part of humanity without question.

But yes, even if you believe large scale violence can be caused solely by speech (which is a questionable proposition, but also another topic altogether), such a risk should be accepted in order to uphold this freedom.

Moreover, before we start sacrificing something as fundamental as free speech, shouldn't we first aim to educate people? There is something profoundly pitiful about an adult who is hurt by a stranger's words.

Anything that causes violence is an advocate of violence. — Shamshir

Sure. And do you want to allow those things or?

Moreover, before we start sacrificing something as fundamental as free speech, shouldn't we first aim to educate people? There is something profoundly pitiful about an adult who is hurt by a stranger's words. — Tzeentch

How much of free speech is being sacrificed with the removal of violent speech, as opposed to its preservation? Would you weigh the attrition of each for me?

As for aiming to educate folk, that is indeed a step forward - but what would you educate them in?
Perhaps merely empowering the intellect would add to the tension?

And may I ask, also, what and why is it pitiful that an adult may be hurt by a stranger's words?
How different do you see it as opposed to an adult being spat in their face by a stranger?

How much of free speech is being sacrificed with the removal of violent speech, as opposed to its preservation? Would you weigh the attrition of each for me? — Shamshir

The problem is, as is being demonstrated by contemporary politics, "violence" can be interpreted in many ways. Such ambiguity should never be brought into contact with fundamental human rights, because it will inevitably be used to undermine them.

As for aiming to educate folk, that is indeed a step forward - but what would you educate them in?
Perhaps merely empowering the intellect would add to the tension? — Shamshir

True intellect never degenerates into violence.
A statement can be true, in which case an intellectual should be the first to accept it as such.
It can be false, in which case the intellectual may try to show the person the error of his ways. If he fails, he may pity the fool for his ignorance.
If it is an opinion it is no better or worse than blind faith, and an intellectual should put little value in it to begin with.

And may I ask, also, what and why is it pitiful that an adult may be hurt by a stranger's words?
How different do you see it as opposed to an adult being spat in their face by a stranger? — Shamshir

Nothing happens when someone insults you. It's one's own insecure ego that hurts, not another's words. After all, if the man has a point one should be grateful for the information. If it is false, one should carry on with their business and pay no mind. If it is opinion, well what is opinion but blind faith?

I disagree. Our world views are largely a consequence of our environment, and speech constitutes a large part of that environment.

Then how come my speech isn’t contributing to your world view? It seems to have the opposite effect. — NOS4A2

TV commercials do not cause every viewer to immediately go and and purchase the advertised product. Nevertheless they are effective at inducing some demand for the product.

The problem is, as is being demonstrated by contemporary politics, "violence" can be interpreted in many ways. Such ambiguity should never be brought into contact with fundamental human rights, because it will inevitably be used to undermine them. — Tzeentch

But advocation of violence and rallies to violence are not ambiguous in their intent, are they?

So with safety being an inherent right of all living things, that they try so desperately to preserve, is it to be traded for the luxury of abrasive contention that is more aligned with as you put it - the 'insecure ego', rather than freedom from contention altogether?

I find the idea of abrasive speech constituting freedom of speech, quite misaligned, as it actually inhibits freedom of speech - which so many appear to fawn over.

That one may have the right and ability to freely speak, does not mean one should.

True intellect never degenerates into violence.
A statement can be true, in which case an intellectual should be the first to accept it as such.
It can be false, in which case the intellectual may try to show the person the error of his ways. If he fails, he may pity the fool for his ignorance.
If it is an opinion it is no better or worse than blind faith, and an intellectual should put little value in it to begin with. — Tzeentch

True intellect is not free from violence, if true intellect constitutes merely knowing things.
As Tzeentch you should know this.

Yet if true intellect contains the more subtle things that allot for the likes of 'freedom', then maybe it is something more than merely true intellect?

Though it be true that harming a person will bring them pain, there is nothing in the intellect that prohibits this. No, this is merely an observation.

Nothing happens when someone insults you. It's one's own insecure ego that hurts, not another's words. After all, if the man has a point one should be grateful for the information. If it is false, one should carry on with their business and pay no mind. If it is opinion, well what is opinion but blind faith? — Tzeentch

Perhaps it is one's own insecure ego that hurts, like an open wound being smothered with salt - in this case, words.

If that wound was not there in the first place, the salt would not hurt. Yet is it fair to rub the salt in? Should it be done, just because it may be done?

What about bandaging it up? Perhaps there are other words that could be used to that effect?
In which case, why use the hurtful ones, over the mending ones?

Though what may be said, may be true - a violent demonstration will only feed feed the insecure ego.
Neither party will gain from this, both will lessen.

Do you guys have any other reasons for your position on hate speech or is it just the causal stuff?
I ask because the causal stuff isnt going anywhere at this point, perhaps the discussion would become interesting again if you came at it differently? They aren’t going to concede anything or alter their view on what you are saying on causality cuz they think its absurd, ridiculous, sociopathic etc etc
So any other reasons that could be discussed?

But advocation of violence and rallies to violence are not ambiguous in their intent, are they? — Shamshir

In the process of forbidding these, free speech is put on the slippery slope that I have described. As such, let the instigators instigate. When they resort to violence, they break the law and should be dealt with as such.

So with safety being an inherent right of all living things, that they try so desperately to preserve, is it to be traded for the luxury of abrasive contention that is more aligned with as you put it - the 'insecure ego', rather than freedom from contention altogether? — Shamshir

People can have heated debate about anything. The fragile ego will find ways to express itself. If people were to desire freedom from contention, then perhaps everyone should lose their tongue at birth. No, in order for free speech to be worth anything, we must risk contention and offense, and deal with it like adults, instead of like children.

In the words of Descartes: "Whenever anybody has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it."

The safety of the people may be safeguarded by an effective police force and justice system.

I find the idea of abrasive speech constituting freedom of speech, quite misaligned, as it actually inhibits freedom of speech — Shamshir

How?

Though it be true that harming a person will bring them pain, there is nothing in the intellect that prohibits this. No, this is merely an observation. — Shamshir

I will rephrase my point;

If one's intellect propels one to violent action, one may not be as wise as they think they are.

Perhaps it is one's own insecure ego that hurts, like an open wound being smothered with salt - in this case, words.

If that wound was not there in the first place, the salt would not hurt. Yet is it fair to rub the salt in? Should it be done, just because it may be done?

What about bandaging it up? Perhaps there are other words that could be used to that effect?
In which case, why use the hurtful ones, over the mending ones?

Though what may be said, may be true - a violent demonstration will only feed feed the insecure ego.
Neither party will gain from this, both will lessen. — Shamshir

Firstly, I do not like the comparison between physical and psychological pain. Physical pain is, for most, an involuntary response that physiologically bypasses the intellect. Offense is a voluntary response.

As to your question; why allow people to rub proverbial salt?

Humanity is imperfect, and as such it is only expected that some will make sub-optimal use of their freedoms.

But the real question here is, how come someone perceives words as being so powerful as to be like salt upon wounds?

Again, whatever is being said can be true, in which case it should be accepted no matter how much it hurts and one should be grateful instead of offended.

If it is false or opinion, then what is there to be offended about? The disposition of the other? If one thinks the offender is so totally wrong in their beliefs, wouldn't pity be a much more appropriate emotion rather than indignation? Seek to make him see the error of his ways rather than silence him.

If some offender is being purposefully hurtful, why put any value in his words? Much like with a high-school bully, ask oneself how his situation came to be, and soon enough one will find pity or compassion more suitable emotions than anger and indignation.

Finally, when one feels offended, it should cause a moment of self-reflection, because apparently one is not as confident about their beliefs as they tell themselves they are. Wouldn't one's response be otherwise to laugh? When someone tells me the earth is flat, I do not get offended, for I know it to be wrong. So why do I get offended now?

Why couldn't you do a "what if" in the same vein about any arbitrary thing?

"What if anger about being spurned romantically sparks violence, and that violence sparks revenge, and that revenge sparks genocide?" etc. — Terrapin Station

It would be practically impossible to ban anger, so that's not even worth bringing up as an attempt at producing a counterexample.

Also, there's a simple cost-benefit analysis that can be done with hate speech, although you will of course disregard it because you're a free speech fanatic. The loss of freedom of hate speech doesn't outweigh the risks of hate crime. Anyone with a working conscience will grant that the prevention of serious crimes like the Manchester bombing outweighs some self-important douchebag who thinks that he should be free to preach hate, discrimination, and acts of violence or terrorism.

TV commercials do not cause every viewer to immediately go and and purchase the advertised product. Nevertheless they are effective at inducing some demand for the product. — Relativist

That's another really good example. The typical person you'd stop on the street would readily accept that. This isn't a genuine debate here, because the other side would have to be intellectually dishonest to deny these compelling examples.

They begin with a diehard commitment to free speech fanaticism, and then they just sit back and deny any reasonable counterexamples and objections presented to them.

It would be practically impossible to ban anger, so that's not even worth bringing up as an attempt at producing a counterexample. — S

?? "Being spurned romantically" refers to someone turning you down when you're romantically interested in them.

It would be practically impossible to ban anger, so that's not even worth bringing up as an attempt at producing a counterexample. — S

You gotta read more dystopias. I think anger and emotions in general are being slowly banned. It'll take a while though, psychotropics are only so effective. But look how far they've come in diagnosing pretty much any so called negative emotion as part of a syndrome or other pathology.

I'm sure they'll find something that would 'help' to put in the water.

?? "Being spurned romantically" refers to someone turning you down when you're romantically interested in them. — Terrapin Station

Do you do this on purpose? Just curious.

Okay, just swap "being angry" with "being spurned romantically". It's not like that makes it any less impractical, impossible, and ridiculous.

Okay, just swap "being angry" with "being spurned romantically". It's not like that makes it any less impractical, impossible, and ridiculous. — S

Why wouldn't it simply take a claim that you asked someone to hook up with you and they turned you down? All we need for rape is a claim that it happened.