Indirect causes being further back in the causal chain?
For example, in a Rube Goldberg contraption, setting a billiard ball in a slot causes a level to lower, which causes a chain to move, which causes a lighter to light . . . etc. all the way until we get to a hammer cracking an egg? — Terrapin Station
Either the insults prove unendurable, and the target attacks the speaker, or the words empower and provoke others to commit violence or worse. Gay-bashing, ni**er-bashing, woman-bashing (often called "rape"), and so on. Indirect, but not by much — Pattern-chaser
Do You know of anything that is good or beneficial about hate speech? — Pattern-chaser
So again, you don't think that people have to decide whether to attack someone or not, or at least that they do or should have the power to stop themselves from becoming violent? — Terrapin Station
No, I don't think any of those things. We are human. Humans can be provoked beyond endurance. — Pattern-chaser
There is something good and beneficial about not restricting what people say. — T Clark
There is something good and beneficial about letting people decide whether what they say is good and beneficial rather than authorizing the government to do it. — T Clark
So this isn't something we agree on. I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent. — Terrapin Station
So you'd have to convince me that we don't have free will or that we don't or shouldn't have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent. — Terrapin Station
Yes, there is. I think that's where we get 'freedom of speech' from - we (most of us) think it's a good idea. — Pattern-chaser
But (some) humans are given to hate speech, and their targets are (sometimes) unable to endure the hatred aimed at them, and respond with violence. We can confirm this by simple empirical observation. — Pattern-chaser
Aren't you confusing ought with is here? — Pattern-chaser
Free speech doesn't amount to much if it doesn't include people being able to say things that you'd really rather they didn't say, things that make you very uncomfortable, upset, etc. — Terrapin Station
?? "or at least should" is just an ought. What "is" does it seem to you like I'm confusing it with? — Terrapin Station
I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent. — Terrapin Station
I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent. — Terrapin Station
Your "ought" is that we "should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent". But the corresponding "is" is that we can't. The empirical evidence is conclusive. Do you deny this? — Pattern-chaser
Why have you not (also) said "I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from spouting hate speech"? — Pattern-chaser
You write like someone who values the freedom to speak hatefully toward others. — Pattern-chaser
This is degenerating into silliness. You know quite well the points I have made. You wiggle and squirm around to avoid my points with petty objections. Why not just admit that there is no human, moral, justification for your position? — Pattern-chaser
You write like someone who values the freedom to speak hatefully toward others. — Pattern-chaser
Yes, and that's definitely the case. — Terrapin Station
Maybe you could try to understand points of view that you're not familiar with? — Terrapin Station
I have nothing further to say to you. — Pattern-chaser
But there are attacks that no reasonable person should be expected to tolerate: — Pattern-chaser
Its only effect - its intended effect - is to cause so much hurt as to provoke a violent response. — Pattern-chaser
Hate speech must die. — StreetlightX
You write like someone who values the freedom to speak hatefully toward others. — Pattern-chaser
Yes, and that's definitely the case.
— Terrapin Station
Then I have nothing further to say to you. — Pattern-chaser
I value the freedom for others to speak hatefully towards others. — T Clark
I imagine you support the (sometime) consequences too? Rape, queer-bashing, black-lynching, Jew-bashing — Pattern-chaser
Pattern Chaser, I really hope that you do not believe that just because a person that is in favor of free speech, that they are by default a person who believes in acts of violence. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
I am not sure about you but I much prefer verbal communication over nonverbal, at least when we are talking about angry/hate speech. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yes, of course. But my aim here is to minimise or stop violence. Inciting it via hate speech goes directly against this aim, so I oppose it. — Pattern-chaser
Words only have the impact that you allow them to have on you. Only YOU are in control of what you say and I am the only one that can control my response, — ArguingWAristotleTiff
This is such a ridiculous conversation. This is a debate? We teach CHILDREN better ways of thinking about this.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me”
We don’t need to make it illegal for people to hurt other peoples feelings with their words. Grow up.
Thats at the level of government and law.
On a personal or moral level...grow up.
Thats how far things have fallen, we have to aim for the philosophy meant for children. — DingoJones
I really hope that you do not believe that just because a person that is in favor of free speech, that they are by default a person who believes in acts of violence. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.