"physical assault can't be shown to be causal to any particular harm, because regardless of the assault in question, we could take two different people and expose them to the same assault and they'd react completely differently. — Baden
"If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you" — Mr Phil O'Sophy
Someone who has conditioned his body to receive punches, is going to have a different bodily reaction that someone who has brittle bones or is a baby. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
Yes I did. I wrote this: "Which isn't true. If you punch two different people with equal force etc. in the same spot, they're not going to react completely differently. There will be similar physical effects."you didn't say similar you said: — Mr Phil O'Sophy
but the answer is clear. There bodies will react completely differently. — Mr Phil O'Sophy
Two people's bodies can not react completely differently to the same "physical" force, such as a punch — Terrapin Station
This is obviously false — Baden
Does that hurt her husband? If speech is causal to harm, how could that not harm her husband (while it could maybe harm a husband who speeks German)? What are the physical differences in each case? — Terrapin Station
Give an example of two people's bodies acting completely differently to the same "physical" force a la a punch, knife stab, etc. — Terrapin Station
Tiresome. Do you not realize that a punch in the stomach of x power that could be enough to cause serious damage to the organs of and even kill a child may have little or no discernible physical effect on a professional boxer, for example? — Baden
Do a bit of reading. Words can have lasting physical effects in some circumstances*. That those circumstances may be more limited than the effects of physical trauma is a matter of degree not type — Baden
orrect. What there should be instead is a culture that doesn't believe things just because someone claims them. When you're officially prohibited from saying such things, then people tend to believe claims like that whether they're true or not. When we instead have a milieu where anyone is allowed to say whatever they like, then people don't believe things when all there is to them is a claim. That's bad news for religions, sleazy salespeople, con men, slanderers, false accusers, politicians, etc.--and even for people claiming what's essentially nonsense in the name of philosophy, science, etc. (which happens all the time, including right here in River City), and that's good news for us as a culture. — Terrapin Station
I'd not allow contractual fraud, but that's an issue of contractual law, not a speech issue. — Terrapin Station
Contracts are formal agreements that each party is going to offer something in exchange for something else. — Terrapin Station
The question I asked was what makes dishonest contractual utterances properly subject to regulation but not non-contractual utterances. — Hanover
Properly? What sort of question is that? I'm not saying anything about "properly." — Terrapin Station
You're saying that it's improper to regulate free speech generally, but that it's proper to regulate contracts specifically. — Hanover
You're saying that it's improper to regulate free speech generally, but that it's proper to regulate contracts specifically.
— Hanover
Where am I saying that? — Terrapin Station
I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. — Terrapin Station
'd not allow contractual fraud, but that's an issue of contractual law, not a speech issue — Terrapin Station
If anyone is unclear on what harmful speech is, it should be obvious that when anyone criticizes a group of people without any other reason than that they are different in ethnicity, gender or culture, it is hate speech. Any criticism against a group of people should be based on solid reasonable arguments that can't be disputed easily. — Christoffer
But I didn't use the word "proper" anywhere, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying what I am/am not in favor of (well, and what I'd do "if I were king"). — Terrapin Station
Just to point out, this is ending up discriminating against people for speaking at all about differences in ethnicity, gender, or culture. There is no clear line what constitutes criticism and what not. — ernestm
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.