Influences don't remove free will. — Terrapin Station

That's blatantly begging the question.

They're just prior causes. — S

Prior causes? As opposed to simultaneous causes or causes after the fact?

The writings of Marx influenced my thinking, which in turn was a causal factor in my act of purchasing books on Marx. — S

You chose, against better judgment, to purchase Marx books. Good judgment would have been purchasing books about the Marx Brothers.

If you had been caused to buy the books, you wouldn't have had a choice.

That's blatantly begging the question. — S

That's not what "begging the question" conventionally refers to, and you consider conventional usage correct, so per your views, that's incorrect.

A good challenge for you is to find the speech that will cause me to think that speech can be causal to actions.

Prior causes? As opposed to simultaneous causes or causes after the fact? — Terrapin Station

Prior cause: a cause further back in the chain of cause and effort.

Sprechen Sie Englisch?

You chose, against better judgment, to purchase Marx books. Good judgment would have been purchasing books about the Marx Brothers.

If you had been caused to buy the books, you wouldn't have had a choice. — Terrapin Station

Either I didn't choose to do so, or I did so in a way that was consistent with what I just told you. Either way, I'm still right.

That's not what "begging the question" conventionally refers to, and you consider conventional usage correct, so per your views, that's incorrect. — Terrapin Station

In full context, it is an example of begging the question. You're just doing the whole autistic/pedant act again.

Prior cause: a cause further back in the chain of cause and effort. — S

All causes are prior to what they cause. But sure, a cause can be further back temporally in a causal chain.

How was I "begging the question 'in full context'"?

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.

Even if 'hate speech' (whatever that may be, really..) — Tzeentch

Yeah, we haven't touched on those issues much. It's another big can of worms.

A good challenge for you is to find the speech that will cause me to think that speech can be causal to actions. — Terrapin Station

That test would clearly be compromised by your involvement.

But an obvious example would be if I was in my local pub and a newcomer asked me where the gents were, and I told him that they were over there, whilst pointing to the door on the other side of the pub leading back outside, and the newcomer took me at my word and walked over to the door, only to discover that he had been mislead.

There are about a million-and-one examples of this sort of thing, but I'm sure you'll find some way to explain them away rather than admit the obvious.

Maybe you think that other people are essentially robots?

All causes are prior to what they cause. — Terrapin Station

Silly point.

Maybe you think that other people are essentially robots? — Terrapin Station

If people are essentially robots, then you are essentially a robot with a malfunction.

Prior cause isn't a distinction. All causes are prior. That's a core part of the idea.

Prior cause isn't a distinction. All causes are prior. — Terrapin Station

Obviously I meant that it was a cause prior to other particular causes within a particular context relating to what we were discussing. It was very silly of you to misinterpret what I meant in that way, as though I was randomly coming out with a linguistic redundancy for no apparent reason.

How was I "begging the question 'in full context'"? — Terrapin Station

Because you're assuming your conclusion in part of your argument. You would first need to reach the conclusion that we have free will, which you haven't done with me here.

Obviously I meant that it was a cause prior to other particular causes within a particular context relating to what we discussing. It was very silly of you to misinterpret what I meant in that way — S

But an influence can occur immediately prior to what it's influencing. So why would you classify influences as "causes prior to other causes"? That's why I wouldn't read it that way. It's stupid.

Because you're assuming your conclusion in part of your argument. — S

When I'm talking about causes and influences and their difference, I'm not forwarding an argument.

But an influence can occur immediately prior to what it's influencing. So why would you classify influences as "causes prior to other causes"? That's why I wouldn't read it that way. It's stupid. — Terrapin Station

I classified them that way because that's what they are, and your point about immediacy only makes sense if you ignore the context of what we were talking about and insert your own in order to make this silly point of yours where it looks like you're trying to prove me wrong about something I never meant or intended, even though in reality you're just appearing oblivious and looking to score a point.

In the example I gave, the influence is a prior cause. It is a cause prior to my act, which is itself a cause. Do you understand that? Can you stop wasting time now? Or should I book you in with a brain surgeon?

I classified them that way because that's what they are, and your point about immediacy only makes sense if you ignore the context of what we were talking about and insert your own in order to make this silly point of yours where it looks like you're trying to prove me wrong about something I never meant or intended, even though in reality you're just appearing oblivious and looking to score a point. — S

In the example you provided, why couldn't the influence be immediately prior to the act?

In the example you provided, why couldn't the influence be immediately prior to the act? — Terrapin Station

Because it wasn't. I should know, it was an example taken from my life. That simply wasn't how the events unfolded, and I don't possess a time machine to go back and alter the past. I first acquired an interest in his writings, which was the influence I referred to, and it wasn't until much later that I actually purchased those books.

Because it wasn't. I should know, it was an example taken from my life. That simply wasn't how the events unfolded, and I don't possess a time machine to go back and alter the past. — S

Wait, the example this tangent stemmed from was this: "What if some teenage boy had gone out and murdered a group of popular teenage girls at his school, and then killed himself, and left behind a suicide note and diary explicitly naming Elliot Rodger and incel culture as his motive? "

That is an example taken from your life?

That is an example taken from your life? — Terrapin Station

Oh my god. Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. :up:

:roll:

Oh my god. Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. — S

But that's what led to the influence comments. There was no other example between that and the influence comments. So if you're trying to sell the "prior cause" nonsense as being pertinent to the example at hand at the time the comment was made, that's the example we were discussing.

But that's what led to the influence comments. There was no other example between that and the influence comments. — Terrapin Station

You must have lost track of the conversation:

Influences are not causes in any respect.
— Terrapin Station

Of course they are. They're just prior causes. I already gave you an example, which you ignored. The writings of Marx influenced my thinking, which in turn was a causal factor in my act of purchasing books on Marx. Without that cause in the chain, I wouldn't have purchased books on Marx. That's fundamental to the explanation. — S

Someone call the brain surgeon!

The whole reason we started talking about influence is because you gave the ""What if some teenage boy . . ." example, I wrote "I would say that he decided to take the actions he did, where he at least decided to credit Elliot Rodger as an influence on his decision," and you responded with, "Decisions are influenced, and influences are causes in some respect." Are you saying that "prior cause" didn't apply for "influence" at that point? "Prior cause" only had to do with the later example of the Marx books?

The "What if some teenage boy..." example was the context of what we were talking about.

Note that you treat unrestricted free speech as the ultimate good.

Note that you treat unrestricted free speech as the ultimate good. — Relativist

If I had to pick something I treat as "the ultimate good" it would be unrestricted consensual actions. Speech would be just one example. (Again, remember that I don't consider it necessary for observers or non-physically-forced bystanders to consent; they're not parties in the actions in question. They're passive instead.)

However, I'd be picking that in the manner that I might pick "My 10 favorite musical artists" or something like that, where the answer isn't so black & white really, and I'm picking 10 just to pick 10 and play along--even though they'd be 10 of my favorites, just not THE 10 favorites period.

I would say that another "ultimate good," and unfortunately one that we're much further away from in practice, is creating a system where people don't have to worry about things like housing, food, health care, education, employment, travel/mobility, leisure activities/leisure time, etc.

Any intention of addressing the actual substance of my post, or just the quibble about the meaning of libertarianism (although claiming that libertarianism is not about liberty was a classic worth hearing).

Would you accept that, if it were the case that a person's freedom to walk safely down the street were restricted by hate speech then their freedom to do so is of greater importance than the other's freedom to speak as they see fit?

Would you accept that, if it were the case that a person's freedom to walk safely down the street were restricted by hate speech then their freedom to do so is of greater importance than the other's freedom to speak as they see fit? — Isaac

No. That's way too vague. What I'd say is that if hate speech were a causal action that resulted in physical forces nonconsensually applied to the person walking down the street, where we're talking about something that has a significant physical effect on the person (macro-observable physical effects, say, at least a week after the event), then I'd have no problem considering the hate speech in question a crime/I'd have no problem prohibiting it.