You wrote "So, if one could prove that hate speech makes violence more likely"

I was commenting on that.

so one wouldn't need to prove that shooting people causes them to die in order to make it punishable?

so one wouldn't need to prove that shooting people causes them to die in order to make it punishable? — khaled

No, because no empirical claim is provable period. Proof has nothing to do with empirical knowledge. It's a category error.

so I assume one would have to "causally peg" not prove?

We'd need to establish it via empirical evidence, etc.--the way we need to do with any empirical claim, which has nothing to do with proof.

Fair. So if one were to empirically establish that hate speech increases the likely hood of violence wouldn't that be good grounds for banning it?

I assume your objection will be "but it's not a cause and only causes matter" correct?

So if one were to empirically establish that hate speech increases the likely hood of violence wouldn't that be good grounds for banning it? — khaled

Again, I don't want to keep going over the same stuff again and again. Above I wrote "'X makes y more likely' isn't a statement of causality" and "On my view only causality matters."

So why do I have to write both again a couple hours later?

Above I wrote "'X makes y more likely' isn't a statement of causality" and "On my view only causality matters."

So why do I have to write both again a couple hours later — Terrapin Station

You didn't. You could've just said "yes that would be my objection" because that's exactly what I asked would be your objection

Now. Does this mean the ONLY way for something to be punishable for you is if it has a single cause and is not "co caused" by multiple things?

So if D is bad and

A=>D. Then A is punishable
B, C and E=> D. Now what? Are none of them punishable?

Now. Does this mean the ONLY way for something to be punishable for you is if it has a single cause — khaled

No. I addressed this already above.

I don't you remember you doing so. So would B C and E all be punishable or what?

I don't you remember you doing so. So would B C and E all be punishable or what? — khaled

It's ridiculous to think I was ever suggesting anything special about "things with single causes."

It's ridiculous to think I was ever suggesting anything special about "things with single causes." — Terrapin Station

Ehhhhh I've heard crazier stuff.

Now. Say X is hate speech, Y is violence and C is the indeterminate brain functions that add up to free will

If X, A, B and C cause Y

Why shouldn't we ban X?

Are you saying X has absolutely no effect for causing Y? Aka it would never be there along A, B and C?

In order to parse lyrics/vocals semantically when I listen to music, I have to make an effort to focus on that aspect. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, that's in a welter of stimuli. Someone walks up to you in a not noisy corrider and says 'excuse me' pauses 'your hair is on fire' You might not believe them but you are going to get that sentence and that sentence will affect you, whether you believe it or not, though the effects will be different.

When the elephant thing first came up, — Terrapin Station

And it wasn't your post, I don't think, I was responding to in relation to the elephant. Perhaps I would have responded the same way. I just don't by this act of choosing to contruct meaning when exposed to people saying stuff. Certainly in some moods and when focused on something else, etc., sure. One might have to choose to shift focus. But in general I don't think it's a good model for what happens. If one wants to stay with that model, I can see what it might entail.

I would also then want to investigate the idea that everyone has free will. It seems to me there are degrees of free will, if there is free will.

Now. Say X is hate speech, Y is violence and C is free will — khaled

Free will can't be part of the equation if we're trying to claim that something prior to it caused something. That's contradictory. Free will isn't deterministic.

you are going to get that sentence and that sentence will affect you, — Coben

Not necessarily, and it's "not whether I believe it or not." You'd be saying not only that I have unconscious mental content but that you can know what that content is better than I do.

it isn't. I edited the comment a bit. As in X is the sound waves, C is the final result of the indeterminate mental processes in your brain.

It could be the case that without the input X, your free will would have indeterminstically gone another way right? A way that is not violent. I understand that in that case the causal chain isn't really a causal chain because there is an indeterminate process in the middle is that your objection?

It's really this simple. As Khaled has already laid out. ABC and D collectively cause E. Take any one away and E will not happen. Regardless of what you want to call ABC and D.

A is hate speech, BC and D are the additional thing your brain has to do to that speech to cause you to act violently.

What is your evidence, beyond wishful thinking, that A cannot possibly be hate speech.

As in X is the sound waves, C is the final result of the indeterminate mental processes in your brain. — khaled

If it's indeterminate it's not causal.

A is hate speech, BC and D are the additional thing your brain has to do to that speech to cause you to act violently. — Isaac

Why am I having to repeat something I just wrote? Something prior to free will isn't causal to a free will decision.

I said beyond wishful thinking. You've forwarded no evidence whatsoever for free will, so you can't now assume it's existence, and a full working knowledge of its function, as a matter of public policy

If it's indeterminate it's not causal — Terrapin Station

So I assume rigging a gun to shoot randomly by some indeterminate mechanism (say, random nuclear decay) and putting that in a public street is fine?

I said beyond wishful thinking. — Isaac

You're a determinist. I'm not. Obviously I don't believe that free will is "wishful thinking" I think that determinism is thinking that hasn't moved past about 1840.

So I assume rigging a gun to shoot randomly by some indeterminate mechanism (say, random nuclear decay) and putting that in a public street is fine? — khaled

It's not causal, is it?

no

I want you to admit that it's not causal first. Is it causal?

no (in case you didn't see the edit)

.

what's that period supposed to mean?

I want you to admit that it's not causal first. Is it causal?

I want you to admit that it's not causal first. Is it causal? — Terrapin Station

No. It is not causal. I said so three times are you blind?