All you need to do about anything is ask me my opinion and I'll tell you. You don't have to assume that I agree with you about anything.

But okay, so you're continuing because you're assuming that I really do agree with you, lol.

All you need to do about anything is ask me my opinion and I'll tell you. You don't have to assume that I agree with you about anything. — Terrapin Station

As I've said before, I'm not interested in the least bit in your opinion. I'm interested in the solidity of my opinion. I'm using you (or others in this discussion) to test it. There is no point, therefore in discussing with someone whose foundational position on good and bad are so different to mine. I cannot be wrong about those, so alternatives are of no use to me. I can be wrong about what actions will bring them about, and I can be inconsistent (which I don't like), so there is some benefit to me in having both strategies and consistency tested by others.

In my experience, most humans have a broadly similar foundational position on good and bad. Particularly if we limit it to secular humans. It's not unreasonable, therefore, for me to proceed on that assumption until proven otherwise.

With regards to less ethical arguments (like the purpose of normative discussion) the foundational beliefs I appeal to are less good/bad and more rules of rational thought, which, again, it is not unreasonable for me to presume are shared until proven otherwise.

As I've said before, I'm not interested in the least bit in your opinion. — Isaac

So you're going back and forth with me, talking about our ethical stances on hate speech, talking about foundational views of good or bad, talking about "rules of rational thought," etc. while not being interested in my opinion. I guess that would explain a lot of things.

Not being interested in other persons' opinions, especially if they're different, is just the sort of respect and empathy you'd expect from someone very concerned with hate speech, by the way.

The purpose of anything isn't determined by rationality, by the way. And neither are normatives.

So let's say that someone agrees with most people on foundational views re good/bad.

In that context, what is supposed to be the rhetorical point of mentioning that most people feel that hate speech has no benefit?

Presumably the person we're addressing doesn't already think that hate speech has no benefit (otherwise why present an argument simply restating the views they already have?). So what do we think it will do in this context to mention that most people feel that hate speech has no benefit?

Sure. So what would the purpose be of it rhetorically? That was the question. — Terrapin Station

The purpose of pointing out that your opinion won't matter? Well, why do you bother to come here? Just to do the equivalent of declaring that you think a car is a giraffe? Okay then. Are you really that confident of your own abilities? You don't ever pause for thought when everyone else disagrees with you?

The purpose of pointing out that your opinion won't matter? Well, why do you bother to come here? Just to do the equivalent of declaring that you think a car is a giraffe? Okay then. — S

One of the primary reasons I come here is to stay in practice thinking about philosophical stuff in an interactive situation and to stay in practice expressing my thoughts in the same context. It also gives me verbal expression exercise more generally. Also, because of the typical sorts of personalities that are attracted to boards like this, it also keeps me in practice re verbally sparring with that type.

So it's a type of "mental gym."

The conclusion that it's not a fact that such-and-such is a benefit is unacceptable, so you're making your own reduction to the absurd there. The obvious solution to that problem would be for you to revise your interpretation so that it is true to say that it's a fact that such-and-such is a benefit.

And then you'll respond that something is only unacceptable to someone. And then I'll respond, "Okay, but then talking to you is like talking to a brick wall". You should conform more, and then it wouldn't be a problem. Pride comes before a fall, as they say.

The conclusion that it's not a fact that such-and-such is a benefit is unacceptable, — S

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's a fact that there are no facts re whether something is a benefit, aside from the fact that an individual assesses something to be a benefit. So that you find it unacceptable is irrelevant.

One of the primary reasons I come here is to stay in practice thinking about philosophical stuff in an interactive situation and to stay in practice expressing my thoughts in the same context. It also gives me verbal expression exercise more generally. Also, because of the typical sorts of personalities that are attracted to boards like this, it also keeps me in practice re verbally sparring with that type.

So it's a type of "mental gym." — Terrapin Station

A mental gym? Well, it isn't working. If I went to a maths forum claiming that 1 + 1 = 3, and I was reasonable, then my view would change to 1 + 1 = 2. I wouldn't just keep on insisting that 1 + 1 = 3 whilst calling the other members of that forum conformists and accusing them of appealing to the masses.

A mental gym? Well, it isn't working. — S

Sure it is. My assessment is what I care about there. Same thing as with the other gym and exercise I do. I'm going by my own goals, my own assessments.

Sure it is. My assessment is what I care about there. Same thing as with the other gym and exercise I do. I'm going by my own goals, my own assessments. — Terrapin Station

So, if you were the 1 + 1 = 3 guy, you wouldn't care, so long as, in your assessment, you're meeting your own goals?

So, if you were the 1 + 1 = 3 guy, you wouldn't care, so long as you're meeting your own goals? — S

Of course. I would only care about a consensus if (a) I were very or fairly unsure of my own views, and (b) I had good reason to believe that the people I was looking at for a consensus knew what they were talking about/were correct.

Neither (a) nor (b) is the case here.

It's a fact that there are no facts re whether something is a benefit, aside from the fact that an individual assesses something to be a benefit. — Terrapin Station

We don't speak Terrapinese, only you do. In ordinary language, it is true to say that there are facts about whether something is a benefit. You're just interpreting the statement in an unusual way, which leads to a seemingly absurd conclusion. Again, that's another example of where nonconformity, in contrast to common sense, will get you. It's unwise.

it is true to say that there are facts about whether something is a benefit. — S

No, it isn't.

If you're thinking that consensus makes it true, it does not. That's the argumentum ad populum fallacy yet again.

Of course. I would only care about a consensus if (a) I were very or fairly unsure of my own views, and (b) I had good reason to believe that the people I were looking at for a consensus knew what they were talking about/were correct.

Neither (a) nor (b) is the case here. — Terrapin Station

That's the problem, then. It's a problem to do with your poor judgement. You're like the 1 + 1 = 3 guy. Not only are you wrong, you're overconfident and ignorant of why the other members are right. And you're stuck in that situation with no one being able to get through to you.

No, it isn't. — Terrapin Station

It is if you interpret it right.

That's the problem, then. It's a problem to do with your poor judgement. You're like the 1 + 1 = 3 guy. Not only are you wrong, you're overconfident and ignorant of why the other members are right. And you're stuck in that situation with no one being able to get through to you. — S

Your problem is that you don't think you're wrong just because you go along with the crowd.

It is if you interpret it right. — S

There aren't right interpretations.

There aren't right interpretations. — Terrapin Station

Yes there are. That's absurd.

No, there aren't. Knowing you, surely you mean either that there are popular interpretations, or otherwise maybe you'd be going with the author's intent, but neither makes an interpretation right.

Again, knowing you, you'd say something like, "What people mean by 'right interpretation' is the popular interpretation," and aside from the fact that that's not actually what most people have in mind by "right interpretation" (thus falsifying your own claim), we again have the problem that simply because something is popular, that does not make it correct, even if people insist that it does.

At any rate, we can dispense with the charade that you don't have anything normative in mind by noting that such and such is the "correct 'meaning'" of something, or that such and such is "correct grammar," etc. (Previously you and others were attempting the charade that you were using "correct" in a purely descriptive way, to only denote that something was popular.)

No, there aren't. — Terrapin Station

Yes, there are. Surely you're capable of figuring out the appropriate context in which it is true to say that there's a right interpretation. Try harder.

Surely you're capable of figuring out the appropriate context in which it is true to say that there's a right interpretation. — S

We want to fit in with the norm without rocking the boat/without any sort of philosophical questioning, etc.?

One thing I don't understand about your views, by the way, is why you wouldn't think that there are correct judgments in ethics and aesthetics. There are certainly consensus opinions.

Also why wouldn't you be religious? By far there are more religious believers among humans than agnostics or atheists.

We want to fit in with the norm without rocking the boat/without any sort of philosophical questioning, etc.? — Terrapin Station

I don't know about you, but I want to be understood, and you seem to be deliberately and childishly putting obstacles in the way just to make a point.

One thing I don't understand about your views, by the way, is why you wouldn't think that there are correct judgments in ethics and aesthetics. There are certainly consensus opinions. — Terrapin Station

I'm a moral relativist in ethics. I'd say that there are correct judgements relative to whatever, whether that be a consensus, an individual, whatever.

Also why wouldn't you be religious? By far there are more religious believers among humans than agnostics or atheists. — Terrapin Station

I don't go by the reasoning you're falsely suggesting I go by.

Your problem is that you don't think you're wrong just because you go along with the crowd. — Terrapin Station

In cases where the crowd is right, like the case under discussion regarding hate speech, why wouldn't I go along with them? I'd be a fool not to.

Your problem is your irrational opposition to crowds, even when they're right. You take it as some sort of affront to your super special uniqueness, like you'd be losing some vital part of your identity. You care far too much about that.

In cases where the crowd is right, like the case under discussion regarding hate speech, why wouldn't I go along with them? I'd be a fool not to. — S

So the crowd doesn't determine what's right.

I have no problem going along with the crowd when I think they're right.

I don't think they're right in the case of hate speech, obviously. (Of course, assuming that most people actually agree that hate speech should be banned. I don't think that's at all clear, but I'm fine assuming it.)

When someone doesn't think the crowd is right, appealing to what the crowd thinks isn't going to work, obviously, unless the person simply categorically goes along with the crowd no matter what. If neither of us does that, then appealing to the crowd is irrelevant.

So the crowd doesn't determine what's right. — Terrapin Station

So I haven't said otherwise. At least not without qualification.

When someone doesn't think the crowd is right, appealing to what the crowd thinks isn't going to work, obviously, unless the person simply categorically goes along with the crowd no matter what. If neither of us does that, then appealing to the crowd is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

It's not irrelevant, it's just ineffectual against people who block out reason.

It's not irrelevant, — S

It's irrelevant if the crowd thinking something doesn't determine that something is right/correct.

You can't just appeal to the crowd when they happen to agree with you but say they don't matter when you don't agree.