Yeah, but I made it explicit in many different ways that I'd only be concerned with force.

Yeah, but I made it explicit in many different ways that I'd only be concerned with force. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, and people aren't going to remember that you go by an unusual interpretation which no one else goes by. They'll just revert to ordinary language by default.

The only way I'd ever ban any speech would be if speech could literally force something like violent actions. — Terrapin Station

But that's laughable. :lol:

That's like saying the only way I'd ever ban asbestos is if it literally forced cancer on immediate contact.

That's just not reasonable. It can cause cancer, it has caused cancer, no, not in every single encounter with the substance, but there's a risk, the costs outweigh the benefits, and that's enough.

Ok, so as to whether the influence of speech is a spectrum...yes, but your free speech absolutism is based on other things than whether or not its on a spectrum. Is that right?
(Or just “is influence on a spectrum?”..thats what I want to know most.)

Ok, so those measurable effects do not include reactions in others? Is that right?

That is correct.

But that's laughable — S

It's laughable that speech could force actions? I'd agree with that.

Or you think it's laughable to only ban speech that would force actions?

Ok, so as to whether influence is a spectrum...yes, but your free speech absolutism is based on other things than whether or not its on a spectrum. Is that right? — DingoJones

I'd just say it's "based on" speech not being anything, or being able to do anything (like force things) that I have any moral objection to.

I can no longer find this thread in the list “all discussions”. Is that just me?

It's laughable that speech could force actions? I'd agree with that.

Or you think it's laughable to only ban speech that would force actions? — Terrapin Station

The latter. It's laughable to set your threshold so high that it allows in so much that's wrong. It's laughable for the same reason that it's laughable to set the threshold for banning asbestos to be that it forces cancer on immediate contact in every single case.

Ok, so what about in the case of laughing at a joke? (Or other emotional reactions to words). How does that factor into your view?

Oh come on! Lol
You did that in purpose. Is the influence of speech on a spectrum?

No Im not for ACTS of terrorism. — DingoJones

You are by implication, but if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

I can no longer find this thread in the list “all discussions”. Is that just me? — NOS4A2

It's been demoted to the lounge - because it's crap, presumably. The power of language eh?

Sorcery, I reckon.

Well we’ve just been over it haven't we? Am I remembering wrong?
Ok, let me answer to that then. Sorta.
Are you in favour of a speed limit of 50km, or whatever the speed limit is where you live?

Ok, so what about in the case of laughing at a joke? (Or other emotional reactions to words). How does that factor into your view?

We do laugh at jokes, definitely, though I don’t think they cause us to laugh in the sense that we assume.

His next discussion: music doesn't invoke feelings, that's sourcery.

It's been demoted to the lounge - because it's crap, presumably. The power of language eh?

It’s so crap you cannot refute it. Out of sight out of mind, I suppose.

Well we’ve just been over it haven't we? Am I remembering wrong? — DingoJones

But that's what we do here. We celebrate Groundhog Day in this insane asylum full of idiots and nutters.

Are you in favour of a speed limit of 50km, or whatever the speed limit is where you live? — DingoJones

Yes.

Ah, no wonder.

Laughter can be an involuntary response. There are other such responses from speech of certain kinds aa well. How have you factored these into your view?

No, I haven’t fully fleshed out the idea yet, so I appreciate that angle and thank you for raising it. Another difficult angle would be hypnotism.

Hypnotism doesn't force people to do anything, or even to feel anything other than a light separation from activities. That's my understanding of it anyway, so I wouldn't include it as a difficulty for your view. Things like laughter do though.
And um, your welcome I guess? Lol

Think about when you don’t understanding the joke initially, but “get it” later. You’ve heard the words but your understanding fails to evoke the response of laughter until a later time, much after the fact, when you finally understand it.

Laughter can be an involuntary response. — DingoJones

What sourcery. Jokes don't force anyone to laugh. They have no power over anyone. All those people filling up theatres to watch a popular stand-up comedian all freely decide whether or not to laugh at a funny joke. They just so happen to all decide to laugh in unison at the punchline.

Are you telling me that jokes have agency?

Remember who we’re dealing with when it comes to those who take the power of speech as a given.

There is no doubt much truth in the claim that Plato and Aristotle depict the philosopher as pursuing a different way of life than the sophist, but to say that Plato defines the philosopher either through a difference in moral purpose, as in the case of Socrates, or a metaphysical presumption regarding the existence of transcendent forms, as in his later work, does not in itself adequately characterise Plato’s critique of his sophistic contemporaries. Once we attend to Plato’s own treatment of the distinction between philosophy and sophistry two themes quickly become clear: the mercenary character of the sophists and their overestimation of the power of speech. For Plato, at least, these two aspects of the sophistic education tell us something about the persona of the sophist as the embodiment of a distinctive attitude towards knowledge.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/sophists

They’re sophists.

Ah, I love a good old game of spot the fallacy! Poisoning the well. No, wait, guilt by association.

Ah, I love a good old game of spot the fallacy! Poisoning the well.

I guess it’s a shame you’re horrible at it. Poisoning the well occurs before you make an argument, not long after.

I guess it’s a shame you’re horrible at it. Poisoning the well occurs before you make an argument, not long after. — NOS4A2

Ah, you got me before the edit. I'm pretty good actually, and that was close, but it's an association fallacy. You're trying to make those on the other side of the debate seem guilty by association with the sophists.

Ah, you got me before the edit. I'm pretty good actually, and that was close, but it's an association fallacy.

Yes, you’re pretty good at editing your posts after being called out on it.