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, mich after the fact, when you finally understand it. — NOS4A2
Yes, I anticipated this and used the word “can”.... it CAN be an involuntary response. My point stands I think.
Doesn’t matter, again the salient point is that its involuntary (at times).
Are you now changing your mind about laughter at least some of the time being involuntary? I don’t even think it compromises your point of view to accept it is here honestly. It doesnt mean you cannot still be against hate speech bans, it just means you can’t say speech has no influence over actions without contradiction. So just incorporate it, recognise that in some cases speech can in fact influence certain kinds of actions, just not the kind people have in mind when they claim hate speech causes violent action.
And you'll notice I didn't say that it did cause any particular individual.. However one of the effects of the advertising is that more people will buy the product. So, it is causal to an increase in products. Of course other causes and conditions affect which ones will be influenced, if only by now knowing the product is available. I could spray a virus in your home and since it may or may not make you and your family sick, or just some of you, one could argue, as it seems to me you are arguing, that if you get sick, my act did not cause your illness. However if I perform this act, more people will get sick that house, than if I didn't. That is an effect of the act. Just as an effect of the act of advertising will have as an effect that more people will buy that product. I am not responsible for customer 235 buying the deoderant. However I did make more people buy it. The relevance for the thread should be clear. It is not about me controlling inviduals, it is me contributing to in increase of something
The idea that nothing ever happens because of speech acts has been a repeated theme in several discussions involving Terrapin Station recently. I'm surprised you missed it. I hope, unlike him, you'll eventually see the futility in the argument and qualify it into a more sensible position.
Yes, people who know about a product are more likely to buy it. That’s a true statement, But the ad didn’t cause them to buy it anymore than it caused another not to buy it. It’s just not true, nor can it be proven, that an ad caused the purchase of a product. — NOS4A2
Say two companies want to sell similar consumer products. Company A hires an ad agency and spends a couple million on various forms of advertising. Company B does not advertise at all.
If company A sells more of its product then that is evidence that the advertising was influential.
The idea that nothing ever happens because of speech acts has been a repeated theme in several discussions involving Terrapin Station recently. I'm surprised you missed it. I hope, unlike him, you'll eventually see the futility in the argument and qualify it into a more sensible position. — Baden
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.