You've made it abundantly clear that you just want to get high on 'freedom' with no regard as to the consequences. — Shamshir

Yep. Terrible judgement.

I'm not going to be able to get why they're so drawn to consensuses, to a point where they think they're correct/incorrect and have normative weight (at least when it suits them (in S's case)), and why they can't see that the latter part of that is fallacious, and they're not going to get why I'm "perversely" denying the normative importance of consensuses. — Terrapin Station

If you don't even understand what's wrong with allowing a proposition like, "All crimes beginning with 'm' should be legalised", to pass through your moral system, then it would make sense that you don't understand other related things. And I'm not doing anything fallacious. You haven't demonstrated that.

You're just not free enough if you don't have the freedom to be bullied.

-Signed the Anti-Vac of speech

That was a lot of writing to not even answer the question you quoted at the start of it.

You said mentioned the "usefulness in discussion" of "assuming the likelihood of broad conformity."

I asked, "So just what is the usefulness in discussion of assuming that? Is it supposed to imply something? What?"

I'd be interested in you answering that. Going off on a big tangent about my comments, my motivations for posting what/how I post on boards like this, etc. does nothing to answer the question I asked about something you said.

So, assuming the likelihood of broad conformity is useful in discussions like this in your opinion because of what? What's the usefulness?

I have no Idea why you'd think that. — S

Because to me, it's what you seem to be doing. It's partially because you can't articulate what your actual views are very well, at least in any detail.

f you don't even understand what's wrong with allowing a proposition like, "All crimes beginning with 'm' should be legalised", to pass through your moral system, — S

See, this is a good example. You're not capable of articulating what you think is wrong with it in any detail. Saying things like "you should know already," "it's absurd," "it's not sensible/it's contrary to common sense," "it's cuckoo," etc. don't count as articulating what you think is wrong with it in any detail.

Because to me, it's what you seem to be doing. — Terrapin Station

You already said that. That wasn't what I was questioning, as I think you know. The thing is, that's not what I'm doing, and I don't know why it would seem that way to you.

It's partially because you can't articulate what your actual views are very well, at least in any detail. — Terrapin Station

Again, others here understand what I've said, so that's evidence against you. If what I've said is sufficient to be understood, as others would confirm, then why are you asking for more detail? One possible explanation could be, as I've said, that it's tactical. I don't actually need to articulate anything more than what I've already articulated, because the world doesn't revolve around you.

If this mattered as much as you seem to think it does, then it would be easy to win any debate. All you'd have to do is keep saying that it isn't clear and ask for more details.

Example: what you said about Earth being the planet that we live on isn't clear. You must now provide more details.

And one could just keep using that whatever the other person says.

Going off on a big tangent about my comments, my motivations for posting what/how I post on boards like this, etc. does nothing to answer the question I asked about something you said. — Terrapin Station

Well, whether it helped you or not, it was an honest attempt to answer your question. I'll try again.

So, assuming the likelihood of broad conformity is useful in discussions like this in your opinion because of what? What's the usefulness? — Terrapin Station

1. The purpose of discussions like these is for your interlocutors to spot flaws in your argument, either for sport, for genuine persuasion (for those that think such a thing might work), or to simply act as editors and proofreaders to help hone argumentative skills.

2. Moral arguments such as the ones of yours I used as examples, are not isolated arbitrary policy opinions. They are connected by rational inference to other feelings, concepts etc. Therefore one of the flaws that can be spotted is something claiming to be a rational inference which is not, or one which is poorly expressed.

3. It is impractical (maybe even impossible) for a person to lay out their whole Web of beliefs prior, or even during, a discussion like this.

Therefore, to carry out 1 in a moral discussion, where the only errors are rational inferences between ideas, it makes sense to assume a relatively broad 'normal' range of beliefs at 2 because of the impracticality at 3. Especially as one is very likely to be broadly right in such an assumption.

The alternative is that discussion like this get dominated by teasing out the whole Web from one oddball, or we don't really have anything to discuss.

The alternative is that discussions like this get dominated by teasing out the whole web from one oddball, or we don't really have anything to discuss. — Isaac

Yep, the former is pretty much any discussion that Terrapin gets involved in. "Hey guys, I have a web of oddball beliefs, so you're all wrong in light of my oddball beliefs". That's not how it works, I'm afraid.

The trouble it it seems more than that, and somewhat endemic here. If the arguments start out that way, at least I can dismiss them early as mere proselytising. But they don't. They start out within a web of rational justification and only when other people start to pick at the strands does it deteriorate into "that's just how I feel". It seems to have happened here, its happened discussing meta-ethics, consciousness, most religious discussions and almost anything 'continental'.

You've made it abundantly clear that you just want to get high on 'freedom' with no regard as to the consequences.

Just curious, but do you require laws to teach you from right or wrong, or how to act in good conduct?

1. The purpose of discussions like these is for your interlocutors to spot flaws in your argument, either for sport, for genuine persuasion (for those that think such a thing might work), or to simply act as editors and proofreaders to help hone argumentative skills.

2. Moral arguments such as the ones of yours I used as examples, are not isolated arbitrary policy opinions. They are connected by rational inference to other feelings, concepts etc. Therefore one of the flaws that can be spotted is something claiming to be a rational inference which is not, or one which is poorly expressed.

3. It is impractical (maybe even impossible) for a person to lay out their whole Web of beliefs prior, or even during, a discussion like this.

Therefore, to carry out 1 in a moral discussion, where the only errors are rational inferences between ideas, it makes sense to assume a relatively broad 'normal' range of beliefs at 2 because of the impracticality at 3. Especially as one is very likely to be broadly right in such an assumption.

The alternative is that discussion like this get dominated by teasing out the whole Web from one oddball, or we don't really have anything to discuss. — Isaac

Instead of picking apart all of the issues this has in my opinion, could you give at least a fictional example of how you think this would work for usefulness?

What would be a moral argument where it would be useful to assume the likelihood of broad conformity, and then give an example of how the discussion would proceed so that the assumption was useful. If you can give a good example, maybe you'll persuade me.

They start out within a web of rational justification and only when other people start to pick at the strands does it deteriorate into "that's just how I feel". — Isaac

That's never something I do because (a) things that hinge on how one feels--ethical/moral stances, aesthetic judgments, etc., aren't things for which I'd ever present a "web of rational justiication," and conversely (b) things for which I'd present a "web of rational justification" would never end with "that's just how I feel."

For example, you bring up metaethics. My stance on metaethics isn't at all just how I feel. It's reflective of what the world is factually like. Same for the mind-body issue, etc.

What would be a moral argument where it would be useful to assume the likelihood of broad conformity, and then give an example of how the discussion would proceed so that the assumption was useful. If you can give a good example, maybe you'll persuade me. — Terrapin Station

I very much doubt you'd be persuaded, or act as though you are, even if he provides a really good example. An example that's highly relevant here would be that consequences like the ones you dismissed earlier matter. I recall you earlier on dismissing a situation where someone couldn't even walk down a street because some thugs were throwing rocks off of a building. That would be a consequence of your stance regarding the law, and your response was basically that that wouldn't matter. It shouldn't be illegal. You shouldn't be able to call the police to intervene, or if you do, they should just say, "Sorry, this isn't a police matter. No laws are being broken".

In reality, all that really means is that you're abnormal, and that we shouldn't take your wild ideas seriously.

I very much doubt you'd be persuaded, or act as though you are, even if he provides a really good example. An example that's highly relevant here would be that consequences like the ones you dismissed earlier matter. I recall you earlier on dismissing a situation where someone couldn't even walk down a street because some thugs were throwing rocks off of a building. That would be a consequence of your stance regarding the law, and your response was basically that that wouldn't matter. It shouldn't be illegal. You shouldn't be able to call the police to intervene, or if you do, they should just say, "Sorry, this isn't a police matter. No laws are being broken".

In reality, all that really means is that you're abnormal, and that we shouldn't take your wild ideas seriously. — S

That's not actually what I said in that part, but I don't want to focus on that. You're not understanding what I'm asking for. I'm asking for an example of an argument someone could give where it's useful (and then explain how it's useful) to assume the likelihood of broad conformity,

Presumably I wouldn't be a good example, because how would it be useful to assume the likelihood of broad conformity in the context of my comments about ethics/morals?

That's not actually what I said in that part, but I don't want to focus on that. You're not understanding what I'm asking for. I'm asking for an example of an argument someone could give where it's useful (and then explain how it's useful) to assume the likelihood of broad conformity,

Presumably I wouldn't be a good example, because how would it be useful to assume the likelihood of broad conformity in the context of my comments about ethics/morals? — Terrapin Station

Okay, I'll be more explicit. It would be useful to assume that there's broad agreement that consequences like those I referred to in my previous reply matter, in an ethical discussion like this, because otherwise talking about more specific things in that context wouldn't really make any sense if we aren't even in broad agreement over the basics. People make points with that assumption in mind. We tend to assume that people aren't completely whacko, and that they'll be able to relate on at least a basic level. It's useful if you're a normal human being trying to have a discussion with other normal human beings.

Looking for a concrete example. A fictional one is fine.

Looking for a concrete example. A fictional one is fine. — Terrapin Station

What? Anyway, I knew this would be pointless with you.

What? Anyway, I knew this would be pointless with you. — S

Because I'm skeptical about what's being claimed.

Showing a concrete example of how it would be useful would help convince me.

Because I'm skeptical about what's being claimed. — Terrapin Station

It's way beyond that. More like wilful blindness.

Showing a concrete example of how it would be useful would help convince me. — Terrapin Station

I've given you one. It actually happened in this discussion earlier on. How much more concrete can you get? I don't believe that anything would help convince you enough; not anything to do with what we're saying, but rather because you just won't find anything convincing enough, or that it won't bring you to come out and say, "Oh yeah, actually you're right. I see what you mean".

I've given you one. — S

First, did I even give an "argument" for the stance of mine you're taking to be an example?

First, did I even give an "argument" for the stance of mine you're taking to be an example? — Terrapin Station

Yes. Why? What problem are you going to invent this time? You're always saying things and then finding ways to avoid giving away any ground. It's kind of predictable.

Come on you two, you're embarrassing yourselves.

Come on you two, you're embarrassing yourselves. — jamalrob

Don't patronise me.

Yes. Why? — S

Why--because that's what I asked for an example of (because that's what Isaac was talking about). What argument did I give?

This is a simplistic and idealistic view. I would love to agree with an absolute free speech policy, but in practice, allowing everyone to say anything they want is a dangerous thing. Right now the medias are simplifying the issue to the "you hurt my feelings" bullshit, like censorship is something that the left own. But the political right censored everything they could for centuries. Censorship is certainly not something owned by the left. Not at all. But what's happening right now in the public arena, with the gender issues for an example, is a proof that finally, the left has enough power to do what the right always did. Abuse it's power.

But that's not even the real problem with free speech. The problem is if there's not enough free speech in a society, people become vulnerable to charismatic leaders. So, society can shift toward a cliff within a few years. But if there's too much free speech, "The tyranny of the majority" will always tend to smother the introverts, and the wises.

Only about 10% of people are very intelligent. So absolute free speech means that morons will be able to force wise people to shut up.

What's sad is that those who decide what's censored and what's allowed base their decisions on moral grounds more than science or ethics. Though it's slowly changing now that science is more respected than it ever was (Not yet enough, but certainly more than ever.). I would be 100% for free speech if most people were really intelligent. But average humans are so easy to manipulate. People with charisma can lie and people believe every word. And people without charisma can speak the truth 24/7 (cause truth never sleeps :c) and people don't care about what they say. Noam Chomsky is a good example of that. The number of views for his videos on Youtube are shameful. Considering that the guy basically never lies, and tell everything exactly like it is. But, people prefer comforting lies, than stressful truths. I don't even need to argue that. It's so obvious.

By the way, in my last comment on Sept 28th 2019, I was replying to this comment from Terrapin Station. From 2 months ago.

In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist.

I don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence. — Terrapin Station

could you give at least a fictional example of how you think this would work for usefulness? — Terrapin Station

The trouble is (and the reason I wrote my post the way I did) that the conclusion of utility depends on you agreeing with my premises. You've already implied that you don't. I'm happy to give an example to further clarify what they mean, but basically, if you disagree with any of those premises, you're going to disagree with the utility in the example.

Say someone states "I think all women should wear the hijab", and "I think all people should be treated equally". We have two choices...

We can say "oh, how interesting" - pointless, unless for some reason we're curating a collection of 'opinions from the Internet'

Or, we can assume, like most people, they do not like to hold contradictory ideas and argue that their position is flawed because the one idea contradicts the other.

They might come back and say "I don't care if two ideas I hold are contradictory", in which case our efforts have been wasted on them, but not on us, we still had the mental excerise of spotting the flaws. So the discussion has still been more useful with the assumption than without.

We could, as a third option, simply ask "do you mind having two contradictory ideas" but there are two problems with this. First, it is inefficient, we'd have to waste time asking stuff for which the answer is 'yes' 99% of the time. Secondly, unless we're curating ideas, if the answer is 'no' we've got nowhere and haven't even benefitted from the mental excerise of 'spotting the flaws'.

So, in all, it is more useful to the interlocutors, by my broad definition of what use these discussions might reasonably have, to simply assume the OP shares the common trait of not liking to hold contradictory views, rather than to not.

One would require rules, and these rules may be brought up via personal or second hand experience.

So I guess I would be inclined to ask, do you see a big difference between rules and laws?

First, it has nothing to do left/right politics for me. (And if you're curious, politically I consider myself a libertarian socialist, though I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist.)

I don't agree with your assessment of intelligence or that science can fuel normatives (re what should/shouldn't be censored if we were going to censor anything). That's because in my view there are no true (or false) normatives; nothing is factually a normative.

Re "'The tyranny of the majority' will always tend to smother the introverts," and "absolute free speech means that morons will be able to force wise people to shut up," what do you have in mind, exactly? Could you give more details there/some concrete examples?