No, I don't believe that. — S

What? You don't believe that you'd win the wager? (I'm trying to confirm that that's what you're saying.)

I don't know why the other posts were deleted. Anyway, again, yeah, obviously I have unusual views, including unusual ethical views. I've stated this many times. As I said, with my political views, I've yet to run into a single other person who agrees with them overall. — Terrapin Station

I guess, quite ridiculously, because I used the term, "fucked up". Either that or it was the automatic filter. I guess I shouldn't have called your fucked up morality "fucked up", I should have called it something more politically correct instead.

What? You don't believe that you'd win the wager? (I'm trying to confirm that that's what you're saying.) — Terrapin Station

:brow:

Har har. No, I meant that I don't believe your account. I don't believe that a good argument would convince you. That's kind of what I meant by immunity in the first place, otherwise you wouldn't really be immune, and I wouldn't have said that.

Okay, so the wager?

Okay, so the wager? — Terrapin Station

Yeah, metaphorically, I'd wager against you, so long as you didn't skew the set up. But no, if you actually want real money from me, on ya bike.

I'm not talking metaphorically. If you're sure you'd win, I wouldn't be getting any money from you, right? You'd only be getting money from me.

I'm not talking metaphorically. If you're sure you'd win, I wouldn't be getting any money from you, right? You'd only be getting money from me. — Terrapin Station

Lol, I don't bet my real money with people online. Full stop. The rest is irrelevant.

Which means that you're talking shit.

I'm not. I'll seriously wager any amount on this.

Here's when I won't take a wager: when I'm not more or less 100% certain that I'll win.

Which means that you're talking shit. — Terrapin Station

That's absolutely hilarious. There are lots and lots of people who outright refuse to bet their real money in response to people who goad them to do so online, and that's perfectly understandable. Draw whatever foolish conclusions you like from that.

There are lots and lots of people who outright refuse to bet their real money from people who goad them to do so online, — S

You put the money in escrow. You draw up a contract specifying the terms. There's zero risk unless you're talking shit.

If you put up enough--say at least 10k US, I'll come to Australia or wherever you are (for some reason I was thinking it's Australia) and we can do the study there, so you're present every step of the way.

You put the money in escrow. You draw up a contract specifying the terms. There's zero risk unless you're talking shit. — Terrapin Station

Very funny. Anyway, I told you that I don't bet my real money against people online. Do you understand what that statement means?

Do you understand what that statement means? — S

Yes, that you're a bullshitter.

Yes, that you're a bullshitter. — Terrapin Station

You're being very childish, you know.

If you put up enough--say at least 10k US, I'll come to Australia or wherever you are (for some reason I was thinking it's Australia) and we can do the study there, so you're present every step of the way. — Terrapin Station

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, okay then. Go ahead and make all the arrangements. I'll send you the 10k US I don't even have, and we'll fly out to Australia! I've always wanted to go there. Put another shrimp on the barbie!

I don't recall where you are. Just wager whatever you can afford. You don't send it to me. Again, we put it into escrow and draw up a contract. (No wonder you can't afford $10k though if you don't know the difference between sending it to me and putting it in escrow.)

Oh, okay then. No problem. Send me the link and I'll put everything I have in my bank account into a crow over this stupid argument on a philosophy forum. Where do I sign? On its beak?

Sure. How much are we wagering? And we need to figure out the terms. For one we could use the scenario I set up earlier re measurements and the true/false/not enough info question. If you want to suggest modifications that's fine; we can hash that out. We should probably devise three-five questions for this, although not more, as people won't have patience for that. And then we could ask, say, 500 people chosen at random? I could do it on the streets of NYC, or in a mall over the course of a couple weeks, say, and I could video it so you see that the responses are what I say they are.

Sure. How much are we wagering? — Terrapin Station

A million dollars, my cat, and my favourite pair of socks.

A minute ago you didn't have $10k

A minute ago you didn't have $10k — Terrapin Station

I didn't. I had a million dollars.

And are you open to a critical examination of the paper and its claims? — Terrapin Station

The paper is basically a summary of the state of psychological and neuroscienetific thinking on the matter. If you're not going to trust the expert judgement (which I've already outlined), then there's nothing much in that paper to go on. This is the problem with your attitude that any expert position can be critically examined. There have been literally thousands of experiments done in this field. You cannot possibly examine them all, nor would you have the background knowledge to do so. Experts in the field examine some of them, other experts collate the conclusions of those experts, other experts summarise all that in conclusions like the one I quoted. Could they all be wrong? Absolutely. Have we got a chance in hell of reasonably demonstrating that they are? No.

If you want to critically examine the experiments which have lead to the conclusions I cited, be my guest. There are 95 citations in that paper alone, and many of those are citing other summaries which themselves have scores of experimental results cited. I'll find a link to the paper, when you've read through the several thousand experiments it collectively cites, I'd love to hear your thoughts on their conclusions.

Here's an escrow company I've used:

http://smprtitle.com/services/escrow-services/

Is that okay with you?

We need to go over the terms/devise the questions, of course.

The paper is basically a summary of the state of psychological and neuroscienetific thinking on the matter. If you're not going to trust the expert judgement (which I've already outlined), then there's nothing much in that paper to go on. This is the problem with your attitude that any expert position can be critically examined. There have been literally thousands of experiments done in this field. You cannot possibly examine them all, nor would you have the background knowledge to do so. Experts in the field examine some of them, other experts collate the conclusions of those experts, other experts summarise all that in conclusions like the one I quoted. Could they all be wrong? Absolutely. Have we got a chance in hell of reasonably demonstrating that they are? No.

If you want to critically examine the experiments which have lead to the conclusions I cited, be my guest. There are 95 citations in that paper alone, and many of those are citing other summaries which themselves have scores of experimental results cited. I'll find a link to the paper, when you've read through the several thousand experiments it collectively cites, I'd love to hear your thoughts on their conclusions. — Isaac

So in other words, you're not really going to go through a critical examination of anything with me.

Part of what we'd be critically examining, by the way, is if a claim is even being made to the effect of the claim you're making.

Don't you think that a philosophy background is relevant, especially with focuses on philosophy of science, epistemology and ontology?

Here's an escrow company I've used:

http://smprtitle.com/services/escrow-services/

Is that okay with you? — Terrapin Station

Do I just go here and follow the instructions?

This is a very difficult issue, especially with the “think of the children” rhetoric involved.

I like to think of it this way: if we educated children in the nature of language, and how to better grapple with their feelings when in contact with abusive words, they will learn to negate the bully’s attempts to exert power and coercion through verbal abuse. — NOS4A2

There is no "think of the children" rhetoric involved and it was one of many examples I provided. I picked it, because it has the most egregious consequences in my view. Psychological abuse is a real problem and it's not just limited to child abuse but that's an example where the State can (and will) step in by separating the children from abusive parents. We do not step into adult-adult relationships the same as we consider them autonomous enough to walk away from that relationship because of presumed independence. Children are dependent on their parents and therefore deserve special protection from parents who do not properly fulfil their caretaker role to the point where the relationship becomes abusive.So the idea "if we educated children" only works if the educators can be trusted. They cannot be trusted in every case, therefore education alone is not a panacea.

Next, you're equating bullying with psychological abuse. They are not remotely the same thing.

I'm telling you what I'd do. What do you want instead--tell you what someone else would do?

I'm okay with "child abuse" when it's only psychological, sure.

With you not being okay with it and wanting to prohibit it, can you answer the question I asked: how would you enforce any laws against psychological abuse? How would you establish that there has even been psychological abuse against kids? — Terrapin Station

First off, I explicitly asked you to reply given the nature of reality where you're not king. I again get a reply "I'm telling you what I'd do" but that's just made-up nonsense if it's not grounded in reality. You keep on doing this and are effectively not answering my questions at all as a result.

I'm not sure what to say to your claim that you're okay with "child abuse". We're not remotely on common ground - ethically speaking - if you're okay with child abuse. Such abuse leads to serious behavioural, emotional or even mental disorders. How is that "okay"? Are you suggesting we should let parents abuse their children to protect their free speech?

Your questions are a bit silly given that children are regularly placed out of their parental homes due to psychological abuse. It's more difficult to assess than bruises but it's entirely possible. So there's no issue there, parents can appeal in the courts against such decisions but there's already a system in place and a method of establishing such abuse (e.g. disorders of kids the source of which can be found in parental behaviour towards those kids).

First off, I explicitly asked you to reply given the nature of reality where you're not king. I again get a reply "I'm telling you what I'd do" but that's just made-up nonsense if it's not grounded in reality. You keep on doing this and are effectively not answering my questions at all as a result. — Benkei

So if you're not asking me what my view is--what I think should be legal/illegal, what I think is moral/immoral, etc., what exactly are you asking me? Are you asking me what other people think or something?

No, I'm asking you, given the reality that psychological child abuse exists what you're going to do about that sort of abuse if your position is that the speech acts of the parents, which cause such harm, is entirely legal because it cannot be limited in any way. It seems you're not going to do anything about it and just accept child abuse, because you're ok with it.

Not having laws "based on psychological effect" isn't a solution because the reality is that people think parents shouldn't get away with psychological child abuse. So your "view" is useless.

I'm not sure what the calculus is behind it that you find this acceptable.

It's the same with your answer to "what to do with lying about a competitor if it causes him losses?". Your anwer was that if you were king, it wouldn't be a capitalist society. Well, news-break, it is a capitalist society. So how are you going to get free speech absolutism given the very profound and relevant fact that it is a capitalist society and that the competitor will want a remedy.

So basically what you seem to be saying is that "if the world worked totally differently I'd be in favour of free speech absolutism". Great. Very informative. If the world worked totally differently I'd be in favour of everybody being rich.

No, I'm asking you, given the reality that psychological child abuse exists what you're going to do about that sort of abuse if your position is that the speech acts of the parents, which cause such harm, is entirely legal because it cannot be limited in any way. It seems you're not going to do anything about it and just accept child abuse, because you're ok with it. — Benkei

Right. I'm not in favor of any laws about "psychological harms." Why hasn't that been clear from what I've said?

So basically what you seem to be saying is that "if the world worked totally differently I'd be in favour of free speech absolutism". — Benkei

That's not at all what I'm saying, by the way. I'm in favor of free speech absolutism now.

When I say, "If I were king blah blah blah" it's another way of saying, "This isn't how things presently are, but this is what I'm in favor of." One reason I say that is that whenever I wouldn't say it in past discussions (not necessarily here--I've been talking about this stuff with people online since 1994, and since the early 80s if you go back to BBSs), I'd get people responding telling me what the present laws were, as if my intention was to report what the present laws were for some reason (as if people couldn't simply look that up if they're curious).

Yes, wishful thinking isn't addressing the point. I don't think there's much to talk about if you don't believe protecting children from psychological abuse is more important than parents' rights to abuse their children.

Yes, wishful thinking isn't addressing the point. I don't think there's much to talk about if you don't believe protecting children from psychological abuse is more important than parents' rights to abuse their children. — Benkei

I can tell you the laws I'm in favor of, I can tell you what the laws presently are (if you're incapable of looking that up for some reason), I can tell you what other persons' opinions are when I'm aware of them.

I'm not in favor of any laws against "psychological harms" as things are. I don't know how to make that any more plain.

Plenty of other people are in favor of laws against "psychological harms" obviously. And we have laws about it now. But I'm not in favor of them. I don't feel the same way about that as those other people.