:lol:

Cause of death: electile dysfunction.

and we are talking about something that in my view, is relatively straightforward, like "freedom," for example — rlclauer

Probably not the best example of a straightforward philosophical concept there.

https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?page=1&query=freedom&prepend=None

Marx - Capital Vol 1 (Reread)

Generally, what makes philosophy difficult is understanding concepts and how they relate to each other both contemporaneously and historically. So, no matter how clearly something is written, if you don't have the right background knowledge to contextualize it, you'll likely find yourself lost. And to expect philosophical writers to provide all that background knowledge and not presume some of it would be unreasonable. So, sure, deliberate attempts to overcomplicate or obscure in order to self-aggrandize can be frustrating, but as @SophistiCat pointed out, some stuff is just very difficult.

It's in Feedback because it includes feedback, such as:

Maybe we here can start small. There are liars and trolls here. I propose that within an informal system of warnings, that recalcitrant offenders be banned. — tim wood

I was enjoying following this thread without having to log in. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Don't you keep yourself logged in? How dare you log out!

@NOS4A2

Sorry, I deleted my post to correct it, so yours got deleted to. I defer to what @Michael said above about the numbers.

I know, but it's not like arguing with facts is going to work with NOS4A2. — Echarmion

Just thought I'd put it out there anyhow. There seems to be a lot of confusion around what is actually happening even among the mainstream news media who haven't done a great job of explaining things. I don't know how many headlines I've seen, for example, proclaiming that Boris is going to call a general election when he has no legal right to do so (only having the right to seek permission from the house to do so). They've only seemed to have cottoned on to that now that his attempt failed.

A moments background reading would be enough in any case to disabuse anyone of the notion that a no-deal Brexit is the will of the people. Polls consistently show a majority against it and that is all the legislation prevents. Furthermore, it was right-wing Tories and their coalition partners in the DUP that blocked their own PM delivering Brexit just a few months ago.

(Oh, and the opposition will accept an election when the anti-no-deal legislation goes through. Again, they are the ones protecting the will of the people.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-live-brexit-no-deal-vote-general-election-date-corbyn-a9089516.html
:up:

The discussions were cross-fertilizing anyway, and if Petrichor's slant is the most interesting, that may be the focus from here on in.

It seems to be a trend lately, by the way, that people will start a bunch of threads that are just slight variations on the same thing, sparked by a discussion in some other thread. — Terrapin Station

Yes, which according to the guidelines shouldn't be done because they tend to cross-fertilize and cannibalize each other.

Well, apologies for any inconvenience all. Just trying to keep the place tidy.

I felt like discussions questioning whether it's right to have children etc. were proliferating in a way that Donald Trump discussions used to be and would be best kept together even if they differed in emphasis. If you want to try to unbreak the egg though, feel free. I have no idea how to unmerge.

This discussion was merged into On Antinatalism

This discussion was merged into On Antinatalism

Let's focus on Boris's attempted erection first. When that's taken care of, we can see how much of a mess there is to clean up.

If you could just grab that domain name before someone else takes it. :up:

What's 'ours' in terms of resources is a gift of a society that mostly functions on the backs of ordinary workers, without whom we'd all be sucking on wild berries and being eaten by bears. But yes, let's not go there here.

What other people?

Lol @theFT. Shock/horror! Don't vote Labour because they want to give you stuff!

Yes, which would explain why, rather than mentioning these 'radical policies', using the bogeyman of Marxism is generally the preferred method of attempting to discredit him.

I'd put it this way, the issue is not Labour's sudden unelectability, it's the Lib Dem's sudden electability. So, the remain vote is split while Johnson has been (very) busy unsplitting the anti-remain vote by stealing Farage's thunder. This is critical in a first-past-the-post system. The winner takes all essentially and that dynamic explains the bulk of what's going on here.

I'm actually going to keep that one as the new title for the Donald Trump discussion.

Land of a Thousand Neuroses — T Clark

How about 'Land of a Thousand Neurons"?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-election-result-vote-share-increased-1945-clement-attlee-a7781706.html

Hm, he must be unelectable then.

And also, that Corbyn is a misguided idealist (at best) — Wayfarer

On what basis? Which policies of his are misguided and why?

A significantly higher percentage of voters voted for Corbyn in his last election than voted for Blair in his. In fact, Corbyn got one of the highest vote shares for Labour in modern times. So, that's just typical anti-Corbyn hype.

As @Punshhh pointed out, Boris can't have his erection unless Labour agree. So, it ain't that simple.

I admire anyone who even attempts to express complex ideas in a language not their own. And your English is good enough for the forum.

:up:

Thanks for the tag and the link for Steve.

Who doesn't love clowns?

@Isaac

Looked around a bit, but I can't find the specific example I was looking for. It had something to do with a woman who posted an anti-gay Facebook post or Tweet and ended up being interrogated for several hours by police. There are plenty of other cases around though, e.g.:



Police were reported to be looking into whether a hate crime had been committed here.

In this case:



there was a prosecution and an £800 fine (statute allows for anything between a maximum of 6 months and seven years imprisonment). I'm having trouble finding good uses of the law that would show why it's necessary to be honest.

In Ireland, we have The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. But the first conviction wasn't until 2000, and it was of a bus driver who told a Gambian passenger "You should go back to where you came from". (Ring any bells Trump fans?) Maybe firing him would have been enough.

Found this vid of @Michael doing his cockney thing. You'll notice he's a bit vertically challenged but a charming fella' nonetheless.

I'm going to leave the Terrapin stuff now because it's so out of bounds it's not really helpful to waste energy on it. Re hate speech, I agree it's potentially problematic, mostly for practical reasons, such as how laws are written and interpreted, and I hope we'll get into the specifics of all that in the context of some kind of wider cost-benefit analysis. I'll get involved in more detail when I have time.

What you're referring to here as hate speech would surely be covered by things like criminal threat, intimidation, or incitement to violence. Isn't the introduction of hate speech legislation precisely to cover other cases, namely of harm interpreted more widely, or offence--cases that don't fall under the other laws? — jamalrob

Yes, it wasn't a great example because it partly related to other stuff that had come up and there's a danger of conflating the two issues.

I have one in particular I'd like to mention but don't have the time at the minute to present it. I'll be back.

It is this cost-benefit analysis that the discussion has really been about, though many refuse to see it that way — Isaac

Yes, it's unfortunate that Terrapin, whose views are essentially a parody of free speech advocates' positions, has taken up so much oxygen in the discussion. There are dangers to having hate speech laws (I know of some cases in the UK where they've been used over-zealously), but there are potentially more dangers to not having them. It's a debate worth having.

Do any serious commentators argue that ordering murder etc. ought to be defended on the basis of the principle of freedom of speech, or on the basis of its constitutional safeguards? I don't think even (reasonable) free speech absolutists would advance that position — jamalrob

No they don't, but it was a response to this unreasonable position and follow ups to it.

Should state prosecute people who order killings or have a stance or an ideology which promotes violence.
— Wittgenstein

No, not in my view. A number of times I've brought up the extreme case that people like to bring up (and I now see you did in the following post): to my knowledge, Hitler never killed anyone. I don't know what, if any crimes (that I'd consider a crime) he committed, but certainly no speech, nothing he ever ordered, etc. should be considered a crime. — Terrapin Station

But yes, we should move away from this to a more sensible level of debate.

I'd rather acknowledge that sometimes words do lead to bad things than allow a situation where someone could order my family to be murdered and receive no punishment because some had an ideological attachment to free speech laws even more irrational than religious fundamentals' attachment to blasphemy laws.

In terms of hate speech, it's very difficult to write into law something that is highly contextual in practice, and there's always a risk of it going wrong, but on balance I'd prefer a society where extreme cases of hate speech, for example, surrounding a black person, shouting the N word at them and threatening to lynch them was not tolerated. I wouldn't make something like Holocaust denial illegal though as it is in some countries. What for me is objectionable is the immediate threat of violence and the intimidation that follows rather than the spreading of false or disgusting ideas.