Well, it's a step too far for me when people deny really important parts of history for the sake of argument. Pathetic really.

So you think it's decreasing crime over simply just having whatever offense be a crime without being a "hate crime"? — Terrapin Station

I made no such claim.

I’m not the one pretending words can “change the world”, which is the premise of sorcery. — NOS4A2

No, you're the one attempting to portray something really fucking obvious as though it is an absurdity, which is just a fallacious appeal to ridicule.

I'm not the one arguing that we live on a giant spinning rock in space! Ha! What twaddle! What fairy tale did you get that from?! What kind of a name is, "Earth", anyway? There's no such thing as planets, that's make-believe!

What do you see as the value of having a category of "hate crimes"? — Terrapin Station

It sends a twofold message worth sending about crime and discrimination.

Nope. Don't do that, either.

I'm my own arbiter, regardless of whether it goes along with the crowd or not. — Terrapin Station

I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you just make your own poor judgements regarding topics like this, rather than as a result of an aversion to conformity and common sense.

If the mere act of asserting the claim justifies it, I’ll just assert the opposite. Those books and speeches metaphorically changed the world. — NOS4A2

The burden lies with you, just as it lies with the Flat Earther.

Well, I don't go along with the crowd just to go along with the crowd, at least. — Terrapin Station

Neither do I. But you do seem to deliberately go against it, even when doing so is going against good sense.

I'd never consider a video like that to count as evidence of motivation, but at any rate, I'd not classify anything as a "hate crime" in the first place. — Terrapin Station

That's because you have bizarre fringe views which are far removed from the reasonable standards of a court of law.

You can’t make something true by sheer force of repetition. — NOS4A2

That's a red herring which fails to address the content of my reply. If you don't accept what I said as true, then make your case. But if you're going to argue against that, then what else are you prepared to argue against? Do you believe that World War Two never happened? That we do not reside on planet Earth? That the present year is not 2019?

I think Trump is one of the most liberal presidents in a long time. — NOS4A2

Hahahahaha!

Sorry, was referring to this: "the police investigation found hate speech in video form on his computer, which was used as evidence against him."

What would that be evidence of? — Terrapin Station

Hate crime, obviously, which is defined as
a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.

What is the video supposed to be evidence of, exactly? — Terrapin Station

Which video?

Now it’s on you to explain how one combination of words can move someone differently than another combination of words. But that’s to argue for sorcery, which I believe is impossible. — NOS4A2

No, it's not sorcery. You're being utterly ridiculous. The speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and Hitler literally changed the world, and in significant ways, as did the writings of Karl Marx.

That wouldn't have happened if they had been replaced with Harry, Niall and Liam from One Direction.

I'm being realistic, which beats naïveté any day of the week.

I’m talking of real effects, as in cause and effect, not the specious “effects” you have in mind. Yes, light and sound have certain effects on the body. In that sense the effects are the same. — NOS4A2

I'm talking about real effects, too. It'd be daft to suggest that only sensory effects, like light and sound, are real. Hate speech can change one's opinion, how they judge a group of people, what they believe, and that in turn can cause them to commit crimes which they otherwise might not have committed. That's cause and effect. That's shared culpability between the authors of hate speech and the perpetrator of hate crime.

I’m with you on that. Anarchism is the best option. But I fear a moral and ethical populace is required for it to work. — NOS4A2

Which is why it will never work.

Yes, but Anarchists clearly do not call for that there should be no central government in the sense that there should be warring factions of various political extremists. — thewonder

Of course they don't call for that! But that's the kind of thing that you'd get by abolishing the pillars of society. It is the height of naïveté to think that it would actually go as imagined in your lofty ideals of a liberal and cooperative society. Wake up and smell the coffee.

But the speech had the same effect on the listener as any other sound. — NOS4A2

How absurd.

So, let's say that a young man who became engrossed with and joined a far-right anti-Islam group has just been convicted of a hate crime where he committed acts of violence against Muslims, and the police investigation found hate speech in video form on his computer, which was used as evidence against him.

Are you telling me that you'd argue that a video of a cat playing with a ball of string, which was also found on his computer, had the same effect on him? It wouldn't have mattered which video was used as evidence against him in court? They could have used the video of the cat instead?

Any and all actions following hate speech, whether violent, hateful, or otherwise, begins with the listener, not the speaker. This is true of any reaction to speech. — NOS4A2

So? That's obvious and beside the point. The fact that it's a reaction to the speech means that the speech had an affect on the listener. And that's a basis for the law being as it is with regards to hate speech.

This is the sort of word politics and policing we’re dealing with here. No injustice, no tyranny, no authoritarianism, just crimes of speech and political correctness. — NOS4A2

And all of his objectionable policies relating to tax cuts, foreign policy, immigration, the enivonment, trade, gun control, healthcare...

I'm not discounting that there was no government in Somalia. I'm stating that there are not a significant number of Anarchists in Somalia to consider the crisis there to be chalked up to an Anarchist aporia. Almost no one tried to implement an Anarchist project in Somalia. The crisis in Somalia is, in all liklihood, resultant of the failures of what could be considered to be Neo-Liberal Capital. It's not a crisis spawned by a delusional belief in "anarchy". — thewonder

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. The relevance of the example is that during that period there was no central government, which is what anarchists call for. Funnily enough, it didn't work out too well. Not the kind of place you'd want to spend your holiday.

I don't think that Somalia has ever significantly attempted to engage in an Anarchist project. I think that you're equating "anarchism" as a pejorative with Anarchism itself. I haven't quite parcelled out enough of what I think that Anarchist society should be like to really explain that it's not like it would just be mayhem, but Anarchism really doesn't just advance mayhem. That's just the common cultural depiction of Anarchists. — thewonder

Between the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991 and the establishment of the Transitional National Government in 2006, there was no central government in Somalia.

And no, I'm aware of the etymology and origins of the term "anarchy", and what it is commonly associated with - it is similar in this respect to a term like "cynicism" - but I'm making an assessment irrespective of that. I genuinely think that it would lead to disorder, whatever we happen to call the political position in question.

Sure, so I'm asking your opinion. You don't believe that you chose to buy the books? Or are you agnostic on this issue? — Terrapin Station

Like I said, it depends what that means and what that logically entails. Until that's explored, I don't have a position on the matter, so yeah, agnostic.

Of course, I'm not going to change how I ordinarily speak, which is an ingrained habit anyway. So I'll still talk about choosing this and that.

You didn't choose to purchase the books? — Terrapin Station

In common parlance, we could say that I chose to purchase the books. But whether or not that's true or false depends on interpretation and on what's the case with regards to the free will debate.

Or we could just say that it seemed as though I had some choice in the matter.

Why are you introducing "appear"? Either it's an ontological fact that they had a choice or it is not. — Terrapin Station

When you can't distinguish between a choice and what just appears to be one, then you can't rightly call it a choice, unless you alter the definition.

For the 100th time, influences are not causes. — Terrapin Station

Yeah they are. Example: the writings of Marx influenced my thinking, which in part caused me to purchase a number of books on the topic.

If they had a choice, then the speech wasn't the cause. Their decision was. — Terrapin Station

Decisions are influenced causally by a wide range of factors, and that can include hearing a speech.

Do you see smoking as causal in lung cancer? — Coben

No. I just smoke, and then a decision is made on whether or not I have cancer. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

( :wink: )

So, terrapin's trivial misunderstanding is that if something is not a sufficient cause, it's not a cause at all.
— Baden

That pretty much nails it.

Despite...

"Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect,[2] where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[3] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past."

From Terrapin's favourite source of authority Wikipedia, on Causality. — Isaac

Case closed.

Answer me, why is it needed in the first place? But you cannot. — schopenhauer1

I've addressed this line of questioning from you about a million times before. You must like going around in circles to the point of absurdity. Absolute (or unconditional) necessity is a nonsense, and conditional necessity in the context of procreation or continued existence or washing the dishes would relate to various desires or practicalities, the more common of which can be quite easily fathomed through common sense, e.g. I want to start a family because of the joy it will bring, I continue to live because I value my life, I need to wash the dishes to make them clean and reusable.

All of this you already know. You are presumably just feigning ignorance as some sort of rhetorical tactic. I know that you have your own answers, and that you disapprove, but why do you feel the need to repeatedly express this? Is that normal behaviour, do you think? Do you think maybe you would benefit from counselling?

Again, the assumption is what is it about the dealing with that we crave? — schopenhauer1

It's not a craving, that's just more rhetoric from you. It's simply our natural inclination towards problem solving. Got a problem? Deal with it. This is, again, something you already know. You are human, are you not? You are from this planet, yes?

I don't think we'd even be arguing with the likes of Janus and the discussion creator if they just came out and admitted that their definitions are not universally applicable or objective, but in fact based on their own personal moral evaluations, and are reflective of that alone. But they seem intent on maintaining the pretence.

If you enable systemic censorship of one ideology on a preventive basis, you can always make the case to include others on similar grounds, gradually expanding the criteria of what gets censored depending on the agendas the authorities want you to follow. — Necrofantasia

A classic slippery slope argument.

Anarchism is great in theory, but it's just pie in the sky. No successful or lasting real world examples come to mind. There was a brief period during the Spanish civil when anarchists gained power on some level, and then there's Somalia. I can't see how, in practice, in wouldn't result in disorder, manifesting in a whole number of ways. Government makes sense. How else would a society deal with what's dealt with by the various departments of state and by public services? It wouldn't, as people aren't capable of organising themselves on a society-wide scale without a government, without a set of rules over them, and without the enforcement of them. It would result in disorder, conflict, and every man for himself.

I am an Anarchist. I interpret Anarchism as advancing some form of maximal liberty and equality. — thewonder

Which would mean the abolition of the State, which would mean disorder. That's what it would mean, unless you set boundaries protecting the State and defined maximal with the State as an exception. But then it wouldn't truly be maximal liberty and equality. And it wouldn't be conducive to a just and orderly society by minimising the role of the State, anyway. That would be counterproductive.

“I dont know” leaves the answer to whatever question completely open, saying you don’t know means the answer could be anything. A person could start eliminating certain possibilities after that of course to determine what isnt the answer but the possibilities of what IS the answer is inherently open by nature of not knowing. — DingoJones

Yes, I agree, and one of those possible answers is, "It's impossible". Just saying, "I don't know", doesn't rule out that possibility; which, if true, would of course mean that whatever we're talking about - whether the existence of God or square circles - isn't, and perhaps never was, possible, and, like you say, it would eliminate certain answers from the enquiry.

This direction the discussion has taken is a tangent which arose because someone here didn't understand what agnosticism entailed.

The only reason I repeat things is because you fail to acknowledge my point. — Marzipanmaddox

Why would you expect me to grant a point I clearly disagree with, and why would you think that repeating it with more or less the same wording would help? That's not rational thinking.

You fail to understand my point, so I attempt to explain it again. — Marzipanmaddox

No, I just disagree with it. Repeating an explanation I've already criticised and rejected won't achieve anything except cause me some annoyance and make me lose interest.

As for my points not qualifying as philosophy, this is debatable. My points are about an opinionated interpretation of morality, which is so opinionated that you go so far as to call it biased. This is by definition philosophy, regardless of the fact that I defend my argument using empirical and objective reasoning. Surely, within philosophy, empirical reasoning is equally as valid in philosophy as subjective, empathetic, or ethereal reasoning. — Marzipanmaddox

I didn't say that your points don't qualify as philosophy, I said that what you were describing in one of those points doesn't fall under the remit of ethics, as understood conventionally.

The standard for philosophy is so low that it is nearly impossible for an argument about any related subject to fail to qualify as philosophy. The standard of philosophy is basically "What do you think about X?", and these are my thoughts, with relation to X. X in this case being morality. — Marzipanmaddox

You're right about there being a relatively low standard for what qualifies as philosophy, and this discussion of yours would be a good example. I would categorise it as a semantic discussion where you are offering your own idiosyncratic definition which consists of your own normative ethical views about the merits of collectivism, which you misleadingly call impartial and objective, apparently in a superficial attempt to bolster your position.

Oh, it's philosophy alright, but not good philosophy.

Oh yeah, well my definition of life is the best, most perfect definition of life imaginable, and it reflects the ideal, objective, scientific, utopian vision of a blah blah blah.

Janus is pretty much correct on this topic. — Marzipanmaddox

It comes as no surprise that you would say that. You two seem almost like sock puppets.

Justify your point, defend your stance, rebut his argument with more than a simple attack on his character. — Marzipanmaddox

I have, and not for the first time. It usually follows a pattern of Janus making an unsubstantiated claim as though it were fact, and then I respond by pointing this out, and then he makes another such claim, and so on and so forth. And it's no different this time around.

You can't seem to follow my argument, that is why you are bored. — Marzipanmaddox

No, I'm bored because you're getting repetitive, and because it seems like we're reaching a dead end with regards to how you're choosing to define your key terms.

You are essentially the one who is arguing that the turtle is a bag of rocks here, you are the one using the inapplicable definition as evidence to justify your argument. — Marzipanmaddox

Well that's clearly not the case, though. A turtle is an animal and morality is what's right and wrong. I'm not saying anything controversial in that regard. You are. You're presenting an obviously biased definition as impartial, and you seem to think that just calling it that is enough to make it so. Although, to be fair, you did attempt a rambling explanation, but that wouldn't fall under ethics, like I said. It would fall under something else, like social science. There was nothing there to make it about ethics.

It is beyond human nature. It is the nature of life, it is the entire purpose of being alive, the sole definition of life itself is to flourish competitively.
— Marzipanmaddox

I agree with you that it goes beyond human nature, but I would say that the definition of life is to flourish cooperatively, not competitively. That's the basis of ecology. If a predator over-consumes resources, they may appear to flourish for a short while, but they will quickly die out when resources are over-utilized. So that would not be real flourishing at all. Same goes for the plutocrats. — Janus

What's funny is that you're both just wishful thinking. Apparently the definition of life is whatever you want it to be!

What nonsense, and Janus, you should know better. I don't know why you lose the good sense I know you're capable of when it comes to this topic.