Please, show me the law that says one can be arrested without committing a crime. — NOS4A2

It's logically implied in what you cited earlier.

In some more abstract versions of a "paradise" everything would be a completeness or a nothingness such that you would not have any needs or wants whatsoever.. thus even the need for need for need wouldn't matter. — schopenhauer1

Why would anyone with any sense see any merit in that sort of abstract, unrealistic, nonsensical speculation?

:lol:

How much first hand experience with the judicial system do you have? — Shamshir

He clearly doesn't even understand the basics, or so he'd have us believe. Talk about black-and-white thinking. It's either arbitrary arrest or you commited a crime? Lol. The funny thing is, he actually cited the UK government website, which states: "To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary", which neither implies that you've commited a crime, nor arbitrary arrest.

Hey the Labor party seems to have gotten itself into a right pickle. Going on what I'm reading here in Oz, they're tearing themselves to pieces over Brexit at the Conference, and Corbyn has abysmal poll ratings. It's such a shame - if only there was an alternative leader to seize the moment, but I'm afraid Corbyn's not it. — Wayfarer

Seizing the moment with a lesser candidate wouldn't be ideal. Sure, it would be better than the Tories. But merely being better than the Tories isn't what turned hundreds of people like me away from political indifference. A moderate candidate is not what propelled Labour back into relevance after the lackluster performance of Brown and Miliband; and Corbyn's more moderate leadership challengers did terribly the last few times. They wouldn't have turned the Labour party into the biggest political party in Europe. They wouldn't have Beaten Blair's vote share in 2005.

So, although I'm a big Corbyn supporter, I take your point about the possibility of a more electable candidate, if one exists, but they probably wouldn't fit your ideal, given your criticisms, much of which could have come right out of the mouth of a Tory MP. You want a Red Tory, right? Like one of the loudmouths on the right of the party who are always in the papers or on social media criticising everything that Corbyn says or does? Someone bland like Owen Smith or Ed Miliband, perhaps? A Blairite?

I'd much rather someone like Rebecca Long-Bailey or Emily Thornberry become a successor to Corbyn if it came down to it.

The only thing I can imagine that would work as a "test" here is thinking about whether the principle really matches one's feelings/intuitions. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? — Terrapin Station

So then you do allow for a methodology which permits all kinds of nonsense, like the example I gave? And... you don't see that as problematic?

How do you reason the (moral stance) premises? Or would you say that for some reason, you're simply not allowed to state premises? (For example, if not legislating with respect to psychological states is a premise). — Terrapin Station

A number of ways, but yours doesn't tick the right boxes. You seem to purely rely on some feeling of yours without testing it properly. I might have a feeling that there shouldn't be any crimes which begin with the letter "M", but if I just leave it at that or don't test it properly, then it's no good. You'll probably next as me about what tests should be performed, but really you can and should think about that yourself. You wouldn't endorse a methodology which would allow that sort of thing to pass, would you?

How is it a red herring? It isn't. Are either of you going to explain what lead you to that erroneous judgement? Once you've finished jerking eachother off, that is.

That's true of course regarding what you cannot but believe you know, but regarding what you don't know, if you really believe that, well it's a stifling belief you have there, which you may choose to revise at some time. :wink: — Janus

Beliefs, by definition, are what you're convinced of. There aren't any exceptions. That's not the definition of knowledge, although of course you'd be convinced in the case of knowledge, too. Knowledge requires belief.

And it depends what you mean by "revise". If you mean something more than reconsidering the matter, then no, that's false, and obviously so. My belief always accords with what I'm convinced of at the time. So I can reconsider, which is a mental act I can perform, and if I end up convinced otherwise, then I can revise my claim accordingly. But no, I can't choose to change my belief: that's a nonsense category error. It's out of my control.

If I believe you used this red herring in error, does that prove your argument right? Or, if I believe you used the argument nefariously, does that prove me wrong in thinking you to be wrong? — Noble Dust

I don't care, but if you care about your false accusation of a red herring, you should attempt to back it up.

Yes, agreed, one can choose a course of action to take, and that course of action might lead to a belief, but one can't choose to belief something. You could only ever do the latter in a sort of disingenuous way which doesn't count, as in, I could go around saying, "I now believe that God exists", or whatever, "And that's because I've just chosen to believe so a moment ago", but that's not the same thing. That's just pretending.

You believe that because you believe you are not free. — Janus

That's an interesting guess, but it's wrong. I believe that, like I said, because beliefs simply aren't the kind of thing that can be chosen, even if other things can. I can choose what flavour crisps to buy in the shops later on for my lunch, but I can't choose to believe what year I was born. It's the same for you. It's the same for everyone. Why don't you try choosing to believe that you were born last week? You'll find that you can't.

I've just had a great idea. I'll go to a philosophy forum and pretend that adverts have literally no effect on anyone, ever. Even though that's absurd. It's obvious that they do. But that's the point. It will provide me with some entertainment.

Is that roughly how your thought process went?

I don't have to be in your head to see what you're doing.

Take the recent case of someone who said online that all homosexuals belong in the gas chamber. That person was convicted of hate speech. — Congau

Good.

It was probably said in a context where homosexuality was judged as sinful or against nature and even though I find such attitudes despicable I must consent that it is a legitimate opinion that should be protected by the freedom of speech. — Congau

No, it isn't. That's a misleading statement, since although it accords with the law in the US, it doesn't in most other liberal democracies. It would be similarly misleading to say that the right to bear arms is legitimate. Just try that crap in Europe and see what happens.

And if you mean instead that it's justified, well, no it isn't. Like you said, it's despicable, and there should be consequences, and there are where I'm from, and there are in other European countries.

It is not a very sober statement. It is reckless and rude, but that is a quite different problem. Uncivil behavior is prevalent on the internet, isn’t it, but should it be banned? That would hardly be possible. The best we can do is to create awareness of it and encourage each other to behave with consideration. — Congau

Off-topic.

His trolling tactic is to treat something perfectly ordinary and uncontroversial, and pretend that it's absurd.

He not only contradicts himself, but he sees contradictions where there are none, like in his priceless gaff over law enforcement.

Although of course the whole thing may well be an act, and probably is.

I've reported all of your off-topic posts. Hopefully a moderator will come along and delete them, along with this one.

I'm well beyond ordinary, baby. — Swan

Statistically, those who are extraordinary are more likely to be crackpots than geniuses.

Think we're talking past each other, bud. — Swan

Yes, you are, because you're going by an idiosyncratic definition, rather than the ordinary one that we're going by. What did you expect? You're creating your own problems, honey.

Try relaxing a bit and discussing the topic. — NOS4A2

Sorry, I got distracted by your apparent stupidity relating to how law enforcement operates. (I say "apparent", because if it's not stupidity, it's trolling).

How do you reason to a moral stance? — Terrapin Station

From premises to a conclusion. You know how reason works, so why ask?

That thread topic was “Should hate speech be allowed”, genius. — NOS4A2

That was the title. The discussion quickly lead on to the related topic, which is the same topic of this discussion you redundantly created, and it stayed on that related topic for page after page after page after page...

Suspected of what? Committing a crime.

Don’t let the sophist’s casuistry convince you that you can be arrested without committing a crime. That’s arbitrary arrest. — NOS4A2

I've never been more convinced that you're a troll until now. I think you've gone a little overboard and need to work on your subtlety.

We'd have to define how you're using "arbitrary," but do you think that non-arbitrary stances are possible? If so, how? — Terrapin Station

I'm using arbitrary in the way made obvious by the example I gave. And yes, through reason.

No sarcasm at all here. — schopenhauer1

Good, because I can't stand sarcasm.

You’re lying, as is evident by my reply. Not only a fool but a liar. — NOS4A2

"I wasn’t aware there were other threads on the topic".

:brow:

"Well, there was that one thread, but... [makes excuse]".

And it's pretty funny that you'd call me a fool after that thing about being arrested.

A whole bunch of things. You could google it or ask specific questions which you can't easily find an answer to through googling.

Can anything at all be said about attitudes? — Wallows

Yes.

The question I'm asking is specifically relating to Book 1 of Hume's Treatise. I've read it very closely and can find absolutely nothing of value in it. — Ron Cram

I wouldn't even say that about those philosophers I really can't stand. This is surely a personal problem for you, rather than a problem generally speaking.

I don't agree with baseless speculation.

...and perhaps proportional representation brought in. — Punshhh

That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option.

You could be detained as a suspect and suspect doesn't necessarily mean perpetrator. — Shamshir

Ah, you ruined it. He probably already knew the answer but was just trolling, anyway. Hard to believe someone could be that stupid.

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

He certainly didn't miss it. He was largely involved in one of those lengthy discussions. He's just lying.

But that's arbitrary, like saying that I'd have no crimes that begin with the letter "M".

Hatred, according Google's online dictionary, is intense dislike; hate. Literally everyone has had intense dislike; hate, including this Swan person. It's not anywhere near as rare as Swan is suggesting. She is simply wrong, and getting into lengthy arguments with her over this won't change that. If she wants to define the word idiosyncratically, as she has done, then she can do so, but then she'll just be pointlessly talking about something else.

It would be really funny if you genuinely don't realise your glaring error here. I'm not going to spell it out for you, though.

Expect in your country, which states the exact opposite. — NOS4A2

Expect?

Anyway, no it doesn't. You be trollin'.

All of them.

Is your Google broken?