I will use a circle in the following example. Basically, I am saying that a circle is never the same as something that is not a circle. Saying that I am wrong is saying that a circle is sometimes the same as a square or something else that is not a circle, is that something you agree with? — elucid

I understand and agree with that. Are you going to move on to my queries and objections, or is this all that you are capable of? The law of identity doesn't entail that change is impossible.

When changes occur, the stuff that changed isn't the same after the change as it was before the change, sure. That's the whole idea of change. If it were the same, then it wouldn't be the case that it changed. — Terrapin Station

Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that? You're like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

I am very sorry that you did not understand. My statements are extremely easy to understand, and, at the moment, I do not know how to get more clear with you. — elucid

I am very sorry that you're not only presumptuous, but incompetent.

What I'd think is, "Okay, those are your criteria." — Terrapin Station

How can I put this delicately? You are "different" to the rest of us.

Aren't you aware that different people think different things are "perfect sense"? — Terrapin Station

I am aware of that. Aren't you aware that that doesn't matter as much as what does or doesn't make perfect sense? A crazy person might think that complete nonsense makes perfect sense, but that doesn't mean a thing.

I'm not saying that's not a threat. It's not what I'd consider a criminal threat; it's not anything that should be legislated against. Merely making a verbal threat is not at all sufficient for that in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

Well, it was a poor judgement call to speak about "criminal threatening", but to exclude examples of threatening which is criminal. And philosophy is better served through good sense than through the whacky personal views of Terrapin Station. You always seem to make it about you, as if that actually matters in the bigger picture. Your views can be set aside as unimportant in the grand scheme of things, entertaining though they may be.

Again, I feel that you did not understand my statements. — elucid

What do you mean, "again"? This is the first time that you've bothered to reply to me, and you haven't bothered to explain why you think that, or to clarify your point, or properly address any of my replies. Just telling me that you feel that I didn't understand your statements is not helpful.

The statements, ultimately, are saying that a circle is always a circle, a square always a square, a man always a man, something existent always existent, and something non-existent is always non-existent, etc. — elucid

You didn't answer my question, but never mind. I'll proceed without your answer. A shape can change from a circle to a square. There are animations of this which you can find online. Either you're saying something logically irrelevant or you're saying something false. The statement that change is impossible is demonstrably false.

A man who posted neo-Nazi stickers on lamp-posts has been jailed for 30 months.

Nathan Worrell, 46, was found guilty of eight offences of stirring up racial hatred at Grimsby Crown Court.

During the trial, Worrell denied the Holocaust took place and said he had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

He was jailed for seven years and three months in 2008 for possessing bomb-making materials and waging a hate campaign against a mixed-race couple.

Worrell described himself in court as an "ethno-nationalist" and said he did not believe in "diversity or multiculturalism".

A police raid on his home in Scott Close, Grimsby found clothing, photographs, fridge magnets and pin badges bearing Nazi symbolism.

He posted his home-made stickers with highly offensive comments on lamp-posts and street furniture in Grimsby and Hull.

'Abhorrent'

Worrell defended his actions in court as freedom of speech.

Sentencing, Judge Paul Watson QC said Worrell was "wedded to the cause of far right nationalism and national socialism".

The judge made it clear he was not sentencing for political views "however abhorrent they may be".

He told Worrell: "Your conduct went far beyond the limits of freedom of opinion and expression which the law permits."

Det Ch Supt Martin Snowden from Counter Terrorism Policing North East, said: "These offences clearly show that Worrell has not learnt or changed his behaviour despite serving a previous prison sentence.

"By obtaining and distributing these hateful messages Worrell is inciting hatred, potentially threatening public safety and security as well as the stability of the local community." — BBC News

:up:

What's that supposed to do with change? And yes, change is possible. I'm just about to change out of my work uniform.

France to insist on a ‘two-year’ extension to allow Brexit re-evaluation

Ha. I knew Macron would be difficult. — Michael

A massive europhile, difficult? Never!

This seems really familiar, but wasn't there something about a frog? — T Clark

I cut that part out, like how I cut open my cat's abdomen and removed her vital organs.

I vote for Hanover's suggestion, only without the extra space.

There are reasons why Terrapin and the German lawmakers choose to include some form of communicative act in the definition, but not the mode of locomotion. There is also a reason why we have a category for laws that restrict speech, but not for crimes that restrict what gait you may adopt. This is obvious, right? — Echarmion

Yes.

If you have the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”, surely you can read ISIS’s propaganda magazine Dabiq. Surely you can retweet a limerick about trans-people without getting investigated by police. But we already know this is not the case. — NOS4A2

I repeat, arguments which rely on cherry picking won't work. Cherry picking is a logical fallacy. I can keep on repeating that if you like.

I'm saying that if someone says, "I'd consider certain things 'criminal insults,'" and they give you a specific outline, specific criteria for what they're referring to by that term, then trying to argue from a broader perspective based on other conventions isn't going to work. You'd need to just look at the criteria they spelled out, and the criteria could be anything. It's possible for their criteria to not even be about speech at all. — Terrapin Station

If someone says, "I'd consider certain things 'criminal assault', and I'll give you a specific outline, a specific set of criteria for what I'm referring to by that term. But, oh, by the way, it doesn't include the act of inflicting physical harm". Then anyone in their right mind would think that they were a few french fries short of a happy meal.

While we're at it, here's my criteria for 'criminial rape':

It must require two or more people.
They must come into contact with each other.
An act must take place.
And that's it.

I know what you're all thinking. You're thinking, "But what about forced nonconsensual sex?!". Well, I don't include that in my criteria.

"Reasonable" is subjective, "common sense" is often nonsense and appeals to it are one of the lamest rhetorical tactics, and when we're talking about normatives, we're not dealing with things that are true or false.

But at any rate, sure, you're not interested. That's fine. There's probably no reason for us to go back and forth with each other about it then. Let's move on to something you're interested in. — Terrapin Station

But I am interested. I'm interested why I can't get through to you, in spite of talking perfect sense. If we hadn't gotten to where we are now, with your ulterior motive of standing by your stance at all costs, then you would probably agree that if I were to say that I was going to stab you to death, then that would be a threat. But I suppose I've answered my own question there. We obviously just have different priorities. Yours is saving face, whereas mine is the obvious truth. You must think that you can save face if you refuse to concede in the false hope that you can make your system work. But all it has going for it is consistency, which means it has next to nothing going for it. It's not at all convincing, and you don't seem to care about that feedback. You never really do. You seem quite content to live in your own little isolated topsy-turvy world.

I was asked about my view on it. I pasted what my policy would be. If you're not interested in that, then don't read (or bother commenting on) the post. The idea isn't to capture some common notion of the term (or rather some common notion of when it's morally or legally problematic). — Terrapin Station

It's not that I'm not interested. I'm interested just like I would be if someone was saying, apparently in all seriousness, that cats are in fact just a breed of dog. But there are priorities here, like the truth, like common sense, like being reasonable, like intellectual honesty. And it was in that context that I was asking why I should care.

But the threat can be speech. — Echarmion

His reaction to that is obviously, "Oh yeah, well I'll just define 'threat' to exclude that from being so".

That's not an intellectually honest response. But then, this is the guy who refuses to admit that he knows that I don't believe that I'm on the moon, so it has come to be expected.

No, that wouldn't be at all sufficient. I have specific conditions that need to be met that I make explicit. — Terrapin Station

Why would I care about that?!? Any normal human being without an ulterior motive to disagree would consider it a threat. I don't reach my conclusions from Terrapin's whacky views. That would be a terrible basis to reach a conclusion. We largely agree on ethics, but not much else. You have no standing on this one. Your views are quite simply irrelevant.

Boris is doing a Theresa and holding a second vote in parliament which is bound to fail.

Many find the deliberate belittling of another to be funny. Doesn't make it hate speech. — creativesoul

I didn't dispute that.

Everyone deserves a certain modicum of respect(dignity, worth, value) simply because they are human. — creativesoul

Everyone deserves to be ridiculed, simply because I find it amusing.

Don't quit your day job. The comedy needs work. — creativesoul

Well, it's not like I can compete with you. Your comments on "thought/belief" are some of the funniest I've ever seen.

Of course. They are extremes intended to show a general principle. — khaled

They don't, because the situations are too dissimilar, like in all of your attempts throughout this discussion.

They don't "rely" on analogies. Analogies just make them easier to understand, extreme as the ones I chose were — khaled

They do. You make the false analogy, and then you direct questions at me intended to challenge my position which only work if the analogy is true. But the analogies aren't true, so the intended challenge fails, and I don't even have to answer the question, because the answer would be irrelevant.

I never thought someone would ask for evidence for this but sure. Here is one: You are never allowed to buy something with other people's money even if you think it's good for them as long as you can't ask them first. — khaled

Funny. Even if I were to grant that, a single example in no way demonstrates that the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available. If that were true, then it would be so in every single case that one could possibly imagine. Good luck trying to demonstrate that!

Death is the least risky option? Really? There is absolutely no chance that unconscious person wouldn't have wished to die? There is very little risk in killing them? Are you listening to yourself? — khaled

Yes, death would be the least risky option according to your own warped logic. Why react in a dumbfounded way to your own logic? Are you listening to yourself?

And no, in the thought experiment, the person didn't wish to die, and the next of kin knows that.

Death has a massively negative value for those living. Remaining non existant doesn't have a negative value for those who don't exist (if it even makes sense to say that, the point is no one is harmed by not existing but people are harmed by dying). That's why your analogy doesn't work. — khaled

Your reasoning is inconsistent. Nonexistence is the ideal according to you, so death would be a positive. Just as you suggest that it's horrible to conceive a human, by that same logic, one could suggest that it's horrible to keep them in that situation.

Doesn't matter, in the case of a subconsious person, they had the ability to express a desire to live. Knowing that most people express a desire to live means you don't have a right to kill them even if you think it would be better for them. — khaled

Then you should be consistent and let everyone decide for themselves. You don't have a right to stop people from conceiving, and then giving birth, and then letting that baby decide for itself when it's old enough. Nothing to do with you.

The implication is: As long as someone can kill themselves to leave an unpleasant situation, that justifies putting them there. I don't think either of us agree with that. — khaled

I repeat, that's not an implication of my point. That's your misunderstanding. I don't have any burden to defend your misunderstanding of my point. Do you understand that? This has been a problem throughout this discussion, and it continues to be so.

Nope. They're just doing it to be funny. That's their job.

Looks like ridicule to me. It's related to hate speech in that they are both founded upon a personal value system which devalues others for irrational reasons. — creativesoul

Lolwot? So, when you go to see a stand up comedian, and they ridicule this, that, and the other, that's "founded upon a personal value system which devalues others for irrational reasons"?

Again, criminal threatening as I describe it isn't a speech act. — Terrapin Station

Then you describe it in a disingenuous way to avoid contradiction. It can be a speech act. If I said to you, "I'm going to fucking knife you to death!", then that would definitely be criminal threatening.

I'm going to stop responding now. I've given you enough of a chance.

Nor in the eye, for which design we'd flunk our engineering course. — PoeticUniverse

It must be in the teeth, then. Surely there's intelligence there. Why else would we name wisdom teeth so? What problems could they possibly cause?

Where is the Intelligence in the Design? — Jacob-B

It's in the vertebral column. No, wait, that's a design flaw.

But it seems to follow that "speech acts can never be illegal" is not a tenable position then. The question that follows is what benefit does a dogmatic adherence to "free speech absolutism" have? — Echarmion

Indeed, it isn't tenable. It's contradictory. That's more than enough reason to reject his stance, however he answers your question.

Okay, well I'm effectively going to ignore you by dismissing your ad homs as irrelevant. This kind of reply will be all you'll get from me, unless you decide to get back on topic.

Funny how you jump to the defence of someone who speaks up for Nazis and their anti-Semitic hate speech and decide to focus your attack on me, though. Yeah, I'm the one who should be ashamed here...

It's true, and it's part of U.K. law, incorporated into the first clause of the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10. Cherry picking won't help you. It's a fallacy.

Yeah, I hold the conception found in Article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights. These are not fanatics.

You’re speaking of the censorship and regulation of free expression as defined by law. — NOS4A2

I also hold the conception found in Article 19 of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. I wasn't calling myself a fanatic. Under U.K. law, that's covered by the first clause. Again, the U.K. is a founding member of the U.N., and we voted in favour of Article 19.

What do you think of the mainstream religions that are homophobic and misogynous? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I think they're great. Don't you? Who doesn't love homophobia and misogyny? :roll:

Clause (a) in combination with his free speech absolutism means that he's contradicted himself.

You presuppose it is impossible the bill wouldn't receive Royal Assent without the Monarch refusing assent. — Galuchat

Well, I suppose we could end up a republic before the Queen gives Royal Assent, but that's not a realistic possibility. The only realistic possibility is what Micheal just said.

Or, rather, it would count as free speech, but it would be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So, fine, you're free to spew vile and condemnable hate speech, but it will be subject to the above, and rightly so. If you end up convicted of a crime, and sentenced to, say, 180 hours of community service, like the case of Frayda Jenson, then that serves you right.

I’m talking of free speech, not UK law and their fevered and infantilizing censorship. It’s becoming more apparent you do not even know what free speech is. — NOS4A2

You're talking about your own favoured conception of free speech, which to be clear you should be calling absolute free speech. That's the version for fanatics. I'm talking about free speech as defined by the law in the United Kingdom, as I always have been from the very beginning. That's the version for people with a sense of perspective. I made it clear that I was going by a legal definition early on.

That's a nonresponse. Address my points properly or don't bother replying.

No I’m not. Free speech is the same everywhere, it’s just that the degrees of censorship are different. So yes, he would be defending free speech, as other human rights defenders always have. You would be defending censorship. — NOS4A2

If you're disputing what I said, then you are factually incorrect. It wouldn't count as free speech under U.K. law. I cited the law to you earlier, on a public forum, for us all to see. In the U.K., it wouldn't be defending free speech, it would be defending the crime known as hate speech. And if you reply with your usual denials, then you're just wasting your breath.