I'm not the least bit interested in what you have to say on the matter.

Right, but Im asking you to speculate, since your sense of whether or not hate speech should be banned is based on that speculation. — DingoJones

I can't put a number to it, and I don't need to. I'm not going to guess. All that matters is that measures are in place to prevent potential terrorist attacks. If you're interested enough, then you're welcome to look for research on the matter.

But did you like it? — uncanni

No. Too many people try to be novel and poetic, but it just doesn't work. It might be boring, but examples of workable descriptions are the ones that we're most familiar with, such as a creator of the universe, or a being which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.

Sounds like you have too much of a conscience.

...the word "god" must imply something that words like "nature", "universe", "everything", etc do not capture. — ZhouBoTong

Yes, otherwise it's just a redundant label, and it would fail to distinguish theism from atheism. That I believe that the universe exists does not imply that I believe that God exists.

God is a state of mind. God is praxis. God is not institutional — uncanni

This I would classify as the worst kind of response to the question. Vague, unconventional, subjective, arbitrary, renders theism indistinguishable from atheism.

Can we come to an agreed description of God, or is that just a pipe dream? — Pattern-chaser

It's probably a pipe dream, especially here of all places. But you might get some or even general agreement on some key aspects.

For me, the omni- stuff is unhelpful. God is the 'shepherd' of life in the universe; we (all living things) are in Her care. Is even that an acceptable (to believers) starting point? If it is, can we add to it, and still remain in accord with the majority of believers? — Pattern-chaser

It'll have to be acceptable to atheists, too, in a sense. If it's too vague, as the above is, then how can I even make sense of my atheism in relation to your theism? It must be clear enough, so that we know what we're talking about. A vague metaphor like that won't cut the mustard. This is more like a situation where I'm asking for a description of your car, so that I can look for it in the car park which is full of cars, and you respond with something like, "My car is the 'beast' of speed on the road. She'll carry us on our journey". Yeah, that's much less helpful than the typical response you'd expect.

It's against my ethics to be mean, which means to me to hurt someone else's feelings frivolously or for the sake of my own amusement. — uncanni

That sounds boring. I think I'd rather you were mean every once in a while. That would then make you human. I prefer humans to empty shells with pristine ethics.

So my initial post to you had a bunch of questions that you answered, but at the end I asked about whats acceptable risk. Im still not sure about that last question so wanted to know how you’ve calculated that allowing hate speech poses an unacceptable risk. Like, how many instances of terrorism do you think would be reduced if hate speech is banned compared to if it isnt? Note, Im not trying to argue against your answer so there is no need to be as accurate as you might want if you were laying down an argument. I just want a sense of what you have in mind as a reference when im reading your exchanges on this thread. — DingoJones

What counts as an acceptable risk would include risks that are out of our control, risks that are too impractical to act upon, risks which are considered too trivial to legislate against, and risks which lack sufficient evidence or predictive power in leading to crime. What counts as an unacceptable risk would include risks which are to the contrary of the aforementioned, risks which would pass a cost-benefit analysis to take action against, and risks which are actionable without infringing too far on our rights and liberties.

I don't know how many instances of terrorism would be reduced by hate speech being banned compared to when it isn't. Without a study to reference, I would just be speculating on that number.

I conclude that your understanding of "poking fun" includes being mean. Now I tease my friends, but we all know when we're teasing. For me poking fun is never the same as being mean. — uncanni

Poking fun at someone can be mean. I never suggested that it always is, and I never suggested that it's the same as being mean. It's just one form among many that being mean can take. And it is more of a minor form.

So I had a post once about if it was good to put a slave in slavery if they identified with the very slavery that was enslaving them. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, that'd be a great analogy, if slavery and the average life were even remotely alike.

The rest of your post is just more of the usual deliberately one-sided spin which invalidates itself through the absence any semblance of impartiality.

It had some great moments, like the rare clapping across the opposition benches in response to an MP calling for an apology for Boris's remarks about women wearing the burka, and the brutal criticism of Boris's chief advisor by one of the now independent former-Tory MPs.

Jeremy Corbyn had a strong showing in PMQ's, I thought.

You find being mean to people fun? Are we talking about the same thing? I'm beginning to think we aren't. — uncanni

It can be, yeah, so long as you don't go overboard. There's a difference between, say, poking fun at someone and stabbing them in the liver.

Since this is a thread about lying/honesty, I see people not expressing just what they're thinking, including when they try to "tactfully" temper or spin what they're thinking, as dishonest.

I prefer hanging out with people who are honest/unfettered. — Terrapin Station

Well I'm blunt, and you're an idiot, so we're a match made in heaven.

You're saying that you troll because you believe it's ok to be mean to people you don't like and who you think are stupid idiots? Do you have an ethical system, and is this part of it? That those who consider themselves superior should belittle those they consider inferior?

I'm sincerely wondering why you believe it's ok to be rude and nasty to those you consider your inferiors. Behavior learned at home? — uncanni

Let's be honest, because it's fun. We're all old enough not to take it to heart, and if you do, then more fool you.

So your question is, once born, is life worth living for some people? I would say yes. — schopenhauer1

Except that "some" really doesn't convey that we're talking about most people on the planet, several billions of people. But good. If that is so, then life is worth starting. It wouldn't be worth starting if it wasn't worth living. But it is. So there you have it.

Probably not, right? Or I wouldn't do things that way I do them. I probably do things the way that I do them because I think it's a good way to do them/I like it, etc. Unless you think that I don't like what I'm doing/the way I'm doing it and I just can't figure out how to do things differently. — Terrapin Station

Oh no, that's the answer I was expecting. I'm just testing your self-awareness.

No, then this is ignoring my argument, which was that interests and commitments are the default of being born- we cannot avoid them as they are what we naturally incline towards. — schopenhauer1

That once again doesn't address the point. None of that tells me whether you think that life is worth living.

I'm less interested in that and more interested in your answer to my question. Do you not think that you're overcomplicating things when you go to such lengths, and can't even accept that I was lying when I said that I was on the moon? Is that not an indication that you've gone drastically wrong somewhere, and need to reassess the matter?

Do you ever step back and think to yourself: "Perhaps I'm overcomplicating things?".

You know that I'm not a realist on mathematics, right? (Or physical laws for that matter.)

Re probability, Bayesian probability is complete garbage in my view, and probability in general doesn't justify heuristic conclusions in contexts like this. — Terrapin Station

Riiiight...

Well, I'd love to chat some more with you, but I'm busy here on the moon right now.

Not “me too”, no. I was just asking.
So someone vulnerable to radicalisation is salient here, unless you think someone who is already radicalised is significantly affected by hate speech in that way. Probably not changing their minds at that point. Depends on how one defines radicalised I suppose.
Anyway, i didnt ask for a precise calculation. To be clear, I am clarifying your position, not taking up arms beside NOS. I wouldnt be making those arguments. I just wanna know how you came to your conclusions about the risk of a “possible” act of violence caused by hate speech. Like, when you ban hate speech...what are the details of the risks you think are being thwarted? — DingoJones

What kind of details are you after from me? We can look to real life cases for examples. I gave examples earlier. I think that it just causes more problems to deny the links to hate speech discovered by the authorities in acts of serious crime and terrorism that have been committed than to acknowledge them. The methodology employed by the other side is unreasonable skepticism with a disregard for explanatory power. It is a failed methodology, because they have more things to explain than I do. It isn't plausible that it's all just a coincidence, and that every aspect of the events which unfolded are somehow independent of each other rather than of a cause and effect relationship.

Given the Manchester bombing, the murder of Jo Cox, the murder of Lee Rigby, and the London Bridge attack, to give just four examples, these are the kinds of risks we face, and they are severe.

He said himself in the sentences before what you quoted that site management is very-good to exemplary, which he agrees with. So if it's not an issue for site staff, then what does he expect to be done, that he cannot do by himself? I don't like the sound of that. Trying to gang up on someone? Just try to exercise greater self-control, I say. I agree with Judaka.

It is a battle for power I think, the never-ending debate about what is right and wrong. — Judaka

This whole thing is a battle for power. Tim wants power over NOS4A2, who he has decided is a liar and a troll, and this is his power play. I'm guessing he wants him banned or ostracised. I say leave it up to the site staff and stop making such a public show of things.

Thought crimes are private, not published for all to see. Anjem Choudary used to make his speeches in public. Lots and lots of people completely ignored them, or just outright rejected them. Some people were inspired by them and went on to commit acts of terrorism. But you're right, I'm sure that was just a complete coincidence.

No, I admit, it takes a sheer act of will to step out of the magical thinking involved in speaking about the so-called consequences of speech. But people don’t arrive at a belief just by hearing it. Our conclusions are not determined by what we read. — NOS4A2

That's a nonresponse which doesn't address what I said properly.

Then surely these authorities have told you what ISIS’s primary motivations for hating and fighting those in the West are. Why are these people trying to kill us? Care to hazard a guess? — NOS4A2

Another illogical nonresponse. You're too much hard work, so maybe just forget it and DingoJones can takeover for you.

If you mean, are there bad experiences which count against life to the extent of not starting a life, then yes. — schopenhauer1

So you've decided not to address my objection.

If life is worth living, because of interests and committments and whatnot, then it is worth starting.

If life isn't worth living, then why does no one agree with you? (Rhetorical question). And the relatively tiny number who do agree have an opt-out, so they should just shut up. Or rather, seek professional help. The opt-out is a privilege, by the way. There's no opt-in. Once we're extinct, that's it.

You think that someone with a non violent predisposition would hear hate speech and be inspired to go commit violence? — DingoJones

You too? There are 66 million people in the U.K. You don't think that a single person would be at risk of radicalisation? You do realise that this has already happened, as in people have become radicalised, joined ISIS, and things like that?

Just what kind of people do you think hear hate speech and are convinced to go blow people up? — DingoJones

Those vulnerable to radicalisation or who are already radicalised.

(Where the hate speech was the sole or major factor, obviously) — DingoJones

That it would be the sole factor is ridiculous. That it would be a significant factor is to be expected. And this isn't just hypothetical. There are already real life cases to support this point.

Anyone? Or do you have a specific kind of person in mind? — DingoJones

See above.

You also said “possibly”, what is your acceptable limit of risk, how do you calculate it? — DingoJones

I don't need a precise calculation. Like I said earlier, if it was a chance of every one in ten million people being effected, I would still be in favour of maintaining our hate speech laws, because the prevention of terrorism is extremely important. Many people in positions of power agree that national security is a top priority, if not the top priority.

I never said nor implied their terrorism was a consequence of the hate speech. By “inspired by it”, I meant they were stupid enough to agree with it. The magical thinking of “consequences” is effectively crystallized in our language, that much I will admit, that it takes a sheer act of will to speak about it differently. — NOS4A2

Backtracking. You mean you accidentally slipped into being reasonable, but then I called out your inconsistency, and now you're having to explain it away. People don't just randomly agree with things, all of their own accord. They agree with things that they find agreeable, convincing. If the person in question is receptive to the content of the hate speech, then he's more likely than otherwise to act on it. Neither you nor Terrapin Station have come up with an alternative explanation with the explanatory power to account for these kinds of situation. It's really shortsighted to think that just because ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, people might not be receptive enough towards it, that therefore it has no influence (causal) over anyone. That's a hasty generalisation.

That’s frightening, unless you believe the very act of reading it will commit you to terrorism. — NOS4A2

That's ridiculous. There are 66 million people in the U.K., and I'm just one of them. Have you forgotten that we're talking about the law? If it was legal in the U.K. to access, then that opens it up to tens of millions of people, not just me.

I trust that isn’t the case, but ignorance of the hateful reasons why people want us dead is not a remedy for their hatred. — NOS4A2

That's why we have authorities who have access to content which regular citizens do not have access to. There would be a greater risk of terrorism if there were no censored information relating to terrorism and hate speech. Why do you think we have intelligence agencies with exclusive access to highly censored information? Do you even think these things through? If you really cared about a remedy to terrorism, then you wouldn't be a free speech fanatic, because that's part of the problem.

You're not dealing with my objection. Are there bad experiences which count against life to the extent that life isn't worth it, or aren't there?

Moreover, if you're suggesting that once conceived, life is worth living, then what's the problem? There's no such thing as a life prior to conception. There's just life, which is the defining quality of the living. If life is worth living, it's worth starting.

No, I do not accept terrorism, nor the stupid reasons they give for their actions. — NOS4A2

But you just said that someone may be inspired by the hate speech. It's possible that if they weren't inspired by it, then they would never have gone on to commit the act of terrorism. So by permitting hate speech, you are by implication accepting that possible consequence. So by not accepting it, you're being inconsistent.

It does matter quite a bit. I know why ISIS hates us and why they fight us because I can go and read their arguments. Someone in the UK, on the other hand, may get serious jail time for even viewing it. — NOS4A2

Good! We've already had terrorist attacks inspired by just that kind of hate speech. That's easily a price worth paying. I would happily forsake that privilege of access.

That someone may be inspired by it? Yeah sure. Or they may take the opposite stance and oppose it. — NOS4A2

Okay. And if someone is inspired by it, and they go on to commit a hate crime as a result, in the name of the hateful ideology, then that's something that you're willing to accept? Just to paint the picture, that could mean an explosion brutally killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children, scarring the lives of any surviving victims, as well as families and friends of the victims.

Do you know why ISIS hates us and fights us in the west? They’ve written about it in their propaganda. Should the reason they hate us and fight us be censored, or is this important information? — NOS4A2

It doesn't matter what I think, because that isn't down to me. It is, and should be, down to the relevant authorities.

I accept that someone may or may not publish hate speech to a wide audience. Do I think it’s a logical consequence that it will happen? No. — NOS4A2

That's a tiny part of the reasoning I put to you. What about all the rest?

Wow, you completely miss the point of separating STARTING a life and CONTINUING a life. — schopenhauer1

I'm not missing it. It's a point which doesn't hold any water.

Continuing the life already born, is different scenario. Someone can have interests of staying alive once born- that is reasonable and does not justify having them, because humans naturally gravitate to interests (like accomplishing goals, keep on living). This situation in no way refutes khaled's argument. — schopenhauer1

The reasoning for not starting a life is based on a number of bad experiences you get in life. Continuing life is open to that same reasoning. You can't consistently close it off from that just because it's convenient for your stance. That's the fallacy of special pleading.

Either these bad experiences count against life or they don't. Make your mind up, because you can't have it both ways.

Anyway, if the person who had the accident would lose all their memory, then it would be starting a life. So there you have it. Objection overcome on your own terms.

Maybe that's the difference. I'm don't worry much about looking like a fool. You might have noticed that. — T Clark

:zip:

I didn't even know who you were talking about lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue. — T Clark

It's something of a skill. I've seen more subtle attack pieces. This one from me in response to Wallows is funny to look back on: Overcoming. It was a pretty good opening post, I thought. You know, two birds, one stone and all.

Can you two knock it off please. — fdrake

:lol:

Makes sense to me. Anyone can report anyone, of course, but making it a private affair might be the more sensible course of action to take.

Hey moderators. You haven't responded, which I think is probably a good idea, but I hope you're paying attention. — T Clark

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? They're watching, popcorn in hand.

What does the number of people with a specific belief have to do with anything? Why do you keep going back to what most people do for every single thing? — Terrapin Station

So there's this thing called probability. You may have heard of it.

We still need something in addition. — tim wood

We or you?