So would you make legislation based on any arbitrary thing bothering some individual?

A stimulus led to my not sleeping. This should also be considered in the context of the post before the one about loss of sleep, where I asked why verbal expression is to be protected at all costs various kinds of artistic, in this case musical protection need not be. People can soundproof their houses and all that. — Coben

You worrying is not some outside, persistent physical stimulus, is it?

Okay . . .?

Worrying is different than a stimulus like sound keeping you awake.

Why? It's causing no physical damage. Some people really like loud repetitive noises late at night, so what is it that makes playing the drums for sixteen hours a day something that its reasonable to legislate against? I can only think of the fact that any reasonable person would consider it disturbing, an entirely mental consequence of an entirely external sound. I just can't see why that's not the case for hateful speech. — Isaac

It can cause you to not be able to sleep. That's not very controversial.

The point is that you are advocating that hate speech laws to go back even further - to say that actual physical harm must be proven in order to constitute an offence, whilst at the same time endorsing noise ordinances which do not go back that far. Noise ordinances do not allow just anyone to claim offense (just like hate speech laws don't) but they do take a reasonable view of the sorts of noises the majority of people are likely to find disturbing - loud or high pitched repetitive noises particularly at a time when most people prefer quiet (just like speech laws take a reasonable view of the sorts of speech most people are likely to find disturbing). So I'm confused as to why you'd advocate the former, but not the latter. — Isaac

If the speech is loud and persistent enough at night that you can't sleep, I have no problem with enforcing that it stop. Whatever the content of the speech.

Yes, you can't just tell the police that some noise is annoying you personally and expect to have it stopped, — Isaac

I just wrote the same thing. The mere fact that you don't like a sound isn't sufficient.

I pointed out that that sensory ordinances like the ones we have now include noises which are merely "disturbing" — Isaac

The ordinances we have in the U.S. don't enable simply saying that something is disturbing you (in either common sense of that term), so that the police will do something about it. It has to be a lot more specific than that. Either it has to be at a particular time of day--during the time when most people are sleeping, or otherwise there would have to be something unusual about it--basically something that could pose a physical threat to you.

In other words, you can't just say, "Hey I don't like this sound"/"Hey I don't like this smell" and have the police do something about it.

I'm interested in your views to the extent to which they represent insurmountable flaws in mine. I don't want to have flawed views — Isaac

For things like "should hate speech be banned," it's not even as if there's a correct answer in the first place.

That's because I'm not interested in your views per se, why on earth would I be interested in the views of a random Internet poster, — Isaac

Maybe you wouldn't be, but it would seem odd to me to post on a board like this in that case. That's what you're going to get here. The views of a relatively small collection of random folks on the internet.

I'm interested in other people in the world in general. I like people. I think it's interesting to learn about their views, especially when they're interested in the same things that I am.

You don't know how you know that the world isn't flat? — S

Sure I do. Surprisingly it has nothing to do with popular opinion or your brain. So how do we know that people are often right, then? That's what I had asked you.

People are often right, at least on a basic level. — S

And the question is how we know this. Just asserting it doesn't tell us how we know it.

Here's another "So:"

So what's right is what then, where you'd say that has something to do with "My views are often way, way, out in left field compared to most folks' views"?

If neither confer any survival value (eg: we don't have to compute the laws of gravity in order to dodge falling objects) are there any plausible explanations out there as to why we have these abilities? — 3017amen

Abilities do not need positive survival value to be selected for.

It's just that abilities that have negative survival value are selected against.

Let’s test that. You have 3 starving people And 2 solutions. Which do you employ

A: feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated and happy people so that you create more pleasure/happiness than in A — khaled

I'd go with B. The people in A might turn out to be nagging antinatalists. The other 100 might be able to drown them out. :grin:

That doesn't follow from what I said. — S

It was a question. So then if no, you'd say "No." What's right is what then, where you'd say that has something to do with "My views are often way, way, out in left field compared to most folks' views"?

Those of us with working brains can know that I have the right answer through reason. — S

Working brain isn't defined by reasoning that you have the right answer, is it?

That's why you're often wrong. — S

So what's right is what's statistically normal?

My brain leads me to the right answer. — S

In other words, how do we know you have the right answer?

How do we figure out whether it's my brain or yours that has something wrong with it?

So this is something we can't look up then.

My brain is telling me that relevance/irrelevance is not a(n objective) fact.

Where on the Internet do we look up information about relevance as a fact?

You're not suggesting that whether something is relevant is a fact, are you?

Yes, like I said, it's irrelevant. Like if I said that I'm in favour of maintaining the ban on hate speech because ham sandwiches don't play chess. — S

Yeah, I'm aware that in your view it's irrelevant.

Yes, you should have. The legal definition and examples are available to you through the internet. — S

I wonder if there's anything we can't look up on the Internet now. We probably don't need to do philosophy any longer. We can just look up anything we're wondering about.

Okay, then it's just irrelevant. — S

Sure. Everything is relevant to some things to some people, and irrelevant to some things to some people.

With the way this conversation is going, imagine if we'd had a discussion on something that people really get emotional about, like age of consent.

Although I'm doubtful how many regulars here have kids. Having kids is usually more of a trigger there.

You have access to the internet. Look it up. — S

Oh, that was easy. That solves the issue. I should have thought of that.

Yes there is. Your opinion doesn't matter in the bigger picture. — S

If enough people have a different opinion, then in terms of what's practically the case re laws, etc., they can institute something I don't agree with. Sure. That's the case.

No, you've already been told that that's a straw man. — S

It's not a straw man because I'm not presenting it as someone else's argument. I'm explaining that what matters to me in this context is force. If speech isn't forcing others to be violent, then I'd not ban speech. It would have to be forcing the situation I want to avoid.

You don't post as if you're interested in my views per se. If you were interested in my views per se, you'd post as Coben does--in a friendly manner, where there's a clear, good-faith curiosity.

You, like many others here, want to argue. But you want to argue where it's clear that either you didn't really (closely) read, or didn't understand what I wrote, or you simply would rather be dishonest as a tactic. (Again, it's much easier to figure out these sorts of options with in-person cues.) That's clear because either points are made in the context of a strawman or questions are asked where I already addressed whatever it is. Yet one proceeds to aggressively argue anyway.

If something I said isn't clear to you, ask about it as if you're interested, and I'll explain another way.

If you think you understand what I said but I repeatedly point out that you don't, then maybe take a step back and wonder if maybe you're not really gleaning what I have in mind, and then ask clarifying questions as if you're interested, and I'll explain.

Most people here are simply interested in arguing, though. They're not really interested in others' views solely because others have different views and they're curious about others.

You very much implied that noises which people found disturbing would also be covered — Isaac

No, I didn't.

It's so frustrating that I can't meet you in person or at least talk to you on the phone, say, as that would give me a better insight into what's wrong with you, why you can't read, or why you're so dishonest, or whatever the problem is.

This is why I won't write longer posts. People can't read five words and understand them.

If you have to hand any municipal ordinance which sets acceptable noise levels only at those which physically damage he ear, — Isaac

Why can't you read? I didn't write what you're strawmanning there.

You, unsurprisingly, have limited the state's role to just about keeping everyone alive, and the rest of their welfare can go hang. — Isaac

This bears no resemblance to what I'd do, and I've described what I'd do many times, including on this site.

Yes, but not of the sort your describing in your dystopia, that's what I was asking for clarification about. The modal ordinance from the EPA, for example describes violations as noises which are "unwanted" and "disturbing". Not just those that physically damage your ears. You, unsurprisingly, have limited the state's role to just about keeping everyone alive, and the rest of their welfare can go hang. Don't try and pretend that's a normal position. — Isaac

I keep getting the impression that people here have basically zero interaction with the real, practical world. Why would you think that I'm talking about the EPA??

Municipalities have noise, lighting, etc. ordinances. They're instituted in the manner that I'm describing.

So if I don't like the sound of an electric guitar, I'd have recourse, but if I don't like the sound of "gays should be killed" I'd have nothing. Any reason why some sounds are legislated against and others aren't in your dystopia? Or is it just on a whim? — Isaac

If the sensory stimuli are intense (loud, strong, etc.) and persistently permeating your abode during a time that you need to sleep, or in a manner that's going to cause physical problems otherwise (for example, sounds can make you deaf), you have recourse. You'd have that with someone saying "Gays should be killed" if it's loud enough and persistent, too. But it has nothing to do with semantics--this would be the case just as well if someone was saying, "I love Isaac; everyone should give him money," It has to do with a loud, persistent sound at a particular time of day or that would cause a physical problem otherwise.

Again, by the way, this isn't something unusual. It's the case in countries like the U.S. now, that there are noise ordinances, etc., but there are not prohibitions against someone saying something you don't like.

dangers to not having them — Baden

Which I don't agree with, obviously.

And they're not factual dangers, of course, because there is no such thing. It depends on what one considers a problem or not.

For example, with no speech restrictions, people are more likely to be offended. Is that a danger? No. The problem with offense is that some people are offendable. The problem isn't the speech that offends.

Sexual harrassment in companies. A boss who makes sexual comments to his women (or men, but let's keep it to one group). Does not back off from this pattern when challenged. Can companies limit the bosses speech within the laws of your country? — Coben

No.

But note that I'd not have a capitalist system in the first place. I'd have a socialist system, which also wouldn't be based on money in any traditional sense. In my system, if someone is uncomfortable with someone they're working with, it's no problem to simply work somewhere else instead, with people who you like better.

Your neighbor practices his electric guitar until five in the AM and your bed actually vibrates - and not in a fun way. No way to call in the law? or can one? How do you see something like this getting resolved? — Coben

I'd have "sensory ordinances" similar to what we have now re sounds, smells, flashing lights, etc.

I'll take the orthodoxy I agree with that you can't dissent from. ;-)

That way we don't have to worry about people making hate speech laws and such.

I think that in an authoritarian regime those laws you disagree with would be difficult to challenge and change given that strict obedience to them would be presupposed. — NOS4A2

My views are often way, way, out in left field compared to most folks' views. It's no easier to change anything I disagree with in a democracy. There are many issues where I'm not aware of anyone else having the same opinion as me, and it's not as if I'm swaying anyone's opinions.

It would be easier for me to sway one person's views (like a dictator) than a million persons' views.