It boils down to whether or not there are standards that are more objective that can be applied. — Relativist

And there are not. :grin:

At this point, by your logic, how do opinions exist? — Marzipanmaddox

Opinions are evaluative. They tell us how someone feels about something. "Marmalade tastes great." "Stravinsky is a better composer than Haydn." "Maine is beautiful in autumn." Etc.

Your examples are all opinions: ""Guns are bad", "Guns should be controlled", "Gay marriage is a good thing",

And moral stances are all opinions.

I believe that Terrapin & I are using the word "fact" as it functions in the context of the Correspondence theory of truth . . . — EricH

Right, that's what I was just explaining. The fact isn't the proposition itself (aside from the fact that the proposition was stated), the fact is what the proposition is making a claim about.

Factual claim = a claim about a possible fact. — EricH

Maybe folks are thinking that "factual" is an adjective that modifies "claim" in the sense of saying that the claim is a fact. But that's not the case. The claim is about a fact, whether the claim is true or false. So with "Philadelphia is south of Boston," for example, that sentence is not a fact*, that sentence is about a fact.

(*The sentence actually is a fact in the sense that we could say, "Terrapin Station wrote 'Philadelphia is south of Boston,'" but that's the same sense in which "Philadelphia is north of Boston" is a fact in the sense that we could say, "Terrapin Station wrote 'Philadelphia is north of Boston'." In other words, saying that those are facts is saying that there's a state of affairs that amounts to those sentences being written.)

I'm not following you on this one. Are you saying that facts can be false? — EricH

Factual claim = a claim about a fact.

Facts are states of affairs. Ways that the world happens to be.

You can get wrong how the world happens to be. So a factual claim can be wrong.

If you don’t believe in free speech for views you despise, you don’t believe in free speech. — NOS4A2

Exactly.

It seems to me this makes it hard to say whether public policy A causes to negative or positive effects T or Zed, since people would often be free to not be affected in those ways. — Coben

It just depends on the policy we're talking about. People have a choice in how they act, but that doesn't necessarily give them a choice in how they're acted upon. That's the same with speech. You might not have a choice to not hear something someone says (it depends on the circumstance), but you have a choice with respect to how you act in response to the speech.

Well, it's a step too far for me when people deny really important parts of history — S

Important parts of history claimed that speech is causal to actions? I must have missed that class.

I made no such claim. — S

What makes the message worth sending then? What's its practical value?

This argument works just as well from our side:

"No, you're the one attempting to portray something really fucking obvious as though it is an absurdity."

It's an evergreen for whatever we want to use it for, I suppose.

"Determinism" is easily ambiguous, because it can be used in both an ontological and an epistemological sense.

"Predictability" is only used in an epistemological sense.

If we're using "determinism" in the epistemological sense, it makes to see it as synonymous with predictability.

If we're using "determinism" in the ontological sense, it's definitely different than predictability.

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

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

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

Neither do I. But you do seem to deliberately go against it, — S

Nope. Don't do that, either.

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

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

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

In what way? — Artemis

It would best be described by someone for whom this is the case. Pattern-chaser seemed to be saying it's the case for him.

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. — S

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.

This is what I wanted to avoid. Of course you don't see anything about correlation studies. — Isaac

:confused: okay, but that's what I was asking for.

Which video? — S

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?

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? — S

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

I'm not seeing info on the total number of people exposed to the speech in question versus how many of those people committed some sort of hate crime. — Terrapin Station

This is important, by the way, because if a huge number of people saw the messages but very few of them committed any sort of hate crime, it suggests that the speech/action connection is very low, maybe negligible.

Section 2 "causes of hate crimes" discusses external causes. — Isaac

I looked through that, but I didn't see anything about correlation studies.

Here is a more up to date paper focussing on Germany. — Isaac

That actually has some correlation statistics, but I'm not seeing info on the total number of people exposed to the speech in question versus how many of those people committed some sort of hate crime. (Also, they don't seem to even confirm that the people who committed the hate crimes saw the speech in question, and there's no mention of whether the perpetrators might not have been the same people who posted the speech, even.)

I know I'm going to regret this, and I shouldn't let you bait me, but here is the standard work on the causes of hate crime from the Human Right Commission. — Isaac

Scanning through that, I don't actually see any comments on correlations between hate speech and hate crimes. It's obviously about hate crimes, and it mentions hate speech, but I don't see any sort of research into/statistics for actual correlations. Am I just overlooking the relevant section?

As many philosophers have already pointed out (Kendall Walton for example) you don't actually believe fiction you're engaging with. — Artemis

I wouldn't doubt that maybe some people actually believe fictions in some way. It just seemed unusual to me, so that's why I was trying to figure out just what it amounted to, but pattern-chaser took me to be wanting to argue with him rather than trying to understand his experiences, his point of view.

That's something else I hate about the "arguing culture" of boards like this. It can make it almost impossible to have an exchange with someone where they don't figure that you're trying to debate with them.

So what do you do for work, Isaac? Some sort of computer programming, engineering, IT work or something?

As I said. I'm more than happy to write another 100 post from my own thoughts — Isaac

No shit? lol

Yeah, this isn't from the stock objection sheet of someone who can't support a bullshit claim they made up. I could write the rest of your responses for you if you like. I know how the dance goes.

If all that held you back from agreeing that hate speech causes violent action is that you don't believe there is evidence of correlation, then look it up to your satisfaction. — Isaac

This is one of the most stupid of the cliched tactics. What in the world would be MY motivation to look up something that you're claiming that I think is bullshit?

If you don't want to tell me what correlation you're even referring to, then I really couldn't care less.

I'm not about to buy that there really is a correlation when you won't even bother showing a correlation that you're referring to. You can make all of the cliched excuses you like. I'm sure you'll write another 100 posts or whatever telling me how you're not going to waste your time.

That will make it really believable that there's a correlation.

And here comes info on the correlation we're referring to . . . .

A consistent correlation — Isaac

What consistent correlation are we referring to?

So first, there's no way based on your comments that you're not a strong determinist.

As I mentioned, I'm not even a realist on physical laws.

We don't have to get into all of that, though. What we're you even claiming as evidence of a positive rather than a negative correlation between hate speech and violence?

But we can show it to be causal to violent actions, just not to your satisfaction. — Isaac

All you did was mention a correlation, and that's not even plausible.

Or did you have something else you weren't sharing?

We don't even need that.

We should not legislate against hate speech because we can't show it to be causal to violent actions.

That's all you need.

If you truly immerse yourself in a story, and its world, you might start to think in terms of the story and its environment being real, and what the consequences might be. — Pattern-chaser

You can just do that via imagination, without thinking that it's real.

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?

which in part caused me to purchase a number of books on the topic. — S

You didn't choose to purchase the books?

(And seriously, by the way--you're a Marx fan?)

So, we could say you reach your political position (of legal parsimony) as a deontologist not as a consquentialist. — Coben

I'm not sure that putting it in those terms works . . . I think they'd both be misleading for how I think about it.

It's not about buying free will or not. — Isaac

Sure it is. I don't believe it's uncertain whether free will obtains.

Apparently you do.

I don't buy strong determinism in general (in physical terms), and I'm not a realist on physical laws.

Not according to my understanding of the terms 'meaning' and 'wrong' — Isaac

My comments are about what's the case ontologically. Not understanding terms.