Well most people are aware of the wrongness of sexual predation, thats not the same as being sexually liberated. Sure, awareness about sexual predation is at an all time high but there is also Tinder.
To your other points, I think that makes sense. I was more alluding to the social history of sex.

Maybe. What makes it more plausible? You think if there was no religion, sex wouldnt be one of the main “special” things for humans? I think its pretty plausible it wouldnt change much at all.

Sex is a huge part of the human psyche. So much of what people do and say and make rules for are based on the biological imperative to pass on genes, its no wonder it provokes such strong reactions in ethics.
I think alot of those old traditional sexual “ethics” come from religion in modernity. They are largely outdated, since its so much less necessary to control sex among the masses. Its just not a big a deal anymore, and thats why you get the sexual revolution and a much looser ethic in the growing generation.

What, as an atheist, would be a quality discussion about religion?

Just leave, no need to delete anything.

Right but it doesnt matter if someone reasons or not, right? People might do it, but they might not. Doesnt really matter to you does it?
Re ceding moral talk, what do you mean “go along with”? It cannot be correct or incorrect for them to talk about it however they want to right? If they feel like morals are objectively reasoned, thats not something they can be correct or incorrect about, is that right?

I didn't address that again because I'd say the same thing I said earlier ("People will reason from stances that they take to be foundational in a given instance (what people treat that way can change on different occasions)_._._._plus the three later paragraphs from that same post). So it's not that you abandon reason, but there can't be a stance that's wrong (alethically)/incorrect/mistaken etc. via reason. — Terrapin Station

There is no purpose to reasoning though, it doesnt matter how a person arrives at any ethical/moral position, or even that they make any attempt at all to make sense. If you arent concerned about being consistent with reason, in what way are you not abandoning it?
Re the illusion, the distinction that morality is something different than the way you feel is an illusion in your view right? Im not talking about the feelings themselves as being an illusion.

Lol, I knew that you would focus only on that one sentence. The rest of my post was meant to elaborate what exactly I was getting at. Lets address my “other words” instead, I should have been more careful with my words.
So do you abandon all reason and sense when ethics are involved?
And for the language, that doesnt explain why you wouldnt explain ethics/morality as an illusion. It seems like thats what you think other people have concerning morality/ethics.

I understand about foundational stances, but you are saying it doesnt need to at least be internally consistent? You think someone thats not making any sense at all is still valid in their moral views?? In other words, you abandon reason and sense as a standard for anything ethical/moral?
You always say morals are not something anyone can be right or wrong about, but if a person doesnt even need to make sense then isnt it more accurate to say you don’t believe morals exist rather than that they are based on anything (feelings)? If there is no distinction at all between feeling and morality, then why have you bothered to co-opt the language (use the terms of ethics/morals) at all? I would think you would describe morality as an illusion or somesuch instead.

Yes, I practice meditation and have spent alot of time in deep reflection which becomes habit while thinking.

Wait you dont think reason plays a part at all? That someone has a moral stance that is contradictory and illogical doesnt matter to you at all, cuz they cant be right or wring about such things? Is that right?

I would go further, and say introspection is INvaluable. Like the man said, the unexamined life is not worth living.
I honestly respect a philosophical view built from within and on ones own than the regurgitation of historical philosophy if I had to choose, although a mix of both is ideal.

Statement 1:

A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle. — elucid

It might not be EXACTLY the same, though even a circle and another circle are not exactly the same. A circle can share a trait with something not a circle. For example a circle and a square are both shapes, in that way they are the same.
Either way, I don’t see how this shows change is impossible. As has been pointed out to you, change is demonstrable. Is this purely a logical exercise, like Zenos paradox?

Statement 2:

Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid

Ok, and? Your point? You think that shows change is not possible?

I think you are confused about what Terra is saying, but like I said I will go back and read and see what I missed that make your arguments less circular and confused than they seem right now.

Right, just as arbitrary as the walking part of the crime. Just insert “walking” where “speech” is in your argument and the logic is exactly the same.
I'm not going to repeat what Ive just said a few posts ago no, but if you think Im missing something (context I presume?) I will go back and reread the exchange before my interjection.

I didnt say all talk involving categories is circular. Strawman.
I said you are being circular in your argument, and pointed out exactly why.

Yes I understand the distinction you are making. Just noticing the circular logic Echarmion is using.

The speech only needs to be positively established because you are defining it as part of the crime, what Im saying is you could just as easily define walking in exactly the same way. Your inclusion of one as part of the crime and not the other is arbitrary, and based on a preconceived notions about speech that you hold. Do you see? You are assuming speech as part of a crime as part of your argument that speech is a crime.

No, by constituent element I mean something that is part of the actual elements of the offense. Most definitions of robbery are not concerned with your mode of locomotion. — Echarmion

Well you are just defining speech as a constituent element. Its no more constituent than the walking. Thats my point, the logic is the same so you aren’t being consistent when you include one and not the other.

So would you say that walking was a criminal act, because it was a constituent element of a guy walking into a bank, robbing it, then walking away?

You’ve given me nothing. What is it you imagine im addressing here? Your free speech arguments? Ive been fairly specific about what Im addressing. I mean, why would I bother making points you simply ignore when others make it?
Before any headway on free speech can be had you need to stop dogmatically dismissing the opposing view. Get your head out of your ass, to put it in an S kinda way.

Those are not ad homs. It is me noticing you are being hypocritical and calling you out for it.
If all you are getting from NOS is that he is “speaking up” for Nazi’s and Anti-Semetic hate speech, then this further evidences how little you are paying attention to what he is saying. It is irrational for you to be so dismissive of the points he is making. They are not nonsense. Maybe he is a neo nazi type, I dont know or care. What I care about is the arguments being made, and thats what you should be concerned with as well but you are ignoring them, and acting like there is no legitimacy to what he is saying. There are very good arguments on the opposing view to yours, of which you seem ignorant.
Defending free speech includes the unfortunate and yes hateful things people might say. Its a worthwhile trade off for some and if you disagree then disagree but this dismissive engagement is pretty clearly your bias on display. If it isnt, explain how I have that wrong instead of using the overused “ad hom” deflection.

I wasnt responding to your points, your not really making any anymore. I was responding to your shameful behaviour and hypocrisy.
Also I, like you, will respond to posts as I see think proper and if you dont like it then you can just not respond to me. I assure you, I will give up responding as soon as I get the sense you are ignoring me.

I think you are the one that should be ashamed. You have allowed your bias and dislike of NOS4A2 (cuz of the Trump thread?) to subsume your rational thinking on this issue. Acting like his points are utter nonsense and ignoring his arguments shows your ignorance, as he mentioned actual civil rights activists (prominent and intelligent ones) disagree with you. For someone as hyper critical of other peoples rationality as you are, you should be very ashamed indeed.

So you are basing your argument on the axiom that an act is wrong if it cannot be consented to? Is that right?

What are you offering for discussion? I would suggest keeping opening posts shorter and more concise. You will have an opportunity to get to all your ideas and points out as the discussion grows, but this sort of long winded approach is mot encouraging for your reader. If I were to disagree with you, where would I begin?
Can you distill your POV into something more...pointed?

Meh, Im not a US hater. Plenty of stupid to go around, US included. Its that pesky human problem, always fucking everything up.

So still a problem in the UK. Maybe both countries should be like something else.

Didnt a comedian go to jail for teaching his dog to do a Nazi salute? Thats the same kinda thing.

Well it depends on what qualifies as hate speech. Thats my problem with it. Im not a speech absolutist like Terra, Im more on your side in that sense.
When I refer to it as a tool/weapon, Im thinking about the abuse of that tool. As soon as someone is powered by society to apply speech control, someone else will inevitably abuse that control and horrible things will happen. History shows this rather clearly. Here in Canada its especially bad, as legislation has passed classifying the non-use of certain words as “hate speech”. You can face legal consequences, not to mention the effect on rage culture on ones life, for not using the proper gender pronouns here.
So to deny there is a problem with banning hate speech, given what ive just explained above, is without problems provokes great skepticism in me. Not that im saying you are doing that here, but as a general point.

Re (so THATS why you use that...so handy) not teaching “sticks and stones”, Ive often said the exact same thing. I also note that there are way too many other things that are like this too, like everyone has forgotten the lessons understood by children. Lying, cheating, stealing...all things people teach children not to do yet do themselves.
Thats a bit different though I suppose.
“To succeed you have to try hard” is another, a lesson for children that that somehow turns into participation awards and no fail policies.
If they cannot master those simple childish equations how are they going to learn much more important lessons like those from Nazi Germany. To bring it back to free speech, we were supposed to have learned from that NOT to restrict free speech, but then again that was only one example recently. History shows us that the restriction of speech is just to powerful a tool/weapon to cede to the state.

Are referring to something I said much earlier in the thread? I wasnt making an argument when I addressed S, I was trying to get clarification...which was provided.
So Im confused at where you are coming from in your commentary.

Seems pretty vague to me. Lots of things have “direct and indirect” harms. I see “may” cause a few times, I see the claims are not “easy to evidence empirically”.
Still pretty skeptical about the reasons so far presented for your side here...though Im not really all that convinced by the arguments on the other side either. Why ive stuck around reading this long I suppose.

I don’t know what you think Im supposed to do with that. Did you mean to address someone else?

Well that would do exactly nothing to help me understand YOUR intuitions on the matter, but ok.

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. — S

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

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.

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?

Can we lose the pretence? Who are you guys talking about? S, Terrapin or that other NOS4A2 guy? Someone else?
To the general topic, banning for trolling needs to be handled very carefully. It is the go to internet accusation. On this very forum I have observed (often tbh) two, equally reasonable posters become frustrated and conclude that the other “must be trolling”. I have made the charge myself. I do not want any of those people banned.
Trolls will go away if ignored, but I think this forum has acceptable guidelines in place already. Id even say its a bit heavy handed at times, but then again I dont have the unenvious position of having to sort and judge it all.

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. — S

You think that someone with a non violent predisposition would hear hate speech and be inspired to go commit violence? Just what kind of people do you think hear hate speech and are convinced to go blow people up? (Where the hate speech was the sole or major factor, obviously) Anyone? Or do you have a specific kind of person in mind?
You also said “possibly”, what is your acceptable limit of risk, how do you calculate it?