No, this is straw-manning again. I was making a point about losing specific liberties of speech, not all liberties or people saying “gas the jews”. Again, very subtle dishonesty here. “Gas the jews” just happens to be something assholes can say when liberty of speech is granted. Free speech is about no one being able to control what other people are allowed to express. Its about ideas, and not suppressing them.

I said I understand that. There are autonomous functions over and above what you are talking about there, that are not governed or regulated. So even if you are right about subconscious and body regulated bodily functions, there are still functions which cannot be stopped except from damage or trauma.

I understand what you are getting at, and if you want to encompass someones body as part of their identity then fine, even if you want to say that the conscious mind isnt actually controlling anything I wont argue but that still wouldnt mean you were in control of everything in your body. There is no control over at least some things that are happening in the body, no process over which to exert control, they are automatic and only stop happening due to damage or trauma (or gentic defect I suppose). There are biological functions that do not have a biological basis to change the automatic function, therefore no control exists.

Lol, ok.

Same sociopathic tendency as Terrapin. Why would you consider the benefit to society of being able to publicly say "Gas the Jews" is so great that it requires an overwhelming evidence of harm to remove it. What's so great for you about being able to say "Gas the Jews"? — Isaac

I wasnt talking about speech, I was talking about liberties. What I said about them pre-empts the argument you are trying to make in the above quote. This is a subtle strawman, but also a perfect example of not arguing honestly.

You aren’t in control of your body, not all of it. Are you unfamiliar with the basic biology of autonomous bodily functions?

Thats a pretty pertinent question, you seriously going to dodge it like that?

Why would we ban something based on unconvincing evidence? Thats a low standard. To give up any ANY liberty the standard needs to be higher than that. Id go further than that, I dont think its a good idea to ever base anything at all on unconvincing evidence.
I have to say, it seems a bit disingenuous to try and dodge the clear relation to your stance on hate speech and this paper.

Thats not really what your claiming, well not all you're claiming. You are saying hate speech should be banned, aren't you?

You are clearly exercising bias here. That document does not support your argument, except if you have heavy confirmation bias like when religious folks read the bible. You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data. Then, you try and shift the burden of proof...also like a religious person.
Conclusion: you aren’t arguing in good faith, but showing your dogmatic thinking on this issue.

Do you guys have any other reasons for your position on hate speech or is it just the causal stuff?
I ask because the causal stuff isnt going anywhere at this point, perhaps the discussion would become interesting again if you came at it differently? They aren’t going to concede anything or alter their view on what you are saying on causality cuz they think its absurd, ridiculous, sociopathic etc etc
So any other reasons that could be discussed?

I agree except for Hitler using his persecution as justification. Maybe he did, but thats not really whats salient here. Whats salient is that Hitler used the same laws and policies designed to prevent “hate speech” in order to suppress opposing speech.
Laws, including “hate speech” ones, are like a tool. When Saint Whiteknight the Great puts down the tool after saving us from the 4th Reich or whatever, old Captain Racist Fuckface Mcgee is going to be right there waiting to pick it up and use it.
Lets not put the tools in place for Fuckface Mcgee, ok? Can we be done now?

Well your historical reference is only compelling if you already have the stance you have. Its not an example that makes your case any more than the Hitler example. You can make as many such references as you want, they don’t agree with you as to whats actually happening in those examples.

Is this argument still going on? Good lord.

Listen Anti-Natalists, your argument sucks. It works 100% equally in the exact opposite direction.
Replace “suffering” or “harm” with “joy” or “pleasure” and then swap “it is wrong to procreate” with “it is wrong not to procreate”.
All your arguments now work equally well to prove the exact opposite of the Anti-natalism stance.
Have fun arguing with yourself.

As to the justification for the belief that such randomness exists: There is currently no explanation for why some behaviour on the microscopic scale appears random. So it's not unreasonable to conclude that the randomness observed is ontological randomness. — Echarmion

Thats not a valid justification, it is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because the answer isnt known doesnt mean you get to just insert one, even if its possible or plausible.

This issue doesnt seem as complicated as its being made out to be. The speaker is responsible for what they say, the listener is responsible for what they do in response. Just stop and think about what it would be like if the speaker could be held responsible for the actions of others who hear him. It might not be a problem in a world of some kind of objective interpretation, but we dont live in a world like that. Who knows how someone could take something. You might think its obvious in some cases like Hitler, but that simply isnt going to be the case most of the time. Someone is going to have to be the arbiter and that's not a level of power that im willing to give anyone, and certainly not something I would want enforced by law. Why? Because even if the best, most fair and wise person for the job takes their place at the head of the Department of Ok Speech, having that department as part of the system means someone else can eventually take over who isn't so wise and benevolent and use it for something else, something horrific perhaps. Maybe something like a holocaust. Just. Like. Hitler.
Controlling speech is the first and most powerful move of all the most horrific nightmares of human society. Its not something we should play with just because we dont like hearing racist trash come out of someone's mouth.
You think hate speech is going to spread hate and violence? Think of the KKK in the states. No hate speech laws. There was a time when the KKK was wide spread and powerful, in the south openly gathering in large, powerful groups. Free to spout racist garbage and recruit. Now, they are powerless by comparison. There are way bigger problems nowadays than white nationalism, where as at one time that might have been the biggest one. What happened? Society said “no”, and things changed. The power is in the people, and its the people that decide which direction to go. Its their responsibility, not some asshole full of hate.
Anyway, I obviously made a mistake, it is complicated. Thats the longest post ive made in this forum. That was a dumb thing to say and I retract it. I was wrong.

It seems we are in...agreement?

“I dont know” leaves the answer to whatever question completely open, saying you don’t know means the answer could be anything. A person could start eliminating certain possibilities after that of course to determine what isnt the answer but the possibilities of what IS the answer is inherently open by nature of not knowing.

Can you explain how necessary and sufficient causation makes your case here? I googled it so have a basic understanding but I dont see how you are using it here in such a way that it is laughable to disagree. My understanding thus far is that it is s contentious issue in philosophy, rather than something only fools would disagree with you on.

What is necessary and sufficient causation?

Did you contact a mod? Your posts dont seem offensive or against the rules so its probably some limd of filter glitch or something.

Well said.

That wouldnt be an assumption. You are right that the possibilities become wide open when you dont know, the answer could be anything but there is no assumption being made, an assumption is accepting something as true with no proof. I understand you are alluding to the commitment to a possibility but calling that an assumption is incorrect.

I think you are confusing yourself with the semantics here. Being agnostic means you either do not think the question of gods existence can be answered at all or that you think the question cannot be answered with the information currently available. im not sure how this effects whatever argument you are making but thats what it means.

So stupid. The early morning hour has robbed me of my good sense and Im actually responding to a clueless douche. Or is it his magical words, forcing me to action?!
Anyway, I do not hate you I just think you are a fool on this topic. You think I could force people to commit violence against you by talking about how much you deserve it or telling them to go do it. Nonsense.
You think the lesson of Nazi Germany was that hate speech is evil and should be banned?
You think when they say “never again”, they are talking about Hitlers fucking speeches?! Your self righteousness is blinding you. Do some research for christs sake.
You think holocaust survivors think back and say “if only Hitler hadnt said those hateful incitements”? Maybe they would, but not before they said “if only all those people hadnt rounded us up into camps and systematically exterminated us”.
No, the lesson, the “never again” is in following a madman, in allowing his derangement to become their derangement. The German people who took part our responsible for their own actions, not the hate speech they heard.
Clueless, cuz you don’t really know what you are talking about AND haven't thought it all the way through, and a douche because thats the term I use to describe people that are aggressively self righteous. So I wasnt just insulting you, I was also being very, very accurate. In contrast, all you can muster up was some directed swear words which aren’t even insulting. Pathetic. You aren’t even a worthy adversary.

That sounds like a pretty hateful bit of speech at the end (when you tell me to go fuck myself) you clueless douche, better be careful lest someone read that and be causally forced to commit violence.
What a joke.
your points were well made, just ignore these self righteous retards advocating that hate speech causes violence, they just havent thought it through and are reacting emotionally.

I dont think that kind of coercion is avoidable for groups of humans. Meaning, if politics is a “racket”, then all social organisations are and whats more any kind of grouping situation is as well. Humans say things, do things and other humans listen and copy those things.

When they are run by racketeers, yes.

I think the differences is twofold. First, the way “new atheism” is received by the public which has to do with the second difference which is in the unapologetic way in which the “new atheists” criticise religion.
Those are the distinctions as far as I can tell.

Its not anti-west terrorism that is the big problem, its what muslims do to other Muslims. The prevalence of sharia is a tragic blight on the world.

I understand that, I just want to know what exactly makes him an alarmist. That quote? Seems perfectly sensible to me, not alarmist at all. Islam IS by far the most evil religion in the world today, because of its extremists. They are without question the most extreme and dangerous.

Is someone who dislikes swimming in shark infested waters a “sharkaphobe”?
There is a real problem with Islam, as he describes. Why is he some kind of bigot because he identifies a major problem concerning Islam? Especially when he is careful to caveat like he did?
Also,if this isn't a good example of why he is “out of control” on islam, what is? Thats what I asked you for.
What is it that makes him an alarmist about Islam?

I didnt read any of his books, Im not even a particular fan of his but it provokes my sensibilities when people, anyone even someone like Trump, are demonised. If someone is evil or otherwise shitty, then an honest and fair treatment will bare that out.

Im having strong deja vu we have discussed this before.
Anyway, I don’t disagree with any of that quote. You have to do a pretty uncharitable reading of it to come up with “islamaphobic” (whatever thats supposed to mean), and a charge of racism is obviously absurd. Islam is not a race.
Its baffling to me how you missed important caveats in that quote, like “that doesnt mean mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it” or the very last line.

Sorry, missed what situation you are talking about.

Why do you think Dawkins is “totally out of hand” on Islam? Ive never read or heard anything from him that would indicate that.

Right so the “necessary condition for doing science” is an action. Choosing/evaluating is an action, it is something that you are doing.
As you just said, the action still takes place. Free will doesnt determine whether it does or not. In order for your argument to work it would have to. You have to adjust your argument so it addresses free will, not the act itself. In order to do that, you need to offer support for defining free will as the act, which as I said I agree seems a more sensible way of defining it.

Right. The way you are using it in your OP doesnt match that. You are acting as though the lack of free will means no action can take place. The action still occurs, its just that YOU aren’t the one deciding what to do, thats happening as a result of (basically) determinism. The feeling that you are making a conscious decision is an illusion, the action itself still happens.
In the portion you quoted, the capacity to choose isnt the same as free will as you are using it in your argument.

Free will = making choices is not a standard definition of free will used in arguments about free will. I happen to define it that way myself but what the great (?) philosophers mean is that the choices are not made consciously like it seems when you make them, thats is an illusion because (in a nutshell) determinism. The thought/choice is being made subconsciously, and you are just aware of that choice and as you become aware it feels as though somewhere in your conscious mind a decision is being made but its not, the choice was made by deterministic factors before you could even know about the choice at all.
So your argument only applies to your own idiosyncratic definition of free will, which you sorta defined but didnt offer any support for that definition.

Yes, and those things that are unknown should be taught as something that are unknown. It is problematic to say the least to teach children, or anyone, that in the absence of an answer it is ok to make one up, or pick one someone else made up.

Ya see I disagree. Why would we want to teach a child its ok to believe in these alternate dimensions? Its no different than telling them creationism is up to them to decide if its true or not. Its a problem to teach children things that aren’t true and that the figments of imagination and flights of fancy are ok to believe or not believe as is their preference.