In general I sympathize with that principle. Let's test it. Imagine a progressive professor who starts referring to all of her students as 'she.' Would you have a right to complain?

Yes. Free speech goes both ways. But one should never seek to censor her.

Any word affixed with the suffix “ness” is usually a descriptor of things and is not itself a thing—redness, consciousness, happiness. Nothing, though, is a noun, so it get’s weird when you add the suffix. It still means the state or quality of nothing, I guess.

That’s fair. But as far as I can tell charity and helping isn’t common to the domain of socialism. It’s more about economics.

A rather misanthropic, defeatist viewpoint imo.
You can surrender to the dictates of the oligarchs if you want to. Meantime, we socialists will try to save you from your despondent hellish vision of ‘real life.’

Many of us do not want your help. A moral busybody is never a welcome addition to politics, and one who believes he can solve the world’s problems through political tinkering and is mad.

I made the allusion to the book The Captive Mind by Cezlaw Milosz, which described the intellectual cowardice of writers and artists in communist Poland. There are parallels worth noting.

Someone is sour that others are talking about things he doesn’t like.

It’s amazing how a simple question can strike such reticence and confusion. They likely understand that an answer that runs afoul of certain ideologies could end in forms of ostracism or even assault. It’s the captive mind.

Show us on the doll where the capitalist touched you.

If the cells are a part of me, and if sound affects the cells, and if speech is sound, then speech affects me.

Hah, nice.



Censors throughout history have pretended words have the sorts of causal effects you pretend they do, and used it as justification to murder and maim. It’s no surprise you are of that ilk.



If I was a lawyer I wouldn’t show my face, especially with any sort of pride.

So? According to your account of causation as explained above, I pulled the trigger, the gun fired the bullet, and the bullet killed the target.

If I didn't cause the window to break in the previous example then I didn't cause the target to die in this example. But if I did cause the target to die in this example then I did cause the window to break in the previous example.

Well yeah, a bullet tears through flesh, ceasing bodily function, which kills the target. So you’re right.

I don't consciously control the actions of the hair cells in my ear. Their actions are determined by the sound waves that reach them.

The cells transduce the waves to nerve impulses. The cells are a part of you. So you transduce the waves to nerve impulses. Consciously or not, you do it.

Right, so I'm not causally responsible for breaking the window when I kick a ball into it. The extent of the causal power of my kick is the ball moving; anything that happens after that is the responsibility of the ball.

The ball broke the window. You kicked the ball. Sure.

Why does that matter? It's the same principle whether the material is organic or metal.

It was designed for someone to pull the trigger and set off the mechanisms which ultimately shoots the bullet.

Neither are the hair cells in my ear. I don't know what you're trying to argue here.

The cells in your ear are a part of you and I’m pretty sure you’re conscious.

So? The sound waves cause the hair cells to move which cause the nerve impulses to fire.

The movement of hair cells. That’s the extent of the causal power of words.

The irony here is that your account of causation would entail that it is guns, not people, which are responsible for murder because it is the internal mechanics of the gun that cause the bullet to fire, not me pulling my finger on the trigger, and that the gun wouldn't fire if something inside it was broken.

Biology isn’t a machine or built like a gun, though. Guns aren’t conscious or able to control their actions.

But hair cells transduce vibration into impulses.

This is like saying that because plastic melts in fire and tungsten doesn't then it's not the fire that causes the plastic to melt but the plastic causing itself to melt.

It’s nothing like saying that. Do you think mechanical soundwaves convert themselves to nerve impulses?

It is not only legally bollocks it is philosophically quite untenable too. I should not be surprised though.

I guess it’s a good thing I don’t respect your opinion.

That was a good read, Bitter Crank. Thanks.

All that soundwaves trigger is the delicate biology of the inner ear. After transduction it’s all you. The biology—you—does all the work. It causes your hearing; and if any aspect of the biology is messed up along the way, it doesn’t.

I’m sure it’s the other way about. People act upon words. We hear them, read them, learn them, write them, speak them, use them. They do not affect us more than any other sound from the mouth or any other scribble on paper because they are hardly different in physical constitution and energy.

As you said yourself, we are predisposed to act upon certain sounds and images because we’ve learned and trained ourselves to do so.

You said they were a part of the cause and played a causal role. You also brought up counterfactual causation.

“Chris played a causal role.”

“…the circumstances were a necessary condition for the act of hitting to take place - that means it is part of the cause.”

Now we’ve moved to “connections”. It’s too confusing, friend.

This is false. A transfer of energy is how hearing works.

Finally, something physical! Sound waves do affect people. Words are not sound waves, though.

All I remember of counterfactual causation is the lectures I attended on it over 20 years ago, much of it criticizing Lewis’ idea (Suzy or Lucy and the glass window, etc.)

Myself, I don’t have a theory of causation, so I appreciate the debate.

I never said I don’t use the word. It’s that I’m suspicious of the physics of it.

Correct.

Influence: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence

Are we not talking about the same word?

It’s not connected to anything.

Conditions are connections now? I don’t think so.

The birth of Will Smith caused the slap on Chris Rocks face. You heard it hear first.

I do disagree because it’s also consistent with the criticisms of counterfactual causation. Will Smith would not have slapped Chris rock had Will Smith had not been born. If will smith’s birth was the cause of the slap, I cannot agree.

You made a good case for Smith's moral accountability, which I never disputed. You have not shown that circumstances are not part of the cause.

I’ve said Will Smith caused each of his movements. There is no transfer of energy from any other circumstantial object to Will Smith, and therefor no other causal force animating his movements. I cannot say any other object or activity in the environment animated his biology in such a way that they can be considered causes.

That's what's known as 'influence' in this context.

I think the idea of “influence” is the sort of magical thinking I’m talking about. It implies an action at a distance I’m very uncomfortable with.

A necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. Leaving the counterfactuals aside, we can examine the video and see that Will Smith animates himself, with no outside force or condition lifting him into the air, no strings attached to his limbs walking him up onto stage to slap Chris Rock.



No wonder you want this thread to disappear: It’s basically an embarrassing compendium of your belief in hoaxes and fake news.

It doesn’t follow that the circumstances are a part of the cause. The fact that it was the Oscars does not mean the Oscars were a cause of Will Smith’s assault on Chris Rock.



Nope.

I see nothing wrong with that.

I can’t disagree with that. At best a gun can serve as an equalizer in such situations, giving the weak and vulnerable an upper hand in the admittedly rare chance violence occurs to them. But of course there is no guarantee of a favorable outcome, and the risks of carrying one is endless.

Right, I do not think the circumstances caused Will Smith to assault Chris Rock, for instance.

I’m finding it hard to remember where we disagree.

Ukrainian authorities had to effectively beg for weapons, and of course had to make it legal for civilians to walk around with guns for self-protection. It’s amazing the desire for firearms and weapons when it finally comes down to it.



I understand that. All I know is that if I am ever confronted with an armed robber or murderer, I would like to have a gun.

The police don't carry guns here because they don't need them and neither do we because we don't have a gun culture. So, it's not an issue.

There is no violent crime where you live?

Do you believe Chris rock caused Will Smith to hit him?

NOS4A2 is conflating causation with moral accountability, and has an extreme view of libertarian free will (LFW).

LFW implies there is a degree of choice independent of the external environment, not that there is a complete absence of external environment.

Chris Rock was part of the Will Smith's external environment. Had Chris not made the joke, Will would not have hit him. Chris played a causal role. This does not eliminate or lessen Will's moral accountability, but clearly Will was reacting (inappropriately) to Chris.

After this therefor because of this. The post hoc fallacy lets one believe in a false cause without having to prove its effect. Every act of Will Smith began and ended with Will Smith. Chris Rock didn’t cause Will Smith to rise from his chair any more than he caused the rest of the audience to remain seated. Will Smith caused Will Smith to slap Chris Rock.

Who is to blame for you paying taxes? You or the government? The existence of a law and the threat of punishment doesn't force you to do anything; that would (apparently) be magical thinking. You choose to pay taxes. If you choose to pay taxes then taxation isn't theft. Will you accept that conclusion?

I do choose to pay taxes. I choose to pay because if I don’t the government punishes me. But it also skims from every purchase. It takes from every paycheck before I even see my money. It steals my capital gains, my property, whatever I can save up for my family should I die. Not only is it theft, but also robbery, extortion, slavery.

I just can’t imagine being so trusting as to put faith in others with guns to protect my life.

Not if I spoke a different language. Same meaning, same knowledge, different symbols. You understand these words because you’ve spent time learning the language. It is the effect of your learning, your self.

Influence means effect. Incite means to stir up. But there is no effect or stirring involved. Setting a precedent based on magical thinking is a very bad idea.