I don't see how semantic content is causal like say neuronal firings. Ideas are conceptually related but that does not equal causal relations. Thinking "Paris is the Capital of France" doesn't cause any more behaviour or thought in me or any determined next content (such as I rush to the shop to by garlic bread). — Andrew4Handel

It caused you to type those words on your keyboard and click send so that we could read it. Speaking and writing are both physical behaviors triggered by thought. You could say that speaking and writing involve semantics as you convert your thoughts into sounds and scribbles to communicate your thoughts to others. Every post on this forum is a physical effect, and therefore a representation, of mental causes.

I am also concerned with a proposed linkage of mental states to brain states and how mental content could be determined this way and preserve coherence.

The behaviourist model is that idea that constant co-firing of neurons makes one idea trigger another through constant conjunction like Pavlov's dog's saliva and bells. However salivation was an inappropriate response to a bell because bells do not always signal food (nor do they "mean" food) and that type of learning makes lots of errors that we don't.

The main problem I was highlighting though is that if thoughts are determined then we can't evaluate them for truth. Like the dogs couldn't control salivating. — Andrew4Handel

I don't understand your problem. What truth?

Are you taking into account some form of indirect realism where the brains (and the neurons they are made of) that we see are just mental models of what is in the real world?

It seems to me that it is hard to apply determinism to mental states for various reasons.The main reason for this is the conceptual or representational content of mental states.

Facts or propositions that the mind deals with depend either on the nature of the external the word or logical relations. So for example Paris is the capital of France and 2 + 2 = 4 are facts regardless of which state the brain is in.

A brain state could be something like "neuron A and B caused Neuron C to fire"

Now if Neuron "A" represented "Paris" and Neuron "B" represented "Capital" and Neuron "C" represented "England" you can see how the firing of neurons here would not preserve a factual state of affairs.
So the one issue is that facts of the world are independent of brain states. The other issue is that it is hard to imagine how neuronal firings could preserve conceptual relationships.

Another issue concerns how we could challenge our beliefs if neuronal firings just forced us into particular mental states.

Also there is the problem of how beliefs cause other beliefs. Believing that Paris the Capital of France doesn't cause any other beliefs. I can't immediately see what would conceptually link mental states or brain states and beliefs together or to make one cause another. — Andrew4Handel

Ideas trigger similar, or related, ideas in my head. So my ideas are causally influenced by some other idea, and it's not the same for everyone, as it is based on experience.

Real world events, not just ideas, can trigger other ideas. I don't see how causation isn't involved in both mental states interacting with each other and mental states interacting with states of affairs in the world.

Natural selection is the process by which mental states came to represent external states more and more accurately.

It has been a recent contention of mine that the data of experience are the same in all metaphysical systems, whether idealistic or materialistic, to name the two major poles. Both try to give answers to the question of what objects of experience are, but neither doubts that such objects are. In light of this, it seems to me that much less rides on the answer being what the idealist or the materialist says than is often supposed. (That said, I have always leaned toward idealism and still do, primarily due to the coherency and stability of what it affirms; the matter of the materialist changes every century, which casts doubt on what exactly is being affirmed.)

The more interesting and pressing question is whether the phantasmagoria of experience exhausts the category of the real. In other words, the more important question is not what objects are, but why they are. If this question has no answer, nihilism results. If this question has an answer, but we can't know it, skepticism results. If this question has an answer, and we can know it, then something like theism results. — Thorongil

No. Theism relies on faith. If this question has an answer, and we can't know it, then something like theism results. If this question has an answer, and we can know it, then something like science results.

If an idealist believes the external world is made of the same stuff as the mind, then how is that any different from saying that the mind is made of the same stuff as the external world? It seems to me that the dichotomy is false and idealists and materialists are arguing over nothing. The fact is that I experience causation - of me willing my legs to move and I walk, of me preparing for a math exam and then taking one, of me relaying an idea on a philosophy forum and others reading and responding to it, etc. If there is a causal relationship between the mind and the external world then there is no need to make distinctions between mind and body, or mental vs. physical.

I have come to the conclusion that the phenomenal is reality, and the purpose of philosophy/science is to explain why what appears is as it appears. So no hidden 'reality', rather the reality we experience is all there is, and the question is why it is the way it appears. — Cavacava

The bigger question would be why does it appear as an experience of an external world if there isn't one?

I was hoping it would come to you, but it is the Greek definition of man as the rational animal. And in this case, it is a difference that really makes a difference. — Wayfarer

All animals behave rationally. The fact is that you aren't privy to all the reasons some animal does some thing, so it can appear as if some animal is behaving irrationally (even a human) when you don't understand it's motives or reasoning for doing it. Animals are able to distinguish between food, predator, and mate and behave accordingly when encountering these things in their environment.

It's not that we are more rational. The difference is that we have an imagination.

To me physical is made of stuff and has form, such as chair. I cannot comprehend non-physical thing such as mind. — bahman

What do you mean by "stuff"? The mind is made of stuff too and has form. How else can you even talk about it and how it changes?

How do you even know that a chair is made up of different "stuff" than the mind? Is it the fact that you can touch the chair and feel it's solidity? "Feeling the chair" is one of the forms the mind takes, as well as "sitting in the chair". Asking if you can feel a mind is like asking if the chair can sit on itself.

Implied? Do you think there is an equation that might describe that, such that, given the equation, and the requisite starting parameters, an output could be generated that would equal 'a feeling'? Whenever anything is interpreted, then you're already outside the domain of the strictly physical. Interpretive processes always entail qualitative judgements, and they're different in kind to quantitative analysis. Or so I would have thought. — Wayfarer

It seems to me that all you need to interpret anything is information (the relationship between cause and effect) and a goal, both of which computers have and they interpret data.

It doesn't follow that all intelligent designers have been designed because some intelligent designers have been designed. — Sam26

Circular.

You're assuming that if we discover the designers, then they must have been designed, how does that follow? — Sam26

I'm assuming based on your own explanation of why an intelligent designer is necessary for our (other intelligent designers) existence. What makes one intelligent designer different from others in that they aren't designed themselves? How do you know that human beings aren't one of those kinds of intelligent designers that don't need a designer?

And why does it follow that because another group of designers was designed themselves, that this necessarily leads to an infinite regress of designers. There isn't any way to know that. We don't know enough about the designers. Maybe they've always existed, or some of them have always existed. — Sam26

I don't know. That's why I'm asking you, the current know-it-all of intelligent designers. You need to define what it is that makes some intelligent designers different that they don't need to be designed too. If the universe and the human body are so complex and intricate that they were necessarily designed by an intelligence, then why doesn't the intricate complexity of the intelligent designer need an intelligent designer? Your own explanation shows that the intelligent designer requires its own designer. It is now incumbent upon you to explain why the intelligent designer doesn't require a designer.

I don't know anything like non-physical process. — bahman

Me either. The same goes for "physical" processes. I asked what does it mean to be physical or non-physical.

There is no reason that you have to apply the same reasoning to whomever created the universe, that doesn't follow at all. If we know who created this universe, that answers the question about the creation of this universe. For example when we answer the question, who created this watch, do I then say you can't answer that question because we don't know who created you, of course not. — Sam26

These are the kinds of arguments that show the inconsistencies of theists and why I propose that religion is a delusion.

You keep using human beings and the things they have designed as examples of intelligent designers who were also designed themselves by some other designer. If humans are intelligent designers AND were designed themselves, then why aren't all intelligent designers designed themselves? Saying that you don't have to apply the same reasoning just shows that you are being inconsistent.

Materialism is a system of belief which emphasizes that physical process can explain all phenomena in the world. Consciousness therefore is an epiphenomenon within materialism since it is not a physical process but outcome of a physical process. We however know that consciousness is necessary for learning (please read the following article). This means that consciousness is causally efficacious. Therefore materialism is not correct. — bahman

What does it mean to be a physical process as opposed to a non-physical process?

Computers are excellent analogies of the mind-body relationship. What the software on the computer does is dependent on input (bottom-up). The computer then produces output based on the interaction of the software and the input (top-down).

The computer can be designed to learn - to change it's programming on the fly based on new input, which can be it's own output.

The physical vs. non-physical distinction is the illusion. When consciousness is caused and causes, in a relationship with the world, talking about different substances is ridiculous. It is neither physical nor non-physical. It is all information.

Now the argument is analogical, that is, we make an inference based on a likeness or analogy between objects or groups of objects to infer the existence of a further likeness. This kind of reasoning is done all the time in logic, so to say that there is no logic to the argument, is to not understand logic. — Sam26

Your problem is that you can apply the same "logic" to the intelligent designer, too. Now you have to explain the existence of the intelligent designer by using another intelligent designer, and so on, ad infinitum.

First, if I was to put forth the argument it would take the following inductive form:

(1) Any human contrivance where the parts are so arranged that the completed whole is able to achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a watch), are the result of intelligent design.

(2) Objects of nature have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve activities of a higher order than any part alone (e.g., a cat).

(3) Hence, objects of nature are the result of intelligent design.

This is an inductive argument, not a deductive argument. The conclusion is not necessarily the case, but follows from the premises with a high degree of probability, based on the number of examples in nature, and comparing them with what we know about intelligently designed human productions.

By higher order, I mean that when parts are put together they achieve a higher order than any part alone.

To answer the question about whether a tree would fit the description of intelligent design, the answer is yes. Any living organism would fit the description of intelligent design. — Sam26

God would also fit the description of intelligent design. Thanks for showing everyone that God was intelligently designed by humans. The circle is complete.

Does intelligent design negate evolution, absolutely not. — Sam26

It's evolution that negates intelligent design, or at least life designed with a purpose other than experimentation.

Reading your interaction with StreetlightX, I see that you have no problem devolving your intelligent designer into someone who isn't omniscient or omnipotent. Then your intelligent designer could be a long-lived alien biologist experimenting with life on Earth, right?

You also have an issue with your use of "parts" and "wholes". The parts of the cat have their own function, of which being a cat isn't one of them, and isn't suppose to be (apples and oranges). The heart has the purpose of pumping blood to the brain, etc., The cat is part of the ecosystem, or a human family, etc. The Earth is part of the solar system, etc. The only "whole" that exists could be the universe, or multiverse, of which the intelligent designer is part of.

Because nothingness wouldn't require all of the perfect variables that make our existence possible. Because there would be no paradoxes to explain away. — CasKev

What perfect variables? Reality is just some way and we create models of it. What paradox? The universe just exists.

Right, it would make much more sense if nothing had ever existed... but here we are! Knowing that there are currently unexplainable paradoxes (e.g. infinite space, infinite time, infinite regression), I would guess that humans are currently incapable of understanding their own existence, never mind the existence of some creative intelligent force. — CasKev

Why would it make more sense if nothing had ever existed? Why does that make more sense than something existing?

So what if humans can't currently explain everything? Maybe that's a good thing. It would probably be very boring. Thinking about how much we've learned since we started is an indication that we will continue to learn more. It just takes a little effort and a new way of looking at things. The great scientific discoveries came about as a result of looking at things from a different perspective - usually a more objective one.

I sometimes find myself baffled by the absurdity of everything that exists. How can it be possible that little quarks somehow not only hold themselves together, but organize themselves into groups, which then organize themselves into atoms. Oh, and by the way, these atoms form all kinds of materials that have different colours, smells, consistencies, even though they are made of the same subatomic materials, just in different combinations. And if that's not baffling enough, some of these atoms know how to organize themselves in ways that allow for movement and reproduction. And the complex biological organisms that exist - somehow programmed by DNA to produce life-sustaining systems. Throw in brains and self-awareness just to make matters more complicated...

It's hard not to compare the behavior of quarks and such to the bits and bytes in the computers we program. How could these quarks assemble and organize without some sort of outside guidance? A computer could never have been created - never mind programmed - without some sort of intelligent designer.

If we can accept that our world has been intelligently created in some way, what do you think would be the most likely implications, and why? — CasKev

If you are baffled by the absurdity of everything that exists, wouldn't an intelligent designer qualify as something that "exists" and you should be equally baffled by it's existence? Everything you ask about quarks and atoms would need to be asked about the intelligent designer too. Why doesn't God need a creator?

If you're going to say that God is eternal, then let me just stop you right there. The universe, or the multiverse (everything in it's entirety), could be eternal and without a designer. So your whole point for questioning the existence of everything could be equally applied to your belief in the existence of a God.

Ok, then God must be irrational to be good. If God is irrational, then how do you know what God actually wants, or what good and evil actually mean to God? Being irrational never gets you to the truth. Irrationality is the antithesis of searching for truth.

What you don't seem to recognize is that you are attempting to be rational in pointing out a "connection" between rationality and "evil". It's just that you aren't taking into account that irrationality has caused harm, if not more harm, than rationality has. Rationality has given you a better standard of living and longer lifespan. Irrationality leads to ignorance, the greatest "evil" (according to Socrates).

That doesn't mean anyone that twists certain evidence to support their belief and ignores other evidence that contradicts their belief is delusional. — BlueBanana

Being delusional is holding beliefs that contradict reality or rational argument. I've posted the symptoms of Wikipedia several times on these forums and theists match up with a vast majority most of them. Look it up.

I'm not saying theists are psychotic. I'm saying religion is a means of coping with stress - a way of covering up what it is that they don't like about reality - a defense mechanism if you will.

Theists typically inject more into the empirical evidence than is necessary to explain it. They are inconsistent. They are defensive. It's emotional for them. They need it to be true.

Actually, some like me, didn't need it to be true. What I needed was the actual truth about everything; not what I wanted it to be. The truth isn't subject to my feelings. I learned about other religions, philosophy and about science's explanations. The bottom-up explanations of science appealed to me over the top-down explanations that ended up being inconsistent in order to explain the existence of God, and what it wants, in the first place.

When they realize that the truth isn't guaranteed to make them content, that is when they can actually start to question their own beliefs and develop an intellectually honest search for truth, where they apply the same rationality they do in the rest of their lives. Delusional people can behave normally and rationally in other aspects of life, but it is only when their delusion is challenged, or questioned, do they become defensive and irrational.

Not everyone. I simply take all evidence and bring it together into a consistent whole. My goal is the truth, not to support any particular idea. I'm open to better explanations if others have them and I expose my hypotheses to criticism in order to check them. I have done a complete 180 in my world view before and I can do it again if the evidence supports it.

What evidence do atheists ignore?

Delusional people twist certain evidence to support their belief, and ignore other evidence that contradicts their belief.

There is no objective state of affairs. Everything is in continuous flux. We are all involved and sharing experiences.

And when the heck did I ever use the concept of Laws? Everything is constantly changing. However, habits are formed which appear to be repetitive but are always different.

The fundamental error in all academic and scientific analysis of the universe is replacing symbols (which are static) for flow, which is what we are all experiencing. This is where philosophy can step in and say "what the heck"?. Instead philosophy plays along, even substituting some measurement which science calls time for the real thing. — Rich

"Everything is in continuous flux." and "We are all involved in sharing experiences." are both statements that you believe are true of ALL minds, which makes it a statement about some state-of-affairs that includes ALL minds, which makes it an objective statement about minds.

You don't necessarily need to use a word when you are using it's definition.

Law: a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.

Rationality is light, supposedly. It is associated with enlightement, wisdom, philosophy, science, blah blah blah. To find fault in rationality is simply impossible. You would have to be either mad or a fool or both to even think of painting rationality in a negative light.

However, there's this small thing that's been nagging me for some time. Every evil deed that has ever been committed has been done under the aegis of rationality. There's always a perfectly good ''reason'' to insult someone or hit someone ir even to kill him/her. — TheMadFool

This is just intellectual laziness. Most, if not all, the mass shootings in the U.S. were the result of the perpetrator having a history of mental illness. They behaved irrationally and caused a lot of harm to others. I'm not going to use the term, "evil" because that is a subjective term and there are no objective moral laws.

It is just as likely that irrationality can cause harm, so it cannot be rationality or irrationality that causes harm to others. It must be something else. What do you think it could be?

I have no idea what Laws you are experiencing. I am (my mind) is experiencing all kinds of things, but certainly not Laws. The Mind made up the Laws of Nature as it did God. It is a story. A myth. The Mind likes creating myths and stories. It's fun. — Rich

There Mind is creating new forms by use of will and it is recognizing and conceiving forms by use of memory but it is not annihilating. The universe is more like a clay of energy that is constantly being manipulated and changing.

There is no series. The universe is a continuous and entangled. Using symbolics such as words, mathematics, or logic cannot be used to represent a continuous universe in flux. The only b way to understand it is via observation. — Rich

There are no states. Everything is continuous. This idea of states is a symbolic concept that may be of practical use but does not describe the universe. If you insist on states, then you cannot understand or explain what is transpiring. This is where academia education goes off on it's on track. — Rich

Strange. You say that you experience no laws, yet every post you created in this thread is espousing some objective state-of-affairs (laws). In telling us how things really are and work, are you not espousing laws?

Have you tried an unmoderated site? If they were more productive, why wouldn't we be there? — unenlightened

I do participate in unmoderated sites, but that isn't to say those are the only sites I participate in and that this site doesn't have productive conversations at all.

Again, what you would be validating is free speech. What people espouse using their free speech isn't what you would be validating. This is a philosophy forum with many conflicting viewpoints engaging each other. It would be nonsensical for someone to come along and claim that your site is validating just one of those viewpoints. It would only appear that you are validating a particular viewpoint if you delete or edit posts of another viewpoint that is trying to show how that other viewpoint is faulty.

Your rights cannot override someone else's. — Harry Hindu

Nonsense. My right not to be murdered overrides your freedom to murder me. You don't have that right. — unenlightened

Actually, it is you that is being nonsensical. Read what I wrote again. We don't have the right to murder someone else. We do have the right to life. We may have the freedom to kill, but that doesn't mean you have the right to kill, precisely because we have the right to life, which is the antithesis of the right to murder. Just as you don't have the right to limit other's free speech because you are offended. No one is saying you don't have the freedom to be offended, but you don't have the right to use that to limit the rights of others.

More nonsense. Much is allowed by mods, and some things are not. One reason for not allowing racists on the site is that it gives an air of legitimacy to their views, and associates the members with them. Another is that it is sufficiently offensive to deter serious posters from frequenting the site. — unenlightened

Actually, more nonsense from you. Do you bother thinking about what it is you are saying before you type it and submit it? If allowing racists on the sight gives an air of legitimacy, then why doesn't allowing anti-racists on the sight give them an air of legitimacy? You do know that when someone posts something racist, the anti-racists (which more than likely outnumbers the racists) will come out in droves and tell the racist why they are wrong, don't you? By allowing the anti-racists to argue against the racist you actually end up giving the legitimacy to logic and reason, by allowing free and open conversations to happen in the arena of free ideas. You seem to somehow think that by allowing a racist to post something gives them legitimacy, yet don't think that allowing the anti-racists to argue against doesn't provide them legitimacy. Does this forum legitimize every post made on it, or just the one's you wouldn't happen to agree with?

Racism would never stand by itself. There would always be counter posts to any racist post, and any serious posters would recognize that and not be deterred by one post where many other posts logically counter it. I could argue that serious posters in a philosophy forum are deterred when they see to much irrationality and a lack of logic and reason, or see that posts are edited or deleted based on some arbitrary, subjective rule.

Unmoderated discussions are not worth reading or participating in. Absolute freedom of speech undermines the value of speech itself, as I mentioned above, because flames, fake news, cliches, polemics and irrationality overwhelm logic and reason, by sheer weight of numbers. — unenlightened

When someone edits my, or someone else's post, that discussion isn't worth reading or participating in because you don't have the freedom to actually say what you want because of the fear of someone subjectively determining whether or not your post is offensive or not.
The sheer weight of irrationality hasn't seemed to stop the progress of science and how it has made our lives better - both rational and irrational people alike. Using the number of irrational people as an excuse to not be rational is simply intellectual laziness.

Not if it's an absolute. How's about something along the lines of "you can say whatever you like, but there will be consequences", which may include exclusion from teaching jobs or serving the public jobs, or broadcasting jobs, or entry to football matches, or being sued, or arrested for harassment, or being called an alt right apologist, or some such?

But if all these consequences amount to speech being unfree, and speech must be free absolutely, one of the consequences of that will be the undermining of the value of speech itself. — unenlightened

Then we need to ask if actions fall under the hood of "free speech". Is it "free speech" to take an action against what someone said? It's not illegal to use hate speech. What is illegal is for you to act on your whims, rather than just say them. That is when we counter actions with reaction.

The fact is that someone's free speech doesn't trump someone else's. Your rights cannot override someone else's. What we do with our freedom of speech is use it to express ideas that can trump someone else's ideas based on which one is more logical and reasonable. Logic and reason should be the determining factors of what speech is actually useful or not, not some arbitrary whims. When someone spouts racist comments, then it is to be countered by other free speech. Shutting people up isn't the answer. Hate speech is easy to counter with logic and reason because racism itself is illogical - usually based on unfounded assertions.

I've seen mods allow certain conversations to keep going, even when it is obvious that the speaker of one side isn't making very good arguments, and isn't being reasonable. Then why not allow others to speak their minds and then counter it with reasonable arguments. You'd be taking away their rights, even though they didn't do anything illegal.

By limiting the speech of those you don't agree with, you end up harming yourself because you remove the knowledge of what it is that that person is about, and what their intentions are. Shutting people up makes you ignorant to their intentions, and prevents the opportunity to root out hatred with logic and reason. Shutting people up just makes them more crazy, and more likely to act out their intentions rather than just saying them.

The whole point of having a free-speech society is to allow all ideas to be expressed and compete in the arena of free ideas. Logic and reason would be the determining factors of which ideas win. When culture evolves based on true knowledge, rather than the delusions and self-loathing of a few, it is a good thing.

As un said earlier in the thread, a small group like this forum, or any voluntary society, has rules about people's remarks not being offensive. I'm glad of them; to be frank I find people ruder online than I feel comfortable with, and sometimes I don't even come to this relatively civilised forum because some posters are more aggressive than I can handle.

I quite accept that there is no 'right not to be offended'.

There is nevertheless, among civilised people, normally a tacit rule that one is not rude to others. When people are aggressive in their arguments I suspect their rationality is flimsy. When people insist that their need to express their opinion is more important than their feeling of mutual respect towards other people, I doubt their goodwill. — mcdoodle

For some people, simply pointing out the logical fallacies in their argument qualifies as being aggressive. As I keep saying it is subjective. There are no objective rules as to what is offensive or not.

Even if no one complains about being offended, posts are deleted. They are deleted because there is the possibility that others might be offended. Trying to apply objective rules to something that is inherently subjective leads to the infringement on rights that we actually do have.

Saying that people have a right to be offended transfers the power to define the meaning of the words from the speaker/writer to the listener/reader. It no longer would be the intent of the speaker, and how they used the words, that would matter, rather it would be the intent of the listener that matters. The right to be offended would be the antithesis to the right to free speech. The "freedom" of your speech would be beholden to the greater freedom of some listener's interpretation of it.

It should also be noted that living in a society with free speech, being offended from time to time goes with the territory. Complaining about being offended in a free-speech-society is like complaining about the high insurance rates on your ocean-front property.

I've been pointing out in this thread that we need to get at the reasons why some are offended and some aren't, but no one seems to want to tackle it.

One's self-esteem is the key here. It is those with high self-esteem that don't get offended and those without it do get offended. I don't know of anyone with a healthy dose of self-worth that gets offended by someone else's words. It is only those that are weak-willed and overly invest their emotions in whatever belief that they have that get offended. When someone questions their belief, they get offended.

It is when you have a reasonable and valid counter to some "offensive" statement that you don't resort to saying, "I'm offended." It is only when you don't have a valid counter, that one resorts to being "offended". If you had a valid counter, why would you ever resort to being "offended"? Which would you choose if you had the option - being offended, or logic and reason?

Society is promoting mass delusion. People think that because most people believe it and regurgitate it, then it must be true. They don't bother questioning the veracity of the belief. They just follow the herd. The moderators (or at least one of them) are one of these kinds of people. They just delete posts when they don't agree with you. They don't have a valid argument to make. Instead they resort to being offended and delete your posts. The standards are set pretty low to be mod. Why bother trying to reason with someone and explain why your post shouldn't be deleted when they don't value reason in the first place? They only value their opinion and anything that counters it is just offensive because they don't have any way to back it up, so they use their "hurt feelings", or the possibility that it hurts other people's feelings, as an excuse to shut other people up.

I think the right to be, and not be, offended is an important part of political and social discourse. However I don't think it should be a criminal offence if you do offend someone. — SnowyChainsaw

I agree.

Not matter what you say, someone somewhere may be offended. It is completely outside the control of a speaker to prevent this. For example: even if a speaker was to tone down their language in order to placate the dissenters of his/her opinion, the fact that he/she is "sugarcoating" his/her speech can upset the people that wanted to hear him/her speak in the first place. No matter what you say, someone will take offence.
So I don't think it is fair to hold a person accountable if he/she offends someone. — SnowyChainsaw

Agreed.

However it is important for members of a society to express themselves when they take offence. This process, I believe, helps a society at large determine whether an idea is "good" or not and build a moral system that can be agreed upon. I see offence as a mechanism people can use to show their disapproval regardless of how eloquent they are and if lots of people are finding a particular idea offensive, we, as a society, have a duty to explore why. Of course, this only works if there is no capital punishment for offending someone; an idea that is offensive is not inherently wrong, and radical, progressive ideas tend to offend a large number of the populous. In this case, it is the responsibility of the speaker to be eloquent enough to convince people not to be offended. — SnowyChainsaw

Well, I agree that we all have free speech, and if someone was offended, then they have the right to say so, but their right doesn't trump someone else's rights. Being offended, or having you feelings hurt should never trump logic and reason. If you don't like what someone said, use logic and reason to counter it, not claim that your feelings are hurt as if that somehow disqualifies a logical and reasonable statement someone had made.

As a matter of fact, that is why people resort to "I'm offended." - because they don't have any logical or reasonable argument to make, so they resort to trying to shut the other person up by claiming their feelings are hurt. Again, one's feelings have no bearing on what is true or not.

The I'm offended" movement is dumbing down society by allowing people to avoid the use of logic and reason in order to maintain some delusion that makes one feel good (safe spaces).

Lastly, I also support the right to not be offended. Personally, someone will find it very, very difficult to offend me with words alone. For example: I'm black and therefore I have been called some interesting and creative racial slurs. I have never been bothered by this and racism has never negatively affected my life. I actually encourage my partners to call me a N****r to desensitize them from the word and prevent them from being offended on my behalf. Which brings me to my point. People should have the right to not be offended so people like me, who just want to get on with life, do not have to worry about our lives being affected by people who are being offended on our behalf. Without the right to not be offended, I feel this could not happen and will cause even more political and social divisiveness then the people that espouse socially objectionable ideas. — SnowyChainsaw

This is exactly what I've tried to explain - that different people can be offended by something that someone else isn't offended by. We need to explain why this is the case BEFORE we just start giving people rights that can override one of our other, more fundamental, rights - free speech.

The first amendment of the US constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
is consistently interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and by most intelligent people, as protecting speech (speech being very broadly defined) that may be offensive.

Some speech is not protected. Famously, you cannot call out "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, and so forth. Libel and slander aren't protected. And I suspect (I do not know) that speech that is offensive without any other purpose is not entirely protected.

So much for speech. In as much as some "offense" is a (necessary) risk in a free society, if there is to be such a right, then "offense" is going to have to be pretty carefully defined. I'm thinking that it (indirectly) mostly is, in both civil and criminal law. — tim wood

First, I think we need to admit to ourselves that what is offensive to one, isn't offensive to another. So, being offended is subjective and is typically the result of how one was raised and what they've been taught.

This movement seems to be one that seeks to limit free speech of those you don't agree with. Someone telling you that you are wrong isn't offensive. If it were, then we have all been offensive in one way or another on this forum. It only becomes offensive when one has made an emotional attachment to their belief.

and, as I keep pointing out, but you fail to notice (because you're being obtuse), is that it is more harmful to not speak the truth, or to lie (perpetuate ignorance).

Then you haven't actually said anything useful. I can see you aren't interested in getting at the truth. You are only interested in being obtuse. Ignorant.

Of course you have - by saying it is harmful to tell them the truth (something you haven't denied because you fail to explain the difference in your categories, so your also making a category error.), you imply that it isn't harmful to lie to them, or at least to allow them to maintain their delusion which is killing them.

All I am trying to say is that "it's true" isn't a defense against the accusation of violence. — Michael

:-} And I'm saying is that NOT telling them it's true isn't a defense against the accusation of violence.

Yes, hate speech is motivated by hatred, but the question is, "Where does hatred come from?" You say, "What one hate's is usually the result of ignorance". Ignorance plays an important role in human affairs, but in itself doesn't cause hatred. I am ignorant of many of the world's people--I have almost no knowledge about Mongolians, Albanians, Uzbeks, or Argentinians, but ignorance of these peoples hasn't led to hatred. I am ignorant of Bahai, Zoroastrians, and Shinto, but I do not harbor hatred about or toward them. — Bitter Crank

That isn't all I said that causes hatred. I also said that inductive reasoning from bad experiences of a certain person, or type of person, can cause hatred. When that person or group of persons seems like a threat to your goals, then you can acquire a dislike, or hatred of that person or group of people. Hatred also stems from thinking that a difference between people can be a good/bad distinction, which leads one to hate those that are different because they have "bad" attributes.

There are certain facile explanations for prejudices, like homophobia. The theory is that some people fear that they might be homosexual themselves, and project this fear as hatred onto people they suspect to be homosexual. This is probably a relatively uncommon phenomena. Ignorance = hatred is another one. — Bitter Crank

LOL. So homophobes hate gays because they think they are gay themselves? So it is a case of self-loathing then? Yeah, I don't think that theory flies. I think it's more along the the lines of being ignorant and hating what is different BECAUSE you don't understand the difference.

How am I being inconsistent? I'm simply saying that "it's true" isn't a good defence against the accusation that what you're saying is violent. I have no interest in debating whether or not transwomen are women. — Michael

That's not all I'm saying. You're being purposely obtuse.

I have made the point, several times, that NOT saying something can be just as violent. By reinforcing someone's delusions can be just as harmful. Reinforcing somone's ignorance is just as harmful and can lead to death, like in the case of obesity and anorexia. The fact that I have to reiterate this, when it's all in my posts, most of which are direct replies to you, just means that you are ignoring a key point because you don't have a defense against it.

You also don't want to "debate" whether or not transwomen are women because you know it is fundamental root of the problem that you have. If transwomen are women, then are all women transwomen? What is the difference? Where is your logic? It is non-existent. All you do is keep going in circles because you lack a defense altogether.

My very first post was questioning the consistency of the statement, "It's harmful to tell people they're wrong". You pointed out that they might not be wrong, and when I asked you to define how they might not be wrong, you say I'm bringing up old arguments and that we won't agree. Go figure.

If you can't answer that one, then start by answering the other questions I first started with in this thread and the others I posed to you in the post you cherry-picked. You're being intellectually dishonest.

Saying, "We're never going to agree." shows how close-minded you are. You can't be swayed with evidence and logic. I am allowing you to sway me by asking you a question that could either make or break my point. Have you ever asked that question of yourself, and if so what was the answer?

If they harm someone, then it is. — Michael

You harm a delusional person by telling them their delusion is false. That is a moral dilemma we often face: Should I tell the person the truth and hurt their feelings, or lie to them to save their feelings?

Socrates says that the greatest good is knowledge and the greatest evil is ignorance. So which is actually more harmful - the truth or remaining ignorant?

The rest of your post wasn't relevant to my criticism, which is that "it's true" isn't a satisfactory defense against accusations of violence/abuse/insult. I've already said that we're never going to agree on whether or not transwomen are women, so there's no point rehashing those old arguments. — Michael

It's not an old argument. You haven't even asked that question of yourself. I know, because you're performing these wacked mental gymnastics in order to avoid answering the question. Answer the question, as it will help us both understand where it is you are coming from because as it stands right now, you are being inconsistent.

Is thinking you are a member of the opposite sex EVER a mental illness? If not, then why are other instances of thinking that you are something other than what you are (a vampire, God, Elvis's long lost son or daughter, a different race, a different size, etc,.) a mental illness?

Whole societies are capable of mass delusion when they are inconsistent in their application of logic as the result of allowing the feelings of a few people who have trouble facing reality dominate the rest of us. The application of logic and reason can hurt feelings, ESPECIALLY when you have a severe emotional investment to what it is that logic/reason and empirical evidence show aren't true.

Sometimes when I debate a theists, I feel like I'm taking ice cream away from a child. Their beliefs are needed in order to stay sane and to function in society. Not knowing is a terrible feeling for them. Questioning their belief has an emotional impact on them. Religion is just another mass delusion, fed by a society who regurgitates theses ideas and reinforcing them in society. There is no logic or reason imposed - just an appeal to the majority and the character assassination of those who question these baseless ideas. The same is the case for the transgender movement.

Do we want to get at the truth of why these people have these feelings, or are we only concerned about their feelings? Truth or feelings? Which is it?

I don't know how we have gone from discussing science to the topic of reason and logic. Reason and logic do not rely on an external object. Science intends on explaining the nature of existing empirical phenomena. — Andrew4Handel

Nonsense. What form does your reason and logic take? How do you know that you're being reasonable and logical? Science isn't only about being empirical. It is a blend of empiricism and rationalism. I don't understand why there would be two camps of empiricists and rationalists because they both work together and are necessary for the acquisition of knowledge.

You seem to be diluting and expanding the meaning of science which is a common tactic so that people can claim things are part of science and give science credit for them when that assumption is questionable. — Andrew4Handel

No, I'm trying to get at what alternatives there are to science that lead us to truth as well as science has. You seem to think there is a better way, but haven't said what that way was, or explained how it might look.

I have already answered this. I said things like sentience, intelligence, creation and design as found in humans are possible indirect evidence for the god hypothesis. — Andrew4Handel

This is like saying that the design found in the weather or diseases is indirect evidence of god, when we already have better explanations that don't impose more than what the data informs us of. We have the theory of natural selection which is a better explanation than "God did it." It doesn't impose anything more on the data other than assembling it into a logical, consistent manner to produce information about how we came to be. Why would science be just as good an explanation as religion if they both don't seek truth in the same way? Is "god" a scientist? Is "god" an alien? How does god create, and why? By imposing the God answer on everything, you still have to answer how god has a causal effect on the rest of nature, and by doing so, so you'd be providing a scientific explanation.

I don't. Something can be unintentionally insulting. — Michael

And that is a problem with the listener, not the speaker. You can be unintentionally insulting to a schizophrenic as well. Being offended by questioning some baseless premise is the symptom of a delusion.

When I said that "it's certainly something people say to bully" I was simply pointing out that "it's true" isn't a defence against the accusation of violence, which seemed to be the defence you were going for. — Michael

Exactly. It's not violent to use words. It is violent to allow people with a sickness to keep thinking they aren't sick. You didn't address the rest of my post where I made that point. Instead, you chose to cherry-pick my post, while ignoring other pertinent questions, like "What is the difference between a transwoman and a man who thinks he is a woman to you?"