So you don't buy free will. — Terrapin Station

I certainly don't buy your interpretation of it.

I certainly don't buy your interpretation of it. — S

Would you subscribe to a compatibilist version of it? I don't believe that compatibilism is coherent.

Would you subscribe to a compatibilist version of it? I don't believe that compatibilism is coherent. — Terrapin Station

Maybe. My position on this issue isn't developed enough for me to say whether it is determinism or compatiblism or perhaps something else, but clearly it isn't whatever position you're advocating - that much I know for sure. Your position isn't credible and seems extreme. Though that shouldn't come as a surprise.

As I've requested many times, specify all of the causal factors/the causal chain. — Terrapin Station

Firstly, why would I need to specify all of the causal links in the chain if you are, as you claim, not dismissing correlations. Either the correlation is sufficient to warrant some action (even if only to argue in favour of alternative correlations) or you are dismissing it. As it stands, there is a correlation between hate speech and violence which stands in need of either rejection on the basis of evidence that the correlation is merely coincidence, or action on the factor (hate speech) to prevent the undesirable correlated consequence (violence). I don't see how you can advocate neither and still claim you're not dismissing correlation. If you are not dismissing it, then what account are you taking of it?

Notwithstanding the above, I can quite simply give a reasonable theory as to the causal chain. Person A speaks some hate speech, person B hears it. The sounds are translated in part of the brain into meaning, usually something similar to the meanings held collectively by his community of language users. Those meanings form concepts which place the brain into mental states which make certain thought processes more or less likely. Other factors combine with this mental state to cause a person to act under the belief that such action will be in their interest. I could give a far more technical account if need be, but the above should be sufficient. It's not that complicated. If you want absolute proof that any of this is the case, then I can't provide it. Why would you demand a standard of absolute proof on this law when such a standard does not inform any other law, nor even our own actions?

Now, presuming you're in favour of any laws at all, you specify all the causal factors which justify the legal claim that driving above a certain speed causes harm, or that owning a gun causes harm, or that placing a bomb in a school causes harm, that reneging on a contractual promise causes harm...

Censorship of ideas by itself has repercussions on a cultural level that mere traffic regulations don't have. — Necrofantasia

f you enable systemic censorship of one ideology on a preventive basis, you can always make the case to include others on similar grounds, gradually expanding the criteria of what gets censored depending of the agendas authorities want you to follow. — Necrofantasia

Again, you're merely speculating on the consequences which such censorship as we're discussing here might have. That's fine, but for the fact that you're simultaneously dismissing any similar speculation on the consequences of hate speech as unproven.

We have a correlation between censorship of detractors and authoritarianism in history and it has been established as a power consolidation device. It is also a core component of the definition of Fascism. It's not just my speculation. — Necrofantasia

No-one is talking about censorship on this scale. You cannot simply rely on 'slippery-slope' arguments absent of any justification for invoking such a thing. You might as well argue that we should have no laws restricting people's actions because how easy it would be for them to lead to draconian laws telling us what we can and cannot do. all laws could lead to more authoritarian versions of the same law. Why are laws prohibiting speech acts any different in this respect from laws prohibiting action?

The main thing we'd have to show is that the people in question do not have free will in the situations in question. I don't know how we'd show that, though. — Terrapin Station

Again, as I've asked before - why is the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that people do not have free will in this regard? It is you who are making the more outlandish claim, it is completely normal precedent for the burden of proof to fall on the person making the more outlandish claim. If I wish to claim that God is real, it is I who must prove it, rather than claim others have to prove he isn't . That is because we currently do not have any mechanism nor space for God so if I were to speculate he existed, I'd have to demonstrate why.

Why are you turning this precedent round here? Asking people to supply you with the exact causal chain, dismissing correlations which imply such a link, yet insisting that people make their decision independently without being directly and necessarily influenced by others without providing a shred of evidence in favour of this position, nor even a mechanism by which such a thing could happen.

If you want to prevent, or argue against, hate speech being banned on the grounds that the link between it and violence is not causal (as basically 99% of all psychologists and neuroscientist believe it is), then it is insufficient for you to simply declare you're right and then ask all your detractors to prove you're not. That's the tactic of religious zealots and it's a bit pathetic.

Demonstrate the mechanism by which independent decisions are made. Demonstrate what happens neurologically to separate the concepts formed by hearing hate-speech from the actions decided upon by the person. Explain exactly how the arm moves (in a violent act) under the direction of the brain, but start with how the first neuron is fired without having been stimulated by a previous firing. Explain how the, literally hundreds, of correlation between the speech of others and one's actions are just coincidence.

Can you explain how necessary and sufficient causation makes your case here? — DingoJones

In the context of moral responsibility, necessary conditions can be part of a causal chain. So, if I, through a speech act (or otherwise), with the intent of causing another agent to partake of, say, a harmful action, bring about the necessary conditions for that action, and the action is, in fact, taken based on those necessary conditions, I bear some responsibility (along with the other agent) for the harm that results (I was involved in causing the harm). But we can't get to that part of the argument as Terrapin seems to be taking the position that if you 'buy free will', it follows that a decision about X doesn't necessitate X. For example, my posts were not a necessary factor in his decision about how to respond to my posts. Make of that what you will.

If you enable systemic censorship of one ideology on a preventive basis, you can always make the case to include others on similar grounds, gradually expanding the criteria of what gets censored depending on the agendas the authorities want you to follow. — Necrofantasia

A classic slippery slope argument.

Firstly, why would I need to specify all of the causal links in the chain if you are, as you claim, not dismissing correlations. — Isaac

You want to argue causation. Correlations do not imply causation. That's not dismissing correlations as such. They simply do not imply causation.

So, terrapin's trivial misunderstanding is that if something is not a sufficient cause, it's not a cause at all. — Baden

That pretty much nails it.

Despite...

"Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect,[2] where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[3] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past."

From Terrapin's favourite source of authority Wikipedia, on Causality.

You want to argue causation. Correlations do not imply causation. That's not dismissing correlations as such. They simply do not imply causation. — Terrapin Station

I keep thinking of public health issues. Do you see smoking as causal in lung cancer, even though it is often not sufficient?

From Terrapin's favourite source of authority Wikipedia, — Isaac

lol--I simply pointed you to an article about something you weren't familiar with.

Correlations do not imply causation. That's not dismissing correlations as such. They simply do not imply causation. — Terrapin Station

We've been through this already. I maintain that correlation does imply causation. I'm happy to adapt my language to whatever deductive strength you prefer to attach to the word 'imply', it doesn't alter the case.

We investigate factors which correlate for possible causal relationships. We do not routinely investigate factors which do not correlate. There is something about those factors which correlate which makes them routinely better candidates for potential causal relationships. I call that something "implying", if you think that's too strong a word, that's fine, but it doesn't make the relationship itself go away.

lol--I simply pointed you to an article about something you weren't familiar with. — Terrapin Station

As have I.

Do you see smoking as causal in lung cancer, — Coben

I think that for most medical claims, we don't know causes very well. Genetics seem to have a lot more to do with it than we usually stress culturally. At any rate, it's well-known that we continually come out with studies a la "coffee is good for you," "No, coffee is bad for you," "Chocolate is bad for you," "No, chocolate is good for you," etc., and not just because of different details.

As am I. — Isaac

What did you think I wasn't familiar with and what was your evidence?

What did you think I wasn't familiar with and what was your evidence? — Terrapin Station

You seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word 'cause' my evidence being that you cannot accept something as a cause if it is merely contributory, whereas the concept of a cause as being a contributory factor is well known and well accepted.

I think that for most medical claims, we don't know causes very well. Genetics seem to have a lot more to do with it than we usually stress culturally. At any rate, it's well-known that we continually come out with studies a la "coffee is good for you," "No, coffee is bad for you," "Chocolate is bad for you," "No, chocolate is good for you," etc., and not just because of different details. — Terrapin Station

Though I haven't heard much positive with cigarrettes, for example. Would you think that telling people that regular cigarette smoking increases your chances of lung cancer and emphysema would be ok? (I know you are a free speech purist, so you must, certainly allow for such utterances even by institutions, but would you consider it wrong and philosophically ungrounded)

And I know you prefer a very focused discussion, but let me throw out alcohol. Alcohol cannot make a driver make poor decisions on the road, and some can handle percentages in the blood much higher than others. Would you based on these facts think that restricting driving while intoxicated is wrong?

Or making the introduction of toxins in food potentially illegal, even though responses vary between humans and some will even be immune to direct poisons?

I am obviously trying to skirt about the word 'cause' and head for situations where statistics come into play. Obviously there are many situations where statistics are up in the air (chocolate) but others with much stronger indications of underlying contribution to results.

I maintain that correlation does imply causation. — Isaac

Okay, but I couldn't disagree with you more.

It's not that the correlation can't be the cause of something. But the fact of a correlation doesn't tell you anything about causes. The correlated facts might have nothing at all to do with the facts we want to explain.

the fact of a correlation doesn't tell you anything about causes. — Terrapin Station

But it does tell you something about causes. It tells you that the factor which correlates is more likely to be a cause than one which doesn't. So take a factor (the consequence). Those factors with which it correlates are more likely to be cause than those factors with which it does not correlate. That is telling you something about causes. It is telling you which factors are more likely than which others to be causes. You can't claim that that isn't some information about causes.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word 'cause' my evidence being that you cannot accept something as a cause if it is merely contributory, — Isaac

Which is not the case as I've explained a couple times already. All I require is that we actually show that it's a cause, which requires showing the other causes or a causal chain, because a correlation isn't sufficient (and it certainly isn't necessary if it's not actually a cause and it's merely correlated).

It tells you that the factor which correlates is more likely to be a cause than one which doesn't. — Isaac

Based on what? How are you figuring likelihood. I don't at all buy Bayesian probability by the way.

Would you think that telling people that regular cigarette smoking increases your chances of lung cancer and emphysema would be ok? — Coben

Sure, telling people that studies show a correlation is fine.

Would you based on these facts think that restricting driving while intoxicated is wrong? — Coben

Not just based on that, but I'm not in favor of drunk driving laws. In general, I'm not in favor of "laws against potentials." I have no problem with having harsher negligence laws, so that when and if something does happen due to negligence, there are significant penalties for it.

Or making the introduction of toxins in food potentially illegal, — Coben

I'd just require accurate labeling.

Remember that I'm basically a minarchist libertarian. I simply don't agree with libertarianism economically (re the standard view of how libertarians think the economy should be structured/should function). There's no need for people to be homeless, without healthcare, without a job if they want one, etc. We can structure the economy differently, while still being libertarian in spirit, so that no one has to worry about that sort of stuff (having a place to live, being able to get healthcare, etc.)

Just to reiterate, to claim that something like speech is causal to behavior in others, it's required, at least on my view of what counts as causality, that we claim that people do not actually have free will, at least in the scenario at hand. That makes it much more difficult to claim causality than where we're asserting something like smoking causes lung cancer--which is difficult enough as it is for causality.

It would rather be like claiming that smoking causes lung cancer where one isn't buying causal determinism in general--say where one believes that ALL phenomena are akin to probabilistic phenomena.

All I require is that we actually show that it's a cause, which requires showing the other causes or a causal chain — Terrapin Station

But we have shown that it is a cause. I've detailed the probable causal chain in one of my posts. The fact that we haven't shown it to your satisfaction is the issue here, and the issue on which I made my first post in this discussion.

It is very likely (agreed upon by a very wide range of psychologists and neuroscientist) that hate speech, and factors like it, are contributory to acts of violence. The causal chain is neurological. We definitely do not have incontrovertible evidence that this is the case, as with most brain science, the evidence is patchy ans suggestive at best, but it is evidence nonetheless.

My question here is why you are requiring such a high standard of evidence for this particular legislation when other, uncontroversial legislation, takes place on far less evidence. Mainly why the burden of proof is resting on those proposing a causal link using pre-existing mechanisms, and not on those proposing some magical non-physical cause for actions.

It would rather be like claiming that smoking causes lung cancer where one isn't buying causal determinism in general--say where one believes that ALL phenomena are akin to probabilistic phenomena. — Terrapin Station

Here's where I have a door open to hate speech laws: I don't like probablistic treatment of individuals. So, if I seem to be doing something that might be lead to problems in some percentage of people, so I get punished, I am resistent. This even includes anything from jaywalking to driving over the speed limit in the world of traffic and elsewhere in other facets of life.

But if something repeatedly leads to statistical results I think there's a conundrum. I can want to defend the individual discriminated against by a law that limits him or her, but also want to protect other people from the statistical results of what happens when many engage in the activity. It's just statistics, it seems to me is a good defense, of the user, but a poor shrug in relation to victims.

And in the end on hate speech I am not sure where i come down -though there are many other issues involved as to why, not just the one above.

but also want to protect other people from the statistical results of what happens when many engage in the activity. — Coben

I can see that if it's something that doesn't involve choice/that people have no control over, but when it involves choices, I'd just stick to penalizing the people who make choices that wind up hurting someone else, or otherwise let people live with the consequences of their own choices when they hurt themselves.

It wasn't hate speech per se, it was hate speech delivered by a charismatic authority figure, in the right socioeconomic climate and allowing it to go unchallenged. Basically without the alignment of various socioeconomic factors, hate speech would be little more than words. The factors that enabled Nazism have been the topic of discussion of historians for decades for this reason. To say it was just speech is too simplistic, too local. — Necrofantasia

Nazi leaders embraced, encouraged and recommended hate, using the communications medium of (hate) speech, and violent acts of hate were subsequently enacted. There is a causal connection here. It is not formally causal, nor is the connection always direct, but it is there. This can be verified by empirical examination, using sociological and statistical tools. For we all know that hate speech cannot and does not infallibly lead to violence. It relies on certain aspects of humanity, i.e. the way that we can be provoked beyond endurance. It is easy to argue that we should not act in this way, but that's the "ought", where the "is" is that we do act in this way quite often. Often enough that we need to consider it, which is what we're doing here.

A classic slippery slope argument.

I have been screaming this along the whole thread. People are really paranoid on losing their free speech by banning hate speech.

so are you in favor of eliminated speed limits?, perhaps leaving them as recommendations. Does this extend to age restrictions? things like the age one can get a driver's licence - or, as I mull it over, getting rid of licences at all, since these are statistical protection - or buy a whisky shot at a bar or give consent to sex.

As an aside: I often get taken as trying to trap people. I won't claim I don't do that, but in general, I am probing things to get a sense of what a position entails and actually is.