OK, so granted your conditions pertain. Is there some natural force in existence that specifically prevents such a hypothetical from being the case? If so, what force is that, and does that force have a 100% chance of being the case?

Is there some natural force in existence that specifically prevents such a hypothetical from being the case? — Isaac

No.

It's just that we'd need to show that it's the case--we'd need to have good reasons to believe it, which would involve empirical evidence, in order to move ahead with it.

Right. And finally (I will get to my point after this, though I suspect you know where I'm going, I just want to be clear though)...how would you rate the liberty to say "Jews should all be killed" compared to the liberty to walk down the street, get a job, a house, live wherever you choose and retain your property?

When you refer to it as views I despise, that puts a subjective spin on it. I despise some right wing ideology, but I absolutely believe they should be able to voice their views. It boils down to whether or not there are standards that are more objective that can be applied. For example, do you think we should allow a public call-to-arms to start killing blacks? IMO, it's appropriate to silence that sort of speech.

Personally, I’m an absolutist when it comes to free speech. I believe all speech should be allowed.

how would you rate the liberty to say "Jews should all be killed" compared to the liberty to walk down the street, get a job, a house, live wherever you choose and retain your property? — Isaac

I don't know how to answer "rating" such things. I'd not prohibit anyone from saying anything, walking down any public street, getting a job, etc.

Personally, I’m an absolutist when it comes to free speech. I believe all speech should be allowed. — NOS4A2

:up:

I don't know how to answer "rating" such things. I'd not prohibit anyone from saying anything, walking down any public street, getting a job, etc. — Terrapin Station

If those two liberties clashed (ie you can't have one without removing the other) which would you remove and by what degree?

It's not a complicated situation in rights management. One person's exercise of rights infringes on another and they must be weighed against one another.

Or are you suggesting there's some force in the world which ensures that one person exercising their liberty never constrains another?

If those two liberties clashed (ie you can't have one without removing the other) which would you remove and by what degree? — Isaac

I don't frame anything in terms of "liberties clashing" (or "rights" for that matter). I don't know why I have to explain this so many times. All that matters in this regard is consent violations.

So you're saying that there is never a need to decide whether to allow one person's liberty when it might constrain another's?

So you're saying that there is never a need to decide whether to allow one person's liberty when it might constrain another's? — Isaac

Not on my view, because I don't frame anything in terms of "allowing liberties" or "constraining liberties."

What I allow is any and all consensual actions, and disallow nonconsensual actions of a certain severity. That's it. (At least when we're talking about this sort of stuff.)

Maybe I could frame it in your terms then. I wish to throw rock off a building. You wish to walk down the street below but can't do so for fear of being hit by rocks. I frame that in terms of comparing my right to throw rocks with your right to walk down the street unmolested. How do you frame that dilemma?

Maybe I could frame it in your terms then. I wish to throw rock off a building. You wish to walk down the street below but can't do so for fear of being hit by rocks. I frame that in terms of comparing my right to throw rocks with your right to walk down the street unmolested. How do you frame that dilemma? — Isaac

Being afraid to walk down the street because someone is throwing rocks isn't any sort of consent violation.

If someone hits you with a rock as you walk down the street, and it's a bad enough injury, then yes, that's a consent violation. (Well, assuming you don't say you consented to being hit with the rock.)

Ah. So you disagree with all laws aimed at protecting people from harm. You would allow people to throw rocks at passersby, shoot guns at them presumably? Only if they actually hit has anything happened worth legislating against?

Ah. So you disagree with all laws aimed at protected people from harm. — Isaac

I wouldn't say that, but I don't frame it that way. It's too vague.

I'd have laws that punish someone for hitting someone else for a rock nonconsensually, where it's an injury that's macro-observable at least a week later, say. That's a law against harm, but it's pretty specific.

I'd also have a "criminal threatening" category (which I can paste the details of if you're interested . . . I pasted it here recently, though I don't recall where).

But I'm certainly not going to have a law based on someone being afraid to walk down a street.

But why? You subjectively value free speech so highly that you are willing to accept the negative consequences.

I'd also have a "criminal threatening" category — Terrapin Station

OK. At least your clarity has saved me from wasting any more time. You're clearly either a sociopath or (more likely I suspect) simply pretending to be one for effect. Either way there's no point continuing this discussion, our fundamental views regards compassion are too far apart for there to be any hope that I would even want to understand where you're coming from, let alone be able to.

But why? You subjectively value free speech so highly that you are willing to accept the negative consequences. — Relativist

As I've been explaining over and over in this thread, I don't accept that we can at all demonstrate that there are negative consequences (especially of the sort that I'd legislate against, as I've been describing just today, in posts just above)

You're clearly either a sociopath or (more likely I suspect) simply pretending to be one for effect. — Isaac

:smirk:


(The emojis on this board stink by the way)

The problem with having laws hinging on something like someone being afraid to walk down the street is that anyone could be afraid to do anything, for just about any reason. (just like anyone can be offended by anything, feel slighted/disrespected/uncomfortable by anything, etc.)

You should know this well if you really have a background in psychology, Isaac.

That means that either we potentially ban any arbitrary thing--just in case someone is afraid of it (offended by it, etc.)--or we have people making laws based only on the fears that they deem "reasonable," where such designations are completely subjective (this is an ontological fact), where they're going to be based on social norms, etc.

either we potentially ban any arbitrary thing--just in case someone is afraid of it--or we have people making laws based only on the fears that they deem "reasonable," where such designations are completely subjective, where they're going to be based on social norms, etc. — Terrapin Station

Yes. The second one. Because the third option is that we have no laws at all preventing actions which severely curtail people's freedom in blatantly obvious ways just to adhere to some stupid philosophical ideal.

Making everyone's lives a misery just to adhere to some philosophical ideal has been tried before you know...

Yes. The second one. Because the third option is that we have no laws at all preventing actions which severely curtail people's freedom in blatantly obvious ways just to adhere to some stupid philosophical ideal.

That same “stupid philosophical ideal” should prevent one from curtailing another’s freedom. I would be worried when people need laws to teach them right from wrong.

As I've been explaining over and over in this thread, I don't accept that we can at all demonstrate that there are negative consequences (especially of the sort that I'd legislate against, as I've been describing just today, in posts just above) — Terrapin Station

Free speech is not some objective moral value. You value it because of what you perceive to be the positive consquences. The negatives have not been demonstrated to your satisfaction, but neither have you demonstrated the positive consequences to my (and perhaps others') satisfaction.

I would be worried when people need laws to teach them right from wrong. — NOS4A2

Then be worried.

Yes. The second one. — Isaac

Right. So you're not actually basing policy on persons' emotional reactions, either. You're basing them on the emotional reactions you're subjectively giving approval to. Which is just another way of trying to enforce your personal whims.

There are no consequences, positive or negative, to speech.

Then be worried.

I’m getting there.

You're basing them on the emotional reactions you're subjectively giving approval to. Which is just another way of trying to enforce your personal whims. — Terrapin Station

Yes. Because remember the third option... Life's not perfect. Sometimes we have to accept a very substandard compromise where there's no better alternative. Personally I'd rather live in a world where people are prevented by law from throwing rocks off buildings and where the law might also ban something I consider to be fine, than live in a world where I can't even walk down the street, but at least the government hasn't made my hat choices illegal.

There are no consequences, positive or negative, to speech. — NOS4A2

They why do it at all?

Free speech is not some objective moral value. — Relativist

Nothing is an objective moral value. There are no such things.

You value it because of what you perceive to be the positive consquences. — Relativist

Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting people what they want to do" as much as possible. That's not completely possible, because then we'd ironically end up with people controlling others to a greater extent--some people want to control others, via force if they need to, which they'll gladly invoke. So I take the approach of allowing all consensual actions and prohibiting nonconsensual actions, which is forcibly controlling others. This is also why I have the policy about prisons that I do, by the way (where I don't at all agree with how we've set up prisons--I'd do something very different with the people we need to separate from mainstream society because they want to control others via physical force, etc.).

The negatives have not been demonstrated to your satisfaction, but neither have you demonstrated the positive consequences to my (and perhaps others') satisfaction. — Relativist

The positive consequence is letting people do what they want a la consensual actions, rather than controlling others.

You obviously got confused somewhere along the line, lost focus, and somehow reverted back to a previous example I brought up. But whatever. Influences are prior causes. They are a cause prior to an effect. In the Elliot Rodger example, that would be a teenage boy reading about Elliot Rodger's expressed views, and about his crime, and so on, and that having an influence on his thinking and behaviour, resulting eventually in the boy taking a leaf out of his book and committing a similar crime of his own.

Now, setting your confused distractions and nitpicking aside, what's your response to that? To block out reason, disregard cause and effect, and play on words like "decision" and "choice" as though these are somehow magically independent of cause and effect, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?