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 rock 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. — Isaac

Here's my policy on "criminal threatening" by the way:

Threatening anyone should only be a crime when it's an immediate, "physical" threat in the sense of potential victims being within the range of the threatening instruments (whether just one's body, or weapons, or causally connected remote devices or substances, etc.), which are actual and not simply claimed, so that (a) either a verbal (or written, etc.) or body language or weaponry threat is explicitly made/performed, (b) the threat is reasonably considered either a serious premeditation to commit nonconsensual violence or something with negligent culpability should nonconsensual physical damage result, and (c) the threatened party couldn't reasonably escape or evade the threatened actions should the threatener decide or negligently carry them out at that moment.

So in some circumstances, simply the guy throwing rocks off the building would be a problem.

Secondly, it depends on what the property owner is consenting to or not. (We hadn't gotten into property issues at all, since it wasn't pertinent to anything we were talking about.)

Aside from that, you can simply walk down the street and avoid that building. That's not that hard to do. If the guy hits you with a rock, then either he's going to be in trouble or it wasn't something that injured you much if at all. So the risk of that is going to stop a lot of people from throwing rocks off of buildings (or whatever).

That's the non-perfect option I'll go with.

They why do it at all?

There are numerous reasons why we speak, none of which require moving matter with articulated symbols.

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 magically independent of cause and effect? — S

Decisions/choices aren't decisions/choices if they're caused. Compatibilism makes no sense.

When I'm talking about causes and influences and their difference, I'm not forwarding an argument. — Terrapin Station

So I'm right to dismiss your point about removing free will because it wasn't part of any argument you're forwarding?

you can simply walk down the street and avoid that building. — Terrapin Station

But why? You still haven't given your reasons apart from a desire to adhere to some random philosophical principle. You have a choice. Ask everyone who doesn't want to risk being hit by rocks to avoid certain buildings, or ask people to stop throwing rocks. Apart from a random philosophical principle, why would you rather live in the former world and not the latter. What on earth is the advantage?

There are numerous reasons why we speak, none of which require moving matter with articulated symbols. — NOS4A2

You didn't restrict your comments previously to telekinesis. You said "no consequences" not just no macro-scale physical consequences on inanimate objects.

I'd say I answered this above in a response to Relativist, but you probably consider that a "random philosophical principle."

What I don't know, though, is how any answer here wouldn't either be a "random philosophical principle" or just some arbitrary whim. What other option would you say there is? What else do you think we're doing when we make choices about this sort of stuff?

You didn't restrict your comments previously to telekinesis. You said "no consequences" not just no macro-scale physical consequences on inanimate objects.

Well, zero consequence beyond the dispelling of breath and scratches and marks on paper,

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

"Letting people do what they want" is not a consequence, it's just a generalization of "let people say what they want". I'm guessing you must think it's bad to inhibit people from doing what they want. Is that it? If so, why do you regard this as bad?

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

Terrapin's bizarre and extreme views on such matters would make for the stuff of dystopian fiction.

Our objectives and strategies are not either merely a collection of arbitrary whims or strict philosophical principles. Our foundational positions may be, but we (most of us) tend to use reason from there to decide how to get what we want out of what we've got.

What I'm struggling to understand is that you seem to have confused method (usually determined by reason) with objective (determined arbitrarily by feeling).

Well, zero consequence beyond the dispelling of breath and scratches and marks on paper, — NOS4A2

Right. So again, why would you engage in an activity which has zero consequences. Why even choose English words, why not just gdfrfdfljjdfkkkj cfddffffkjj vfdfkkjjf mjdkff kdfjjd kjfkgdgjkjf?

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

Not being able to walk down a street because someone is throwing rocks off of a building is not a negative consequence in his world. Utter madness.

I'm guessing you must think it's bad to inhibit people from doing what they want. Is that it? — Relativist

Yes. Didn't I explicitly say that? I thought I had.

Our foundational positions may be, — Isaac

Well that's the whole point. It's not as if I'm saying that the the guy could have a problem throwing rocks off the building on a whim. It's reasoned from my foundations (which I expressed above).

Right. So again, why would you engage in an activity which has zero consequences. Why even choose English words, why not just gdfrfdfljjdfkkkj cfddffffkjj vfdfkkjjf mjdkff kdfjjd kjfkgdgjkjf?

I use language so that I may be understood. Allow me to reformulate, as you raise a good point. Maybe “zero consequences” isn’t correct. My speaking surely has consequences for me, but how you react to them is a consequence of you.

Not being able to walk down a street because someone is throwing rocks of a building is not. . . — S

Speech.

That's what he asked about.

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. — NOS4A2

We need laws as an authoritative reference point to enforce order and to protect citizens. Only a fool would have such faith in people as to actually believe that just knowing right from wrong would be sufficient.

The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech.

We need laws to enforce order and to protect citizens. Only a fool would have such faith in people as to actually believe that just knowing right from wrong would be sufficient.

I can’t disagree with that.

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. — Relativist

To no one's satisfaction, with a possible exception of just one, meaning the Trump supporter who keeps contradicting himself and has been accused of trolling.

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

The oceans don't contain a single drop of water.

To no one's satisfaction, with a possible exception of just one, meaning the Trump supporter who keeps contradicting himself and has been accused of trolling.

You might need to upgrade your manipulation tactics. They reveal more about you than anyone else.

Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting people what they want to do" as much as possible. — Terrapin Station

So close, and yet so far. With a simple qualification to that, we'd be in agreement. I am a liberal, as are many others, but we keep our liberalism within reason, whereas you throw reason out of the window.

So close, and yet so far. With a simple qualification to that, — S

What qualification do you use--something vague like "harm"?

Decisions/choices aren't decisions/choices if they're caused. Compatibilism makes no sense. — Terrapin Station

Then they aren't decisions or choices. But I reject that. I think that it makes more sense to continue to talk about decisions and choices, but to conceive of them more sensibly than you do, so as to avoid ending up at the absurd conclusion you reach.

What qualification do you use--something vague like "harm"?

The UK recently put out a paper about “online harms”, using it as justification for regulating speech on the internet.

“Harms”, premised on the notion that words and ideas have certain harmful consequences, is the penultimate excuse for censors. Words will have bad effects, therefor words must be silenced.

There are numerous reasons why we speak, none of which require moving matter with articulated symbols.
— NOS4A2

You didn't restrict your comments previously to telekinesis. You said "no consequences" not just no macro-scale physical consequences on inanimate objects. — Isaac

Yes, an example of moving the goalposts. (And it's weird that he keeps talking about telekinesis and sorcery when no one else is).

But I reject that. I think that it makes more sense to continue to talk about decisions and choices, — S

How is it a decision or choice if there's only one option?

The UK recently put out a paper about “online harms”, using it as justification for regulating speech on the internet.

“Harms”, premised on the notion that words and ideas have certain harmful consequences, is the penultimate excuse for censors. Words will have bad effects, therefor words must be silenced. — NOS4A2

Well, and anyone can consider anything a harm to themselves, for any reason. So we can't just go with a blanket "harm" criterion. So then it becomes a matter of what someone wants to count versus what they don't want to count, which is really just an excuse to disallow stuff they don't personally like.