Okay, the first paper you cited says, for example, "Similarly, demonstrating the causal effects of media or political rhetoric on people’s prejudiced attitudes or conduct is fraught with methodological difficulties and few convincing studies exist. "
Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? — Terrapin Station
why do you think it cant be known to be causal? — khaled
Well no, obviously I'm referring to the entire rest of the document — Isaac
So that statement contradicts what other text in the document that you believe forwards a claim that hate speech is causal to violent actions in others? — Terrapin Station
What in the paper do you believe claims that hate speech is causal, or even correlated to violence? — Terrapin Station
That document does not support your argument, — DingoJones
You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data — DingoJones
Then, you try and shift the burden of proof — DingoJones
You are saying hate speech should be banned, aren't you? — DingoJones
I suppose the issue I have is the so-called effect of the words, when clearly the effect—hearing, constructing meaning, decoding sounds—has only me as it’s cause. Once the sound or word enters my domain, so to speak, it is under the control of my processes whether automatic or not. — NOS4A2
It's similar to something like learning how to drive. At first, you need to consciously think about everything you're doing, and you need to figure out how to do it. After you've done it a bit, though, you no longer need to think about it to do it. That doesn't imply that it's not something you're doing. — Terrapin Station
I don’t think that’s what he’s doing, I think it’s more that he thinks that as long as the information processing and deciding happened within one’s own body that it’s his responsibility, automatic or not. — khaled
Free will can't be part of the equation if we're trying to claim that something prior to it caused something. That's contradictory. Free will isn't deterministic. — Terrapin Station
You are clearly exercising bias here. That document does not support your argument, except if you have heavy confirmation bias like when religious folks read the bible. You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data. Then, you try and shift the burden of proof...also like a religious person.
Conclusion: you aren’t arguing in good faith, but showing your dogmatic thinking on this issue. — DingoJones
I'm not going to run an entire introduction to psychology course. — Isaac
That document does not support your argument, — DingoJones
You mean my argument that there is a possibility hate speech might lead to increased violence? How does it not support that?
You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data — DingoJones
You mean like my directly saying that social sciences cannot provide strong evidence for their theories because of methodological problems and can only ever be suggestive? How is that ignoring those caveats?
Then, you try and shift the burden of proof — DingoJones
Shifting the burden of proof implies that the burden lay rightly in one place prior to my actions. So why is the burden of proof correctly on me such that my requesting evidence from the other side is a disingenuous 'shift'? — Isaac
Okay, but clearly that's not free will. It's not will, and it's not free. It's an unconscious automatic response. — S
You're a determinist. I'm not. Obviously I don't believe that free will is "wishful thinking" I think that determinism is thinking that hasn't moved past about 1840. — Terrapin Station
I didn't say that it's impossible for speech to be a cause of violent action. I said that we can't show that it is. — Terrapin Station
Why do you care so much about "showing"? It's the most plausible explanation. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.