Same question for you, by the way--do you also think that video games, movies, etc. cause violence?

Letting posts on this board sway you on something is a scary idea. — Terrapin Station

It's not a matter of "letting". Either I'm swayed or I'm not. That's out of my hands. It's not like I can decide what I do or don't find convincing.

It's not a matter of "letting". Either I'm swayed or I'm not. That's out of my hands. It's not like I can decide what I do or don't find convincing. — S

Were you being serious?

Simply because they are my responses and no one else’s. — NOS4A2

Your withdrawal reflex is just a response of your body. It's entirely out of your control.

Nothing plausible about it in my view if we don't have empirical evidence to support it.

So that's why I care. I guess I'm more skeptical than you. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, you are more skeptical than me on this one. If you remove the cause and effect relationship from the explanation, then it makes less sense, and you're left with a problematic gap. I am more convinced by explanations that make sense.

Your withdrawal reflex is just a response of your body. It entirely out of your control.

I am my body. My body controls and regulates my responses. So it appears, yes, it is entirely within my control and no one else’s.

Same question for you, by the way--do you also think that video games, movies, etc. cause violence? — Terrapin Station

I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that.

Thats a pretty pertinent question, you seriously going to dodge it like that?

Were you being serious? — Terrapin Station

Yes.

I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that. — S

Why are you comfortable making a blanket statement like "Hate speech causes violence?"

Were you being serious? — Terrapin Station


Yes. — S

Yikes. Okay.

You aren’t in control of your body, not all of it. Are you unfamiliar with the basic biology of autonomous bodily functions?

I am my body. — NOS4A2

I don't agree with that at all. That sounds absurd to me. You're not your body, you're yourself. You have a body.

Why would we ban something based on unconvincing evidence? Thats a low standard. To give up any ANY liberty the standard needs to be higher than that. Id go further than that, I dont think its a good idea to ever base anything at all on unconvincing evidence. — DingoJones

Same sociopathic tendency as Terrapin. Why would you consider the benefit to society of being able to publicly say "Gas the Jews" is so great that it requires an overwhelming evidence of harm to remove it. What's so great for you about being able to say "Gas the Jews"?

I have to say, it seems a bit disingenuous to try and dodge the clear relation to your stance on hate speech and this paper. — DingoJones

We have a quote function here. Please don't insinuate what I'm arguing. If you think that I've claimed the paper supports something which it does not, then quote me and we can discuss the quote.

Thats a pretty pertinent question, you seriously going to dodge it like that? — DingoJones

No, the topic is pertinent, but the question was stupid. It could be put more intelligently.

Same sociopathic tendency as Terrapin. Why would you consider the benefit to society of being able to publicly say "Gas the Jews" is so great that it requires an overwhelming evidence of harm to remove it. What's so great for you about being able to say "Gas the Jews"? — Isaac

I wasnt talking about speech, I was talking about liberties. What I said about them pre-empts the argument you are trying to make in the above quote. This is a subtle strawman, but also a perfect example of not arguing honestly.

I don't agree with that at all. That sounds absurd to me. You're not your body, you're yourself. You have a body.

I am my body, I can prove this by pointing to myself. You cannot point to yourself, or whatever it is you identity yourself as.

Lol, ok.

You aren’t in control of your body, not all of it. Are you unfamiliar with the basic biology of autonomous bodily functions?

Are you not also your autonomous bodily functions?

Same sociopathic tendency as Terrapin. Why would you consider the benefit to society of being able to publicly say "Gas the Jews" is so great that it requires an overwhelming evidence of harm to remove it. What's so great for you about being able to say "Gas the Jews"? — Isaac

What is any evidence at all of a correlation between anyone saying "Gas the Jews" and an increase in violence?

Why are you comfortable making a blanket statement like "Hate speech causes violence?" — Terrapin Station

I'm not, but the qualified version is more of a mouthful.

I'm not, but the qualified version is more of a mouthful. — S

What is the qualified version?

I understand what you are getting at, and if you want to encompass someones body as part of their identity then fine, even if you want to say that the conscious mind isnt actually controlling anything I wont argue but that still wouldnt mean you were in control of everything in your body. There is no control over at least some things that are happening in the body, no process over which to exert control, they are automatic and only stop happening due to damage or trauma (or gentic defect I suppose). There are biological functions that do not have a biological basis to change the automatic function, therefore no control exists.

No I don’t believe I can consciously control all the processes of my body, but I do control them in the sense that all “automatic responses” are governed and regulated by me, my biology. Then again, perhaps we’re more conscious than we like to admit?

I am my body, I can prove this by pointing to myself. — NOS4A2

That's not proof at all. That's open to interpretation. I certainly do not mean that I am my body when I point to myself.

You cannot point to yourself, or whatever it is you identity yourself as. — NOS4A2

I can point at myself. In common parlance, pointing at my body counts as pointing at myself.

When I say that I want to go to the cinema, I'm not saying that my body wants to go to the cinema.

What is the qualified version? — Terrapin Station

Sigh. Something like: hate speech can be a causal factor leading to acts of violence.

Sure, you’re not saying it and do not mean it, but no less you want to go the the cinema, you are your body, therefor your body wants to go to the cinema.

Anything else presupposes a sort of dualism, a homunculus, a Cartesian theater.

Sigh. Something like: hate speech can be a causal factor leading to acts of violence. — S

C'mon, man--just how many Aspies are on this board anyway?

"Hate speech causes violence" isn't saying anything different. No one would think that we're saying that it always causes violence or that it's the only cause or anything like that.

Sure, you’re not saying it and do not mean it, but no less you want to go the the cinema, you are your body, therefor your body wants to go to the cinema. — NOS4A2

Obviously I reject the false premise of yours that I am my body, so any conclusions you draw from it are completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Anything else presupposes a sort of dualism, a homunculus, a Cartesian theater. — NOS4A2

No, it doesn't, it just means that I think that I'm more than my body, which is a very widespread view which makes a lot of sense. My personality is not my body, for example.

I said I understand that. There are autonomous functions over and above what you are talking about there, that are not governed or regulated. So even if you are right about subconscious and body regulated bodily functions, there are still functions which cannot be stopped except from damage or trauma.