Maybe if I put this into terms more to your liking:

Who is to blame for you paying taxes? You or the government? The existence of a law and the threat of punishment doesn't force you to do anything; that would (apparently) be magical thinking. You choose to pay taxes. If you choose to pay taxes then taxation isn't theft. Will you accept that conclusion?

NOS4A2 is conflating causation with moral accountability, and has an extreme view of libertarian free will (LFW).

LFW implies there is a degree of choice independent of the external environment, not that there is a complete absence of external environment.

Chris Rock was part of the Will Smith's external environment. Had Chris not made the joke, Will would not have hit him. Chris played a causal role. This does not eliminate or lessen Will's moral accountability, but clearly Will was reacting (inappropriately) to Chris.

I understand the folk psychology of “influence”. — NOS4A2

Actually, the work of Robert Cialdini is backed up by numerous empirical studies.

NOS4A2 is conflating causation with moral accountability, and has an extreme view of libertarian free will (LFW).

LFW implies there is a degree of choice independent of the external environment, not that there is a complete absence of external environment.

Chris Rock was part of the Will Smith's external environment. Had Chris not made the joke, Will would not have hit him. Chris played a causal role. This does not eliminate or lessen Will's moral accountability, but clearly Will was reacting (inappropriately) to Chris.

After this therefor because of this. The post hoc fallacy lets one believe in a false cause without having to prove its effect. Every act of Will Smith began and ended with Will Smith. Chris Rock didn’t cause Will Smith to rise from his chair any more than he caused the rest of the audience to remain seated. Will Smith caused Will Smith to slap Chris Rock.

Who is to blame for you paying taxes? You or the government? The existence of a law and the threat of punishment doesn't force you to do anything; that would (apparently) be magical thinking. You choose to pay taxes. If you choose to pay taxes then taxation isn't theft. Will you accept that conclusion?

I do choose to pay taxes. I choose to pay because if I don’t the government punishes me. But it also skims from every purchase. It takes from every paycheck before I even see my money. It steals my capital gains, my property, whatever I can save up for my family should I die. Not only is it theft, but also robbery, extortion, slavery.

Chris Rock didn’t cause Will Smith to rise from his chair any more than he caused the rest of the audience to remain seated — NOS4A2

I'm astounded that you believe Smith would have hit Chris Rock even had Chris not been on the stage or opened his mouth to speak. That's totally irrational.

Do you believe Chris rock caused Will Smith to hit him?

Do you believe Chris rock caused Will Smith to hit him? — NOS4A2

Of course not. Smith made a choice in the circumstances he was in. However, those circumstances came into being by factors outside of Smith.

I’m finding it hard to remember where we disagree.

You avoided admitting that the circumstances (in which a choice is made) have been caused

Right, I do not think the circumstances caused Will Smith to assault Chris Rock, for instance.

Sure. However:

1. The circumstances were caused.
2. Had those circumstance not occurred, Smith wouldn't have had the choice to make.

I see nothing wrong with that.

#2 means the circumstances were a necessary condition for the act of hitting to take place - that means it is part of the cause. (As I've said, this has no bearing on moral accountability).

Then you can admit that words influence actions while also holding they are not fully determinative of actions. In other words, we can all exit the rabbit hole and agree on the blindingly obvious.

It doesn’t follow that the circumstances are a part of the cause. The fact that it was the Oscars does not mean the Oscars were a cause of Will Smith’s assault on Chris Rock.



Nope.

In other words, we can all exit the rabbit hole and agree on the blindingly obvious. — Baden

Rabbit holes can be so warm and cozy. It's a jungle out there - in the Real.

It doesn’t follow that the circumstances are a part of the cause. The fact that it was the Oscars does not mean the Oscars were a cause of Will Smith’s assault on Chris Rock. — NOS4A2

Here's how David Lewis defined causal dependence:

An event E causally depends on C if, and only if, (i) if C had occurred, then E would have occurred, and (ii) if C had not occurred, then E would not have occurred.

Where E= Chris Rock's cheek pain at that date and time, the circumstances (that you agreed were a necessary condition) are part of the cause.

Why is this thread still continued?

When Trump admitted he didn't win the election, this thread should have ended. Perhaps revitalized only if the GOP truly chooses Trump as their candidate for the next presidential elections.

Now talking about Chris Rock being hit is just life support.

I'll end here.

A necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. Leaving the counterfactuals aside, we can examine the video and see that Will Smith animates himself, with no outside force or condition lifting him into the air, no strings attached to his limbs walking him up onto stage to slap Chris Rock.



No wonder you want this thread to disappear: It’s basically an embarrassing compendium of your belief in hoaxes and fake news.

A necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. — NOS4A2

That's what's known as 'influence' in this context.

You have a point. But maybe it's apt that random silly stuff goes here so the Shoutbox has more room for food talk.

That's what's known as 'influence' in this context.

I think the idea of “influence” is the sort of magical thinking I’m talking about. It implies an action at a distance I’m very uncomfortable with.

A necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. Leaving the counterfactuals aside, we can examine the video and see that Will Smith animates himself, with no outside force or condition lifting him into the air, no strings attached to his limbs walking him up onto stage to slap Chris Rock. — NOS4A2

You made a good case for Smith's moral accountability, which I never disputed. You have not shown that circumstances are not part of the cause.

There's nothing magical about it. It implies just what you agreed to in this context, necessary but not sufficient conditions for acting. This argument seems to boil down to nothing more than you not liking the word 'influence', which is fine but not worth arguing with anyone over.

If you want to argue against 'magical' verbal action at a distance, you could try taking on hypnosis, which is an actually controversial topic.

It’s basically an embarrassing compendium of your belief in hoaxes and fake news. — NOS4A2

?

Oh, I think at least for some of the Forum members, that would be the "Ukraine crisis" thread. Not this one.

And I'll try to really end here... :shade:

You made a good case for Smith's moral accountability, which I never disputed. You have not shown that circumstances are not part of the cause.

I’ve said Will Smith caused each of his movements. There is no transfer of energy from any other circumstantial object to Will Smith, and therefor no other causal force animating his movements. I cannot say any other object or activity in the environment animated his biology in such a way that they can be considered causes.

You're basically saying you disagree with my labeling the circumstances as a causal factor. Regardless, I showed that my view is consistent with David Lewis (and others, BTW). It doesn't really matter what label you use because you agreed with this:

1. The circumstances were caused.
2. Had those circumstance not occurred, Smith wouldn't have had the choice to make.

This reflects a connection between the circumstances and the act. You can't erase this connection by some convenient definition of causation.

I do disagree because it’s also consistent with the criticisms of counterfactual causation. Will Smith would not have slapped Chris rock had Will Smith had not been born. If will smith’s birth was the cause of the slap, I cannot agree.

I do disagree because it’s also consistent with the criticisms of counterfactual causation. — NOS4A2

You disagree with labeling it a causal factor, but that's irrelevant. There IS a connection: the circumstances are a necessary condition, as you agreed.

Will Smith would not have slapped Chris rock had Will Smith had not been born. If will smith’s birth was the cause of the slap, I cannot agree.

It's absolutely true that had Smith nor been born, the slap wouldn't have occurred- this is another connection.