Terrapin Station

First, I never heard of this case until it was just brought up earlier in this thread. I asked you twice now if we were talking about his written deci...

Believe it or not, a lot of people don't have a normative attraction to what's statistically common.

Yes, and it's what people are likely to think rather than what he said.

That's their problem though. There's no normative weight to anything just because it's more common.

I would just describe it as best as I can, while stressing that one needs to experience whatever it is to really know what it's like for oneself. Word...

Sure, but the problem is the folks who can't accept difference, not the folks who are different.

?? I wasn't following this discussion, but "what it's like" refers to the qualities of something from an experiential/subjective perspective.

First, I think it would be very unusual for anyone to actually think this. What people tend to think instead is, "If I don't have free will, then I'm ...

That's fine. Is there any academic source that suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism?

I need to run for a while, by the way, but I'll check out the answer when I get back.

At the moment I'm not trying to dispute anything. I'm trying to figure out just what the claim is. Are you saying that it has more weight if there's a...

I don't know how you expect to have a discussion with anyone if you won't bother to clarify simple things they're asking about.

Do you understand that it wasn't clear to me, and it still isn't, how you were using "most people"? Yes or no

We have a room of 100 people. If I say, "Most people in the room like some band," we can read that two different ways: (1) A majority of people in the...

Are you an Aspie? I'm just trying to clarify that whether you were using "most people" to necessarily refer to a collective of people asserting the sa...

So you're not claiming that any academic source suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism?

In other words, you're not saying "P is more likely to be true if most people reason that P," but rather, "If some individual, S, reasons that P, then...

Wait a minute, are you saying that "most people" in your premise isn't about people collectively, but that it's rather another way of saying, "For mos...

Goddammit, man, I just asked you what "You can't argue for anything without presupposing its truth" has to do with ""If the reason of most people repr...

Oy vey not another one of these friggin nutballs. You wrote this, which I already quoted: ""If the reason of most people represents something to be th...

Can't you just tell me why you accept that premise (the premise that you wrote as the start of your first two arguments)? It's a simple question. Why ...

If it has nothing to do with it then it's not at all what I'm asking for. I'm telling you that I don't at all accept your premise. I'm presuming that ...

Suppose this is the case. What does it have to do with the idea that "if most people represent something to be the case, that is good evidence that it...

Actually, my wishes would be that consciousness isn't material, that the notion of nonphysical things can make sense, that we continue after bodily de...

Just found that. So one thing at a time: "If the reason of most people represents something to be the case, that is good evidence that it is the case ...

Evidence includes that whenever one suffers brain injuries, brain impairment, etc., we see concomitant mental changes. There's no reason aside from wi...

So I had asked for evidence that controlling hate speech controls terrorism. And then I said, which still stands, that I would accept anything academi...

Yes, I did know that. :up:

My comment is why should what's statistically common be treated as a normative in the sense of what anyone should be doing? X is statistically common....

I'm glad you brought this up, Matias. It's a subject we normally avoid. And if you believe that, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.

"Pseudo-Intellectual collection of things that all fit together hopefully" I thought you were maybe proposing a new name for this message board.

So the judge suggested that prohibiting some speech would help us control terrorism? Was that in his written decision?

So what evidence is there that having hate speech restrictions controls anything about terrorism? You can just give me anything academic that even sug...

The idea isn't that intelligence work would be infallible. Again, there's zero evidence that controlling hate speech would have anything to do with co...

Intelligence work seems to be doing the job fairly well.

I'd try to prevent terrorist attacks in some ways, not in other ways. For example, if no one were able to congregate in public places, that would go a...

"That way it works" - what actually/practically happens. But I didn't just write that. I talked about what happens when you call the police about this...

I never said anything at all about "intent." What I said was that I would do is no different than the way it works now. The way it works now is what h...

Sure. So the reason for it, from the perspective of the code and the enforcement by police, wouldn't be anything like a "balance of harms." In your co...

Is that what the code says?

Right,by 11 p.m. Why weren't you told that you had to turn it off in the afternoon or earlier in the evening?

Hence why I asked if you have had the police called on you re noise complaints/if you've called the police on others. I'm a musician, and I've been a ...

Again, you're coming across like someone who has lived in basement his whole life, with no real-world experience, no social interaction, etc.

Not that it's maybe not different in whatever country you're in, but have you had the police called on you about noise/have you had people you're with...

I've had the police called on me and cohorts due to noise many times, and I've had people I'm with call the police about others' noise (and smells at ...

Yeah, they will. Again, many times I've been on both sides of this. In many different locales.

I said it would WORK just as this WORKS now. And it would. If you call the police now, and it's noon, and you say, "Hey there's this loud construction...

I said this already. For example, loud enough, persistent noises at night can prevent sleep. Why do I have to have a discussion that's just trying to ...

? I'm not basing any laws on "emotional harm." I never said anything even remotely resembling that. In fact, I said just the opposite.

I wasn't at all talking about hate speech there. Coben asked me about something else.