Terrapin Station

What you said, and what I wrote just the same, was the "just about every psychologist" thinks this. Again, very dishonest back and forth with you.

Our beliefs are generated . . . ? You're not even reading what I'm writing apparently.

It took me about two seconds to find this: https://thoughtcatalog.com/holly-riordan/2017/02/26-gunshot-survivors-explain-exactly-what-the-bullet-felt-...

So first, what Isaac and S keep harping on is correlation. There's just as strong of a correlation between video games like GTA, horror films, etc. an...

Ah that makes sense. I wasn't reading it as one's hair really being on fire.

Maybe that's the status quo in Australia, where people seem to be much more amenable to censorship, speech control, etc. In the U.S., the status quo i...

You don't want to regulate just anything that's correlated with an increase of violence, though, do you? For example, there's an increase in violence ...

Yikes. Okay, at least that's consistent. Ridiculous, but consistent.

In philosophy we use "proof" in the stricter sense standardly (because we're often concerned with proof in that sense a la logic, the issue of certain...

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'r...

On today's episode of Adventures of Creative Misreading . . .

What is the qualified version?

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

Yikes. Okay.

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

Yes. I'm not a fan of the way we've structured things at all. I'd do a socialized (but otherwise libertarian) structure, not based on money in any tra...

Were you being serious?

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

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.

Do you also think that video games, movies, etc. can cause violence? Would you say that just about every psychologist in the world thinks those things...

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

That bit didn't have anything to do with free will. It had to do with how meaning works.

What he means by you not arguing in good faith is that you're now trying to ignore that you had just written: " There's a correlation between hate spe...

Dude, just quote something in the paper that you believe amounts to a claim that hate speech is causal to violence.

Yeah, I also had the impression that he's arguing in the vein of a fundie.

It says it's fraught with methodological difficulties, and "few convincing studies" doesn't necessarily imply there are any convincing studies, unless...

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 other...

I don't even think we can show a correlation. I don't mean that we can't show this in principle necessarily. But certainly there's nothing showing a c...

Yeah, and how they think about what they're hearing, the semantics they apply to it, etc. Where they wouldn't at all have to think about it the way th...

One of the many problems with that, by the way, is that any combination of words could be abusive (or not) in a given context. It just depends on the ...

Okay, the first paper you cited says, for example, "Similarly, demonstrating the causal effects of media or political rhetoric on people’s prejudiced ...

I'm trying to find the links to the papers again. This stupid thread is so long it's a pain finding them.

The claim isn't that. The claim being made is that the Facebook posts cause other people, people who didn't make the posts, to be violent.

I'm not querying whether particular other people have concluded something. But what are you referring to there anyway? You presented two papers. One w...

Right, so my comments in this thread have been in context. We're talking about person's actions, and whether hate speech can be (known to be) causal t...

You realize that the two examples are not at all alike first, right?

The whole point of that is that it's not at all like the gun example.

Okay (although I don't get where the past tense was in "Do 'you' control your choices, no, the randomness of your choices results in the feeling of co...

Ah, so you're not saying now that neurons can't control neurons. So I'm back to asking why you're NOW saying that you don't control your choices?

Right. So, for example, you don't believe that you can control your thoughts at all?

How are you getting from "You are a 'bunch of neurons'" to "You don't control your choices"?

Can you explain why you believe this?

I can't really make sense of the way you're asking this. The "bunch of neurons" called "you" deciding something IS controlling something--namely, the ...

Where are "emergent" and "lower level" coming from? At any rate, you're supposing that no physical stuff can control probability biases with respect t...

The "code of language" isn't that simple. Rhetorical questions are an example of it not being that simple. I say "That's not a rhetorical question" so...

The point is that I'm not necessarily going to parse it semantically. Something my wife can well confirm. ;-)

Yes, a la random equalling "not deterministic." Random doesn't imply anything like "not controllable." Again, you bias the possibilities. You control ...

If it's just like "every other physical interaction" but those are not deterministic, they often involve biased probabilities, etc., then there's no d...

Which is why I wrote yet again; when we're just talking about electrons and rocks and stuff, (a) I'm not a strong determinist, and (b) I'm not a reali...

Yes, a la random equalling "not deterministic." Random doesn't imply anything like "not controllable." Again, you bias the possibilities. You control ...