Terrapin Station

You stipulated that we're talking about "where they do not benefit whatsoever from the shift," right?

Why wouldn't it simply take a claim that you asked someone to hook up with you and they turned you down? All we need for rape is a claim that it happe...

You're not understanding the context of my comments to you at the moment. I'm trying to understand how it makes sense to talk about any chance of plea...

?? "Being spurned romantically" refers to someone turning you down when you're romantically interested in them.

So we're always expecting a zero sum game?

Sure. And do you want to allow those things or?

Huh? You'd need to explain that.

So if something else caused violence, genocide, etc. that's no problem?

Why are you bringing up the idea of it sparking violence, then genocide, etc.?

Wait, so you don't have a problem with the violence/genocide/etc. itself, but just the advocating of violence?

:brow:

Why couldn't you do a "what if" in the same vein about any arbitrary thing? "What if anger about being spurned romantically sparks violence, and that ...

Because you can empathize with the idea of something, with things you imagine to be the case.

When we're talking causality, there's only one option.

Well, and anyone can consider anything a harm to themselves, for any reason. So we can't just go with a blanket "harm" criterion. So then it becomes a...

How is it a decision or choice if there's only one option?

What qualification do you use--something vague like "harm"?

The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech.

Speech. That's what he asked about.

Well that's the whole point. It's not as if I'm saying that the the guy could have a problem throwing rocks off the building on a whim. It's reasoned ...

Yes. Didn't I explicitly say that? I thought I had.

I'd say I answered this above in a response to Relativist, but you probably consider that a "random philosophical principle." What I don't know, thoug...

Decisions/choices aren't decisions/choices if they're caused. Compatibilism makes no sense.

Here's my policy on "criminal threatening" by the way: Threatening anyone should only be a crime when it's an immediate, "physical" threat in the sens...

Nothing is an objective moral value. There are no such things. Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting peo...

Right. So you're not actually basing policy on persons' emotional reactions, either. You're basing them on the emotional reactions you're subjectively...

The problem with having laws hinging on something like someone being afraid to walk down the street is that anyone could be afraid to do anything, for...

:smirk: (The emojis on this board stink by the way)

As I've been explaining over and over in this thread, I don't accept that we can at all demonstrate that there are negative consequences (especially o...

I wouldn't say that, but I don't frame it that way. It's too vague. I'd have laws that punish someone for hitting someone else for a rock nonconsensua...

Being afraid to walk down the street because someone is throwing rocks isn't any sort of consent violation. If someone hits you with a rock as you wal...

Not on my view, because I don't frame anything in terms of "allowing liberties" or "constraining liberties." What I allow is any and all consensual ac...

I don't frame anything in terms of "liberties clashing" (or "rights" for that matter). I don't know why I have to explain this so many times. All that...

:up:

I don't know how to answer "rating" such things. I'd not prohibit anyone from saying anything, walking down any public street, getting a job, etc.

No. It's just that we'd need to show that it's the case--we'd need to have good reasons to believe it, which would involve empirical evidence, in orde...

No. That's way too vague. What I'd say is that if hate speech were a causal action that resulted in physical forces nonconsensually applied to the per...

If I had to pick something I treat as "the ultimate good" it would be unrestricted consensual actions. Speech would be just one example. (Again, remem...

I agree with that view as long as we're strictly talking about objective stuff (hopefully that makes sense--it's the simplest way to say it), but I st...

First, antinatalism isn't about putting someone in a risky situation. There's no one to put into a situation until we get past the point that antinata...

That's interesting because it's more or less the opposite of my ontology, where I'm a realist but I don't think it's coherent to be absent a "POV" (wh...

The "What if some teenage boy..." example was the context of what we were talking about.

The whole reason we started talking about influence is because you gave the ""What if some teenage boy . . ." example, I wrote "I would say that he de...

But that's what led to the influence comments. There was no other example between that and the influence comments. So if you're trying to sell the "pr...

Wait, the example this tangent stemmed from was this: "What if some teenage boy had gone out and murdered a group of popular teenage girls at his scho...

Ummm . . . hmm--I don't think I understand what you're asking. :confused:

Yeah, I don't know why he used "theoretically" either.

So the sticking point was just his word "theoretically"?

In the example you provided, why couldn't the influence be immediately prior to the act?

So, while you read it, do you believe "theoretically in magic or elves or stuff like that"?