Terrapin Station

"Determinism" is easily ambiguous, because it can be used in both an ontological and an epistemological sense. "Predictability" is only used in an epi...

So you think it's decreasing crime over simply just having whatever offense be a crime without being a "hate crime"?

What do you see as the value of having a category of "hate crimes"?

Nope. Don't do that, either. I'm my own arbiter, regardless of whether it goes along with the crowd or not.

Well, I don't go along with the crowd just to go along with the crowd, at least.

It would best be described by someone for whom this is the case. Pattern-chaser seemed to be saying it's the case for him.

I'd never consider a video like that to count as evidence of motivation, but at any rate, I'd not classify anything as a "hate crime" in the first pla...

:confused: okay, but that's what I was asking for.

Sorry, was referring to this: "the police investigation found hate speech in video form on his computer, which was used as evidence against him." What...

What is the video supposed to be evidence of, exactly?

This is important, by the way, because if a huge number of people saw the messages but very few of them committed any sort of hate crime, it suggests ...

I looked through that, but I didn't see anything about correlation studies.

That actually has some correlation statistics, but I'm not seeing info on the total number of people exposed to the speech in question versus how many...

Scanning through that, I don't actually see any comments on correlations between hate speech and hate crimes. It's obviously about hate crimes, and it...

I wouldn't doubt that maybe some people actually believe fictions in some way. It just seemed unusual to me, so that's why I was trying to figure out ...

So what do you do for work, Isaac? Some sort of computer programming, engineering, IT work or something?

No shit? lol Yeah, this isn't from the stock objection sheet of someone who can't support a bullshit claim they made up. I could write the rest of you...

This is one of the most stupid of the cliched tactics. What in the world would be MY motivation to look up something that you're claiming that I think...

If you don't want to tell me what correlation you're even referring to, then I really couldn't care less. I'm not about to buy that there really is a ...

And here comes info on the correlation we're referring to . . . .

What consistent correlation are we referring to?

So first, there's no way based on your comments that you're not a strong determinist. As I mentioned, I'm not even a realist on physical laws. We don'...

All you did was mention a correlation, and that's not even plausible. Or did you have something else you weren't sharing?

We don't even need that. We should not legislate against hate speech because we can't show it to be causal to violent actions. That's all you need.

You can just do that via imagination, without thinking that it's real.

Sure, so I'm asking your opinion. You don't believe that you chose to buy the books? Or are you agnostic on this issue?

You didn't choose to purchase the books? (And seriously, by the way--you're a Marx fan?)

I'm not sure that putting it in those terms works . . . I think they'd both be misleading for how I think about it.

Sure it is. I don't believe it's uncertain whether free will obtains. Apparently you do. I don't buy strong determinism in general (in physical terms)...

My comments are about what's the case ontologically. Not understanding terms.

No. It's purely a matter of a lot of laws being about stuff that I think government has no business intruding on. For example, "saggy pants laws," or ...

Sorry, I overlooked your second-to-last post and I'm just seeing the new one. I'm looking at them now.

So again, you don't buy free will? Just be upfront about that if so. There are a lot of people on this board who'd agree with that.

What I'm talking about is the ontological situation where there's a choice.

That has wrong what meaning and understanding are.

If in your view influences are causes, and you want me to accept that, then you need to present an argument that there's no distinction.

Why are you introducing "appear"? Either it's an ontological fact that they had a choice or it is not.

And I'd not making any influencing illegal.

For the 100th time, influences are not causes.

Better is always in someone's opinion. "Better for people in general" is ambiguous because of that. I think it's better with respect to people in gene...

If they had a choice, then the speech wasn't the cause. Their decision was. I made this clear from the very start.

I can't recall ever seeing any psychologist claiming that speech is causal to others' subsequent actions, where the others did not have any choice in ...

Influences are not the same thing as causes.

How about if I paypal you, say, $100 if you can find a psychologist or neuroscientist clearly saying that speech is causal to others' subsequent behav...

Okay. I can't say I'm at all surprised.

"And that would rather amount to there being a negative correlation between the utterance and the action in question. Most people exposed to the utter...

Well, or something different. I just enjoy fantasizing/imagining things. Other people are somehow thinking they're true and not fantasy/imagination, w...

Okay . . but without some examples, I don't at all believe that there's any example of looking at this where it would turn out that most people expose...

But I wouldn't say I ever do that with fictions.

I said nothing like that. Not the least reason for which is the odd conjunction of "causal" and "influence."