Free speech gone?

[MyndFyre]

You can relate two events though.

Example:
You call me a troll, I flip my lid.

There was no other factor in my losing control, its not a measure of how distraught you made me, its whether or not you set me off.

...and every scientist in the world will tell you that correlation != causation.

[CrAz3D]

You can relate two events though.

Example:
You call me a troll, I flip my lid.

There was no other factor in my losing control, its not a measure of how distraught you made me, its whether or not you set me off.

...and every scientist in the world will tell you that correlation != causation.

Yes, but when something triggers something else is that not causation?

[MyndFyre]

Yes, but when something triggers something else is that not causation?

Okay.  I know this is difficult and I'm using big words like "correlation" and "causation."  Let me slow down for you so that you understand everything.

When a scientists observes two events, (s)he often wants to determine whether they're related.  The first thing we can do is a correlational test: without actually causing the first event (we'll call this the stimulus), we watch to see how frequently the second event happens with the first event.

Correlation is typically expressed as "Pearson's r," a ratio measure from -1.0 to 1.0, inclusive.  Values farther from 0 indicate a stronger co-variance.

As you can see, correlation measures:
1.) how frequently two events occur together.

However, we cannot make an inference that Event 1, which preceeded Event 2, is that cause of Event 2, even if r = 1.0.  Why?  Because we did not cause Event 1 to happen.

This is why we conduct experiments, as scientists.

We conduct experiments so that we can control when Event 1 takes place, to see if it prompts Event 2.

Like I just got REALLY pissed off about your ignorance of what I'm saying.  Arguably, you could say that the "mental anguish" you've caused me by repeatedly ignoring what I'm saying set me off.  What you couldn't, or didn't measure, was the stress I've been going through all day.  I didn't sleep, I got to school late, I don't feel good, I've had a rather crazy night at work, and you seem to continue to blindly flail about in ignorance.  Would you want to be the person responsible after I kill someone just because a remark you made just tipped the scales?  Would it even be right to say so?

No.  Because we cannot measure mental anguish.

You don't even know in a situation of N = 1 (one instance) whether a supposed stimulus is what triggered an effect.  You cannot determine causation from a correlation, particularly one composed of a sample of ONE INCIDENT.

[Explicit]

Arguably, you could say that the "mental anguish" you've caused me by repeatedly ignoring what I'm saying set me off. What you couldn't, or didn't measure, was the stress I've been going through all day.

Just thought I'd place emphasis on this short bit of MyndFyre's post.

[CrAz3D]

Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?

[Explicit]

Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?

You'd have to control every aspect both internal and external of the subject to achieve that, which is impossible.

[CrAz3D]

I know what he's talking about.  I just don't see why it can't be rather probably that one thing is caused by another.

Why is it illegal to instigate a riot?  Because bad things come from it.
Why COULD it be illegal to instigate a mad man?  Because bad things come from it.

I understand that you can't measure how a statement might effect someone, but you can measure what the individual does after being "poked & prodded".

If it wasn't for the first event1 why would've event2 happened?  I don't think event2 would happen at all, unless some other circumstances existed.

Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?

You'd have to control every aspect both internal and external of the subject to achieve that, which is impossible.

If you observe that the man is calm & quiet until confronted you ought to be able to observe that the confrontation by another individual is what caused man1 to snap, correct?

[iago]

Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?

No.  That's why the entire scientific method is a theory.  The theory of gravity, relativity, motion, evolution, etc.  No matter how much evidence you get in favor of something, you can never prove it conclusively.  That's what sucks about science: nothing is certain no matter how many times it happens. 

[Explicit]

Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?

You'd have to control every aspect both internal and external of the subject to achieve that, which is impossible.

If you observe that the man is calm & quiet until confronted you ought to be able to observe that the confrontation by another individual is what caused man1 to snap, correct?

Initially, the man could be in deep contemplation of some conflict going on in his life, making that observation an invalid one.  This goes back to MyndFyre's post and the portion I placed emphasis on; you just can't assume.

[CrAz3D]

Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?

No.  That's why the entire scientific method is a theory.  The theory of gravity, relativity, motion, evolution, etc.  No matter how much evidence you get in favor of something, you can never prove it conclusively.  That's what sucks about science: nothing is certain no matter how many times it happens. 

I wasn't saying it PROVES it happens, I'm just saying that it is quite probable that it would happenalmost always, much like the gravity you gave.

Explicit, but if this happens over & over couldn't you conclue it would most likely always occur?
I'm not saying ALWAYS, but most the time.  Nothing is "always"

[MyndFyre]

Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?

No.  That's why the entire scientific method is a theory.  The theory of gravity, relativity, motion, evolution, etc.  No matter how much evidence you get in favor of something, you can never prove it conclusively.  That's what sucks about science: nothing is certain no matter how many times it happens. 

I wasn't saying it PROVES it happens, I'm just saying that it is quite probable that it would happenalmost always, much like the gravity you gave.

Explicit, but if this happens over & over couldn't you conclue it would most likely always occur?
I'm not saying ALWAYS, but most the time.  Nothing is "always"

But the emphasis of the law is "to prove beyond all reasonable doubt."

[Explicit]

Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?

No. That's why the entire scientific method is a theory. The theory of gravity, relativity, motion, evolution, etc. No matter how much evidence you get in favor of something, you can never prove it conclusively. That's what sucks about science: nothing is certain no matter how many times it happens.

I wasn't saying it PROVES it happens, I'm just saying that it is quite probable that it would happenalmost always, much like the gravity you gave.

Explicit, but if this happens over & over couldn't you conclue it would most likely always occur?
I'm not saying ALWAYS, but most the time. Nothing is "always"

The fact of the matter is that it won't happen over and over again.  You wouldn't be able to go up to every single person who's calm and quiet and expect them to all respond in the exact same way.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MEASURE "MENTAL ANGUISH"!!!!!!!!!!!

This gave me a good laugh, but nonetheless is true.

[CrAz3D]

I know it wouldn't be the same for every person, nothing is the same for every person.

I'm just asking whether or not restriction on speech should extend to something that "plays with someone's mind".

In civil law they are able to "measure" mental anguish, why not apply the same principle to criminal law.

[Adron]

Those aren't restrictions on free speech.  Free speech doesn't even cover what you're talking about, now or ever.  Free speech is the free exchange of ideas and principles.  Nothing else.  Not being allowed to say "fuck you" on TV isn't a free speech issue.  Saying "Bush sucks" on TV is.

I don't think there's a line to be drawn here.  And I've seen no evidence that there needs to be one.  The core issue is that most people misunderstand what "free speech" is. 

Just to return to the original topic... I'm assuming everyone agrees that the limitation of not being allowed to express the idea that the holocaust did not happen means that speech is not free in Austria?

[MyndFyre]

Just to return to the original topic... I'm assuming everyone agrees that the limitation of not being allowed to express the idea that the holocaust did not happen means that speech is not free in Austria?

I would agree.