rEvolutionist wrote:Seth wrote:
Wrong. Part of the problem is you conflating the term "harm" with the proper label, which is "mental distress."
Is that right, Dr Seth?? Now you are just wibbling semantically.
Semantics are important. We have definitions for things for a reason. Part of that reason is so that ignorami don't try to identify one thing as another improperly.
It is not true that all mental distress is "harm."
But all harm is mental distress.
Well, all harm probably includes mental distress, perforce. Third degree burns are not painful because the nerves used to transmit pain signals are destroyed, so it is possible for a person to have third degree burns and not be in any evident mental distress. Unlikely, but possible.
That's what I've been trying to tell you. All harm, whether mental or physical, manifests in the brain/mind.
Not necessarily. A person who suffers from leprosy may lose sensation in parts of the body affected, and thus may suffer severe physical harm, such as cuts or burns, without even knowing it has happened. The physical harm exists, but the mental harm does not in such cases.
So you can't make a distinction based solely on harm between the physical and the verbal. You have to make the assessment independent of the source of the harm.
Why? If the harm is, as you say, manifested internally, then it doesn't matter what the source is because the source is not the harm, the mental processes which flow from the event are, which is exactly what I'm saying. The leprosy victim who cuts off a finger on a table saw without even knowing he has done so suffers physical harm but not mental distress. Therefore the mental and physical aspects are separate.
The physical aspect of speech is compressions and rarefaction of air molecules. At normal speaking SPL (sound pressure level) these fluctuations in air pressure are harmless to the human body. It's irrelevant whether the fluctuations are produced by saying "you're a pedophile' or "you're a wonderful person," no harm occurs whatsoever when either set of words is spoken.
Any mental distress that results to the listener occurs because of the mental processes of the listener in interpreting and evaluating the pressure fluctuations. It is not the fluctuations themselves that cause harm, it is the mental processes of the listener that cause mental distress. Therefore the producer of the fluctuations cannot possibly be responsible for how the listener interprets and responds to those fluctuations in air pressure.
And even aside from this, it's simply not true to say that all physical pain signals are "harm".
Pain is the body's warning system that damage has occurred or is occurring.
Yes, but as you agree above, "The 'harm' is based on your interpretation of the events..". So I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with me.
I'm talking about the nature and genesis of the "harm" involved. If I agree,
arguendo that physical injury even to the slightest degree (like reddening of the skin from a slap) and mental distress caused by the individual interpreting words in a way that causes the distress are equally "harmful" to the individual, the point is that the proximate cause of the "harm" in the case of physical force is the perpetrator of the force, whereas the proximate cause of the mental "harm" is the individual's own mind, not the speaker or the speaker's words.
That's just so logically wrong, I don't even know how to respond to it. Both events occur when an outside influence interacts with the 'victim'. It's simply wrong to say that this isn't true.
I didn't say that, I said that the "harm" is an internal function of the listener's mind, not an inherent characteristic of the words spoken. Blacks use the word "nigger" with impunity and as a greeting and honorific, but if I use the word, the perception is that I am committing some racist act. This is not a function of the word, either written or spoken, it is entirely a function of the interpretation of the word in context, which occurs within the mind of the listener.
Such "harm" can only occur if the individual hearing the words interprets them in a way that he or she finds mentally distressing.
We're just going around in circles. As I've tried to tell you, the EXACT same is true for mild physical pain. The harm from such an assault can only occur if the person being assaulted allows it to manifest as harm in the mind. Why don't you understand this point?
I do understand it. In fact that's precisely what I've been saying all along. No harm occurs simply from the voicing or writing of any word or words. The dispute here is, I thought, whether the speaker must bear some degree of liability for harm that occurs as a result of this manifestation in the brain of the listener. I maintain that a speaker or writer of words has absolutely no liability whatsoever for how someone viewing or hearing those words might react to them because that is, as you admit, a process that is entirely internal to the listener over which the speaker/writer has absolutely no control and of which the speaker can have no knowledge before the words are spoken or written.
As I said, it's very possible to block out pain signals with your mind.
Yes, it can be, but blocking out the pain signals of your hand being burned on a stove does not change the nature of the physical damage caused by the heat.
So what? Why does physical damage have special status? If, as you agree, harm is experienced in the mind, then it doesn't matter what physical damage is done, unless that physical damage stops you going about your reasonable daily activities.
Because, in the case under review, you are trying to make the speaker of offensive words the perpetrator of the harm, which is not the case, whereas the use of force against another is a direct intrusion on the liberty and bodily integrity of the victim.
And here we go, the classic Seth "shifting the goalposts". So now it's about liberty and bodily integrity, is it?? What happened to the issue we were discussing - that being whether a person can feel harm from spoken words??
That was not the issue. The issue is who bears responsibility or liability for such harm, if and when such harms occurs. The thread addresses a UK response in law that suggests that the speaker (or writer in this case) bears not just moral responsibility, but criminal liability for making the statement. I'm suggesting that this is entirely irrational and a very, very bad precedent being set with respect to protecting freedom of speech.
It does matter whether physical damage is done, and it matters who does the damage. If you cut yourself because I said something you found mentally distressing, I'm not responsible for that application of force any more than I'm responsible for how you interpreted what I said.
This is irrelevant to the argument. The question is whether spoken words can cause harm. There's no need to invoke even more convoluted hypotheticals to address this point. Adding physical pain into the mix is irrelevant to the question.
Spoken words cannot cause harm. That's the point. The interpretation and integration of those words by the listener may result in harm, but that's on the listener, not the speaker. That's the point I'm trying to support.
Just the same as it is possible to "choose" to not take offense to words spoken to you.
Nope. Physical harm or injury is physical, objective and quantifiable. Psychological distress is entirely subjective and unquantifiable.
This is in direct contradiction to what you wrote above. You said that harm was subjective. Which it is.
No, I said physical harm is objective, whereas mental distress is subjective.
All harm is manifest in the mind. How many times do I need to explain this to you? Both are the exact same thing in terms of outcome.
The identical outcome does not render the two things identical. They are not. You can burn your hand with a natural gas flame or a campfire made of wood. The burn is the same, but the causes are entirely different in physical character and nature.
Since the question at the bar is whether or not the speaker bears responsibility or liability for harm that occurs as a result of his speaking certain words in a certain order. I say he does not because the words are not the cause of the harm, the mental processes of the listener are.
They are the same category of things, but with words generally being of less pain intensity than physical pain.
They are not in the same category. Words do not cause pain, they might engender psychological distress...
That's EXACTLY what pain is. That's why by shutting down the mind (either personally, or via anaesthetic et al) you experience no pain.
Perhaps, but that's not relevant. What's relevant is what the proximate cause of the sensation or emotion is. Psychological distress is not the same thing as physical pain response, no matter how much you try to conflate the two things.
Is that right, Dr Seth?
They are triggered by two different mechanisms entirely.
So what? What does that have to do whether harm has been mentally manifested?
It has to do with who is responsible or to be held culpable for the harm, which is the point under discussion.
I agree and most people on this board, other than some of our UK sheep, would agree that a line needs to be drawn and that line is in the vicinity of the verbal/physical distinction. But to say that all physical "assaults" are harmful and all verbal assaults aren't, is too simplistic thinking.
I didn't say that a "verbal assault" cannot result in psychological distress, I'm saying that the psychological distress is caused by the interpretation of the words by the listener, not by the word themselves.
That's a meaningless distinction. It's the outcome that is the critical thing. And the mechanism is the same. Physical inputs cause the brain to mentally register pain/harm, regardless of whether it comes from a physical assault or a verbal assault.
It's not at all meaningless. It's essential to determining who is liable for the harm that occurs.
That being the case, the speaker cannot be held liable for that interpretation because that would require that a speaker be intimately familiar with the mental state of each and every person he or she speaks to. That's entirely unreasonable.
That being the case, the hitter cannot be held liable for that interpretation because that would require that a hitter be intimately familiar with the mental state of each and every person he or she hits. That's entirely unreasonable.
The obvious difference is that striking someone is a physical assault whereas saying something is not.
EXACTLY the same with mild physical pain. All (or most) people have the ability to block out pain. You are making a distinction that doesn't exist.
The result is not relevant, only the cause is relevant.
Bullshit! This debate is supposed to be about harm. Harm occurs in the harmed, i.e. the result after an event. The cause is totally irrelevant in terms of solely bodily harm.
Again, the discussion is about
who may be held morally or criminally liable for harm occurring as a result of speaking or writing something."Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
That's good, even for you.
