Speech cannot cause action

It's not that speech cannot influence what people do, it's that it can't force action

Then what does cause action? If you’re such an expert, surely you would be able to give me an intelligent answer with evidence to support your claim

>ruin the system
>complain about how the system works
>say it isnt your fault
yikes

anything but israel and the jews goy

>Then what does cause action?

Choosing actions based on known available actions

World isn't perfect.

You have to be 18 to be here

Your Jewdi mind tricks won't work on me, chosenanon.

So you’re implying that causality of action is based off of choice of known available actions. That’s bullshit, but I’ll play along.
How does one gain knowledge of available actions if it’s not through speech & dialogue?

very subversive. i expected none the less.

>It's Jewish to give Whites self determinism

My sides

People gain knowledge through speech. But speech does not make them choose any particular action of those available to them

>Truth is subversive
Reality is not a conspiracy!

But you started out with ‘speech can’t -cause- action, if it can influence action it is part of its cause.

Based off of your answer, speech is normally a prerequisite to what your own definition of the causality of taking action is. You actually just admitted that speech is necessary to drive action. Sure, speech itself doesn’t drive action - the decision to take an action drives action. I can agree with that much, but to say speech is indeterminate to actions people take is irresponsible based off of your own definitions.

By 'cause,' I mean direct cause. 'Influence' means there are other factors.

> Sure, speech itself doesn’t drive action - the decision to take an action drives action.
True.
>I can agree with that much, but to say speech is indeterminate to actions people take is irresponsible based off of your own definitions.
I never said nor implied that it was interminable

Then I have no problem with the first part of your statement. Actually pretty incredible feat for Jow Forums, a WASP and a dirty hand rubbing Jew agree on something. It must really be the end times. The rest of your argument is subjective as shit and I would argue that but alas I have other things to do with my day. Maybe next time.

Get your semantics straight. By influence you mean partial cause, the contrast to that would be ‘sole cause’, not ‘direct cause’ (which would be contrasted by an indirect cause). So after half a thread and a lot of help you can finally formulate what you really meant, which is that speech can’t be the sole cause of action, which is a nearly pointless statement.

Through speech, peace!
Good day fren.

According to your new rules speech IS action

This. Gas the kikes.

Influence means partial cause. Remember that I'm the one with the high verbal IQ.

>But then what does your post mean?
Many anons believe that speech causes action.

>According to your new rules speech IS action
It's an action for the person doing the speaking.
But speaking can't make someone act

Yes influence means partial cause, that was my premise, now go re-read the conclusion, which shows that your original post is wrong and the weaker statement that you could defend is pointless. You may have higher verbal IQ than the average but quite obviously not higher than what I have.
To sum up: a partial cause can be a direct cause so you have not shown that speech cannot directly cause action. Your claim that it can only indirectly cause action was shown to be based on your faulty understanding of semantics (your high verbal IQ non withstanding) and you only really assert without evidence that speech must be limited to be only a partial cause of action. Even if you are right about that, it’s a pretty useless (non-actionable) observation since speech would still be a cause of action, but I think if we spent some more time you’d find that speech can be the sole cause of action too. Doesn’t matter. Free speech must be free even though it can be the cause of action, to defend free speech on the ground that speech cannot cause action is to weaken the position of free speech advocacy.

>high verbal IQ

I see do too multitask right now :)

Attached: jousting.jpg (600x398, 36K)

>Speech directly causes action
>Directly causes
You're using these words incorrectly.

>speech can be the sole cause of action too

Consciousness is the intermediary

Pay attentions

I was going over this in my mind last night. How much are whites to blame for their predicament?

If whites do not have free will and fall subject to brainwashing completely..what are we? What is our value? Maybe, all our values are imaginary...and it would, ironically, make the race that can warp, and twist values - even it's own, in a bid to survive, ironically the master race. It would make Jews the ones who genuinely deserve power, in an amoral, cruel, godless world where nothing is truly alive, and all is machine.

On the other hand, if we do have agency, we cannot simply say Jews brainwashed us and point fingers at them. We must confess, the seeds of our destruction were planted inside us all along, and all the Jew did was coax it out of us in a cooperative effort that did include us allowing him to do so.

We then, become vile, become evil. I don't know. I know a similar thing happened in the Garden of Eden. The serpent, Eve, Adam, the apple.

God cursed and punished all parties, if that enlightens anyone at all. I think as a Christian, the truth is, you can SEDUCE either someone's material, lustful, or spiritual, honorable nature out of them - to help bring it to the fore, but ultimately they must agree to act on it.

Neither extreme is true, else the serpent alone, or Adam and Eve alone, would be punished.

Just my thoughts.

Correct.

>it's that it can't force action

Depends on the definition of 'force'. It sure can induce action with a high probability of success insofar as you cross the consensus threshold of those of group-selected archetype (and avoid colliding with core values, at least directly). If you 'load' your words and know how to incorporate an undertone of the correct emotional resonance successful suggestion is almost guaranteed. I've tried this ... it is fun to watch.

Attached: now_hold_still_while_I_eyedrop_you.jpg (877x534, 151K)

>Probability
That's a prediction based on what they person chooses to do.

>Consciousness is the intermediary
better make sure moshie green lights you to be spewing this shit, some normies may pick up on your tricks

>You can mislead people into feeling X it doing Y
True- but what has changed is the person's information, not their choice.

And emotions are simply subconscious reactions to conceptual information.

If by my speech I manage to convince you to do something then my speech was the direct cause of you taking that action. The fact that my speech was processed by your brain does not introduce an indirection, making the causality indirect, it is the path via which the causality is implemented. Just like if I program a computer to do something the fact that the cpu processes my instructions does not mean I didn’t cause the computer to render its output.

Yes, but with the masses this usually suffices. I assume you only have to sway a certain number of people, virtue signaling and/or peer pressure will then amplify your message. Key to this: you have to either attain or maintain a position of 'creditibility' (or the illusion thereof). So you either build a 'face' or refer to one or several established concepts with 'weight'.

Attached: dont_need_no_education.jpg (520x282, 26K)

>If by my speech I manage to convince you to do something then my speech was the direct cause of you taking that action.
>Direct cause
'Sole external factor' is what you mean.
MFW Americans think Jews shouldn't rule, but barely grasp their native tongue.

This
Listen Shlohmo, we're all aware that trickerey is anchored deep in your traditions. And all you're doing here is neglecting the reality. Your people are responsible for what Christiananon mentioned, and assuming he's underage to decrediblize his argument makes you one vile faggot. Shoah 2.0 on it's way and Shekels won't stop it this time.

Yes. But the credibility you build in others is a factor that influences other people to decide.

Here is a bit on imitation vs self-deciding (called 'rationality', in the following)

First, let's clear one thing up: humans don't have (((instincts))), only reflexes.

That is, one's disposition towards sexuality is entirely rational- from imitation to a fully thought out sexual philosophy- with most people being a compromise between these 2 extremes. If you shirk the notion that you choose your sexual philosophy, then you're doomed to living a sexual philosophy that you believe you can't change- when you can.

Given that Jow Forums skews towards both asociality and high intelligence, Jow Forums is predisposed to thinking in lieu of imitation. And given society's cost/benefit of marriage and family, a Pollack's sexual philosophy skews towards traps- traps offer a comparable sexual experience to that of women, without the detriment of children or the female temperament.

You are a man, be rational.

>As such, purporting that Jews force degeneracy is also incorrect.
Yeah, they're only strongly encouraging it. The main difference here is that degeneracy is pushed through sources that people tend to assume to be reliable so unlike the white guy calling the nigger a nigger, the jews are somewhat responsible for the results.

Sorry but your grasp on language is not as strong as you tell yourself. You do not negate the proposition that speech can be the direct cause of action by reformulating it as sole external factor. I could turn that around and say “you mean ‘sole external stimulus’” and it still wouldn’t change the fact that speech can be the direct cause of action, that you are wrong and that your attempt at semantics is poor.

> Shoah 2.0 on it's way and Shekels won't stop it this time.

True.

Also true is new refuge

See, I am not exactly a friend of the idea of 'freedom' of choice. Choice depends mostly on the emotional evaluation (itself a sum of experience) of a set of options evident to your wetware. Two limiting factors: cognitive complexity of the future theoreticals simulated ... and narrowing down of options based on the strength of the emotional response attached. Both are intrinsically linked. Now I doubt many people process information in very complex ways and usually even if they could they are restricted by the emotional feedback to 'not thinking the unthinkable'. But that aside, you got two levers here. First, provide the correct set of information or provide an information overload (my favorite tactic btw), narrow down the possible scenarios, bend the theoretical. Second, induce an emotional state that either makes a certain information 'shine' or possibly poison a set of options emotionally, make them 'unthinkables'. At least that is the simplified theory. You close and open doors. Again, you do not force anybody with this. What you actually do is maintain a 'reality distortion field' (even if your information is factually true, it is about aim, not veracity), you play with your target's external and internal perception. Of course, I give you that, it requires a 'susceptible' target. You cannot play this on everyone (or at least not for very long).

Attached: fuggfuggfuggfugg.jpg (356x533, 48K)

>choice depends on emotions and sensation
Yes, these are the ultimate ends of action.

The manipulation you described is simply convincing something that the costs/benefits are what you want them to believe.

>Using a certain voice and words to convince them

These are processed subconsciously- and are simply another form of information.

Is there anything on which we disagree in principle?

Interesting. Self-imposed restriction due to the fear of ... what exactly? Facing your own 'darker' side? Thinking the unthinkable. ;)
One could see this cost/benefit analysis from another angle: reproductive fitness. Now I assume most of humanity (especially given the current lack of harsh selective pressures) is at the lower end of this spectrum (I know, depends on environment etc etc). Now this low fitness cohort would under different circumstances only have the slim chance of proving themselves by merit. Warfare is usually the strategy here. Not a real option in our culture anymore. Instead, this cohort today wastes their lifes, unable to truly compete in a world where even those fit find it hard to break through the ceiling of established hierarchy. Unless ... someone were smart enough to show them a way. A vision. Use their potential.

Three archetypes. The warrior. The priest. And the cattle.

>simply convincing something that the costs/benefits are what you want them to believe

This!

>Is there anything on which we disagree in principle?

Broadly? Not much I think. Sorry, have to leave now, birthday party of a friend. See ya!

Good conversation.

Jews force degeneracy through action and expression, not speech.

Jow Forums really is dumb these days

Wrong.
Try reading

Attached: atlasShrugged - Copy.jpg (410x292, 43K)

> The manipulation you described is simply convincing something that the costs/benefits are what you want them to believe.
And that act of convincing via speech is the cause of the convinced person’s action.