Just where do we go from here?

[Robert]

Well, I suppose that if an idea can make someone miserable, then that idea at least is harmful because it's harming that person. But I see what you mean - you're saying that ideas don't have to be acted on.

However, if we include beliefs inder "ideas" then isn't it trivially true that ideas can harm people? For instance, if a witness at a trial gives false testimony, which might be a crucial piece of testimony that sways a jury, then isn't it the case that the jury's false idea of the defendant's guilt will lead to the defendant being harmed, i.e. found guilty of a crime he didn't commit?

I am not one for banning ideas, but I think we should recognize that ideas don't enter people's consciousness as dead specimens to be sifted through by an ideal reasoner, but more as active agents exerting an influence.

[Smoking Joe]

Nazi ideas never hurt anyone. Nazis acting on those ideas on the other hand did. During the course of this conversation I though it would easier if several contributors simply dropped dead. And I note that to date, they have not. So ideas are in fact harmless. And it sounds strange the deciding factor. Not the idea.

Its when those with the "ideas" get into power and compel those under them put those ideas into practice that the trouble starts. Every action starts with a thought or idea. Its ok to bring into the equation the principle of freedom of choice,but those under "the yolk" of dictators dont always have that luxury.I.e Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Imperial Japan,Present day IRAN.
Hope I wasnt one of the contributors you prayed would drop dead,but If I was I could understand.
regards

[Smoking Joe]

Excellent post.

To which I just can add that Muslims who believe in peace and equality merely think they are Muslims.

Indeed, most of them are called Abdul Anderson.

I note that you live in France,what is the situation there? I went to Nimes last year ,there was a Muslim population there but I didnt detect any confrontational issues. Well ,there was an issue of a sort,but cant really talk of it here.

[DVV]

Oh, it's all fine here in Provence, Smoking Joe.
We are still allowed to drink pastis and eat pork ribs.
Such a luck that I haven't the right to complain.

[Ally]

Excellent post.

To which I just can add that Muslims who believe in peace and equality merely think they are Muslims.

Indeed, most of them are called Abdul Anderson.

To which I can just add that Muslims who believe in war and inequality just think they are Muslims. And Christians who believe in peace and equality merely think they are Christians. And Christians who believe in war and inequality merely think they are Christians.

When it comes to religion anyone who thinks they are of that religion is of that religion. It's not like there's an actual exam or a certification of any rigor.

[Beowulf]

My thoughts on immigration are based mostly on numbers - we are a small island and there are too many people here chasing too few resources and services. There should just as stringent checks made on, for example, white Australian or Canadians wishing to settle here as any other group.
The one proviso is that I would certainly beef up our ability to exclude and remove people who are known to have inflammatory or radical views that espouse or advocate violence. But this would apply across the board, to deep south Christian fundamentalists, Hindu extremists etc just as well as to islamists.

Totally agree. When you own a house you have the right to invite and send home.

Close the borders.

[Cogidubnus]

The other issue I guess is that many of our radicalised muslims are home-grown...I don't think any other nation would have them, even if we expelled them...I don't for one moment suppose any government would have the balls to do it, but how about enforced recolonisation of St Kilda? I suspect the isolation and limited diet might work wonders on fundamental beliefs...

All the best

Dave

[Archaic]

Ideas Matter

Nazi ideas never hurt anyone. Nazis acting on those ideas on the other hand did.

Hi Errata. I've read your posts with interest, but I have to disagree with you there.

So you believe it's perfectly fine if someone is obsessed with the idea that they want to kidnap, torture, rape and murder little children- as long as they hold off on actually doing it? Should we wait til after they act on that fantasy to intervene?

Ideas come before actions. Child abusers and serial killers often fantasize, peep, stalk, and masturbate to their fantasies for years before they actually act. Is that "perfectly fine"?

Is it OK for someone to hoard thousands of images of child porn and child sexual abuse on their computer if it's solely for their "their own use", and they swear up and down that they "would never actually hurt a child"?
I say No, it's not OK. They're sick, and they're dangerous, and I hope they all get thrown in jail for a very long time!

If you plot to commit a terrorist act you can be found guilty of Attempted Murder, Terrorism, etc, even if you have not yet acted to place the bomb, pulled the trigger, etc. if someone is caught and says, "Oh, it was just a fantasy, sort of a hobby- I wasn't actually going to enter an elementary school and massacre little kids", should we say, "Oh, OK. No problem" and let them walk?

If you accidentally hit someone with your car it's not the same thing as deliberately running them down and killing them with intention and malice aforethought. "Intention" and "Malice" are both obviously both mental components.

Thoughts matter. Ideas matter. Thoughts and ideas can have "moral or immoral", "guilty or innocent", "good or bad", or "public danger" qualities attached to them.

That's precisely why we have the judicial doctrine of Mens Rea- our legal system seeks to establish the mental component of a act before charging someone with a crime, and then as the case goes through the judicial process that mental component is established again by a jury before finding someone guilty of an act like 1st Degree Murder and sentencing them to punishment.

The ideas that precede actions and their mental components matter very much indeed.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Ally]

Hi Errata. I've read your posts with interest, but I have to disagree with you there.

So you believe it's perfectly fine if someone is obsessed with the idea that they want to kidnap, torture, rape and murder little children- as long as they hold off on actually doing it? Should we wait til after they act on that fantasy to intervene?

I realize that you are addressing this to Errata, but I felt compelled to reply. Yes. You wait til after they act or until you have irrefutable evidence that they are about to act before you intervene. You cannot make thoughts a crime.

Ideas come before actions. Child abusers and serial killers often fantasize, peep, stalk, and masturbate to their fantasies for years before they actually act. Is that "perfectly fine"?

It's perfectly fine right up until they act on it. I once had vivid, well-detailed fantasies about killing someone I really, really could not stand. Never planned to carry it out, never would have carried it out, never acted to carry it out but if you are going to lock up everyone who has ever had a bad/murderous/abusive fantasy, 99% of the population is going to be in jail. Once again, you cannot criminalize thoughts or fantasies. Everyone would be guilty.

Is it OK for someone to hoard thousands of images of child porn and child sexual abuse on their computer if it's solely for their "their own use", and they swear up and down that they "would never actually hurt a child"?
I say No, it's not OK. They're sick, and they're dangerous, and I hope they all get thrown in jail for a very long time!

No it's not okay because actual children were harmed in this case. If they limit their fantasies strictly to their mind, or fiction or whatever, then it's nobody's business. If however, they actually participate, even passively, in the injuring of children then they should go to jail for life and frankly, in my opinion, castrated.

There are actually people who are sexually attracted to children who have not and will never touch a child, and who consider their attraction just as disgusting as the rest of us do. Some choose to take meds to insure they never act on their fantasies. Should they be locked up preventively? You can't choose who you are attracted to, but you can choose whether or not you act upon it. Just like I might have the hots for my best friends husband, though I don't choose it and wish I didn't (I don't, just saying) but I have the choice not to act on it. Being sexually attracted to someone, anyone, even in cases as repugnant as with a child, is not in a person's conscious control. Acting on it, is. Or do you really think people CHOOSE to be attracted to children?

If you plot to commit a terrorist act you can be found guilty of Attempted Murder, Terrorism, etc, even if you have not yet acted to place the bomb, pulled the trigger, etc. if someone is caught and says, "Oh, it was just a fantasy, sort of a hobby- I wasn't actually going to enter an elementary school and massacre little kids", should we say, "Oh, OK. No problem" and let them walk?

Plotting is an action. Not a thought. If you buy ten tons of fertilizer you are not just fantasizing, you are acting. There's a difference.

Thoughts matter. Ideas matter. Thoughts and ideas can have "moral or immoral", "guilty or innocent", "good or bad", or "public danger" qualities attached to them.

No they really can't. A thought is no more good nor bad than an emotion. Is hate good or bad? Most would say bad. What if you hate pedophiles and Nazis. Still bad? Is love good or bad? What if you love having an affair with your best friend's husband? Emotions, thoughts, etc are not good or bad, they are neutral until the action defines them. There is no such thing as a guilty thought. There's just thought. Thought is absolutely irrelevant without action.

And to say otherwise is to start to take us down into an Orwellian nightmare.

[DVV]

The other issue I guess is that many of our radicalised muslims are home-grown...I don't think any other nation would have them, even if we expelled them...I don't for one moment suppose any government would have the balls to do it, but how about enforced recolonisation of St Kilda? I suspect the isolation and limited diet might work wonders on fundamental beliefs...

All the best

Dave

No, Dave, no ! not St Kilda ! I beg you !!
Let the Hebrides far from those nuts, please, show mercy to Abhainn Dairg, the new distillery on the isle of Lewis !!

[DVV]

Ally, I understand.
But then, why is "Mein Kampf" forbidden ?
It's just a book, just ideas.

I'm not sure either that "erotic" novels promoting paedophilia should be available in every bookshop (I know such novels do exist in the history of literature, one that comes to my mind is "Opus Pistorum" by Miller, in which there are several chapters involving very young girls, but...).

[Cogidubnus]

Hi David,

No, Dave, no ! not St Kilda ! I beg you !! Let the Hebrides far from those nuts, please, show mercy to Abhainn Dairg, the new distillery on the isle of Lewis !!

Well there are other islands if you like, Gruinard springs to mind, but apart from being a little too close to the mainland for comfort, it might be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment...wouldn't want that...

So, no...for a variety of reasons St Kilda is perfect!

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Ally, I understand.
But then, why is "Mein Kampf" forbidden ?
It's just a book, just ideas.

I'm not sure either that "erotic" novels promoting paedophilia should be available in every bookshop (I know such novels do exist in the history of literature, one that comes to my mind is "Opus Pistorum" by Miller, in which there are several chapters involving very young girls, but...).

Hi David

I know you were addressing your comments to Ally, but:-

Is Mein Kampf forbidden? If so. I've broken the law by reading a translation many years ago...boredom doesn't enter into it, but I thought I ought.

Your second paragraph...ok I share some of your reservations about the practicalities, but in principle at least, Ally raises very good points...in fact I was just about to post to tell her that for the first time ever I agree with every word of one of her posts...log this one Ally!

Every good wish

Dave

[DVV]

Hi David

I know you were addressing your comments to Ally, but:-

Is Mein Kampf forbidden? If so. I've broken the law by reading a translation many years ago...boredom doesn't enter into it, but I thought I ought.

Your second paragraph...ok I share some of your reservations about the practicalities, but on principle at least, Ally raises very good points...in fact I was just about to post to tell her that for the first time ever I agree with every word of one of her posts...log this one Ally!

Every good wish

Dave

Yes Dave, "Mein Kampf" is forbidden (at least in France).

It's not that I disagree with Ally, actually I'm not sure... What I'm sure of is that, since Mein Kampf IS forbidden in some countries, we may have, as she said, already a foot in an Orwellian nightmare... or maybe, it's perhaps not
so bad not to allow total freedom sometimes.
It's open to debate, at least.
After all, all rules have their exceptions, it's a matter of place and time.

But if I had to vote, I'd vote for total freedom.
With a few exceptions.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=DVV;262201]All

y, I understand.
But then, why is "Mein Kampf" forbidden ?
It's just a book, just ideas.

Mein Kampf isn't forbidden where I live. In general, the places you will find it banned are the places you will find a lot of thought and free speech of all sorts banned. For whatever reason.

I'm not sure either that "erotic" novels promoting paedophilia should be available in every bookshop (I know such novels do exist in the history of literature, one that comes to my mind is "Opus Pistorum" by Miller, in which there are several chapters involving very young girls, but...).

I always love the word "promoting" that comes into play when you are talking about the "other person's/not my own normal" pornography. When it's what you like it's just "normal". When it's what the other guy's into, it's "promoting". Promoting, as if, when it came to any specific sexual practice the only thing stopping them from DOING it was they just hadn't heard of it yet. Why Billy Bob you can't allow them to publish a magazine about some guys really like having sex while dressed like clowns because if you do guys will see it and then they're all going to go out and start wanting the sex while dressed like clowns! And the floppy shoemakers will go on strike from overwork. Etc. No one's going to suddenly start wanting to do something just because they read about it if they weren't disposed in that direction anyway. /digression