User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Thoughtcrime

  1. #11
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    So this is mostly an issue of implementation? (i.e., negative fantasies are admittedly NOT good from a psychological view, but there's no practical way to restrict them; therefore, only actions -- thoughts that have been manifest in behavior -- can and should be dealt with.)

    Did I sum that up correctly?



    Hmm, I suppose I wasn't clear on what I meant.

    Normally people aren't aware of each other's thoughts. But we're talking in context of an online forum, where thoughts are being broadcast without the accompanying actions so that we CAN be aware of them.

    So, in terms of an online forum, is there a difference between punishing vs simply restricting the expression of certain thoughts?
    One could argue that negative thoughts may allow someone a release that they may not otherwise gain, short of committing the act they should not. That type of thing is studied by psychologists, but I doubt that there is a consensus yet (look at pornography. . . well, not literally, but look at the controversy over positive vs. negative consequences).

    And in an online forum, ideas should flow freely, but so should negative reactions to them. The social approbation that follows someone asserting something particuarly "bad" or outre when measured against our shared social norms is legitimate, but it is not sufficient to restrict people from making these types of statements altogether, unless there is a compelling reason (criminal or civil legal liability, the safety of other members, the continued viability of the site). But a banning or something similar simply for having disgusting or silly opinions seems to be contrary to the spirit of messages boards to begin with.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #12
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    No idea is too dangerous to be publicized, and the bad ones shouldn't find a home. Unfortunately, some people manage to give credence to them anyway. That is why there are still Nazis, Communists, polygamist cults raping children, etc. But never EVER must a thought or a belief become a crime. Only actions (or, conceivably, inactions) may be criminal.
    So what if an American imam comes out and says he personally thinks that Muslims in America should defend their faith and strike a blow at the Christians who give support to what he considers a war on Islam? Should he be given a platform or is his idea too dangerous to be publicized?
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  3. #13
    ~dangerous curves ahead~
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2,590

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    So, in terms of an online forum, is there a difference between punishing vs simply restricting the expression of certain thoughts?
    Some would view restriction of expression as a punishment. In a board, where opinion holds sway, isn't a punishment the curtailment of a voice, not the muting of thought. The thought is always there. It is how it is voiced, and why, that matters more?

    And the thought is not the crime, is it? A topic could go both ways depending on the different voices. So restriction of expression of certain thoughts would not matter.

    Some voices divide vs help a general board grow.

    Where do you draw the line for compromise between what is good for members, and what is good for the individual then.

    It depends on what the board stands for, no?

  4. #14
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    So what if an American imam comes out and says he personally thinks that Muslims in America should defend their faith and strike a blow at the Christians who give support to what he considers a war on Islam? Should he be given a platform or is his idea too dangerous to be publicized?
    If he makes a specific threat or literally encourages people to violence, he should be prosecuted under current statutes. But he has every right to believe in violence in his heart and to be a fanatical extremist.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #15
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    If he makes a specific threat or literally encourages people to violence, he should be prosecuted under current statutes. But he has every right to believe in violence in his heart and to be a fanatical extremist.
    True, but the OP asked if they should be given a public platform and you opened by saying no idea is too dangerous to be publicized. I agree with your conclusion, but then we've in effect said that some ideas are too dangerous to be given a public platform.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  6. #16
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    True, but the OP asked if they should be given a public platform and you opened by saying no idea is too dangerous to be publicized. I agree with your conclusion, but then we've in effect said that some ideas are too dangerous to be given a public platform.
    I guess that I should be more specific: the point at which the crime may be committed would be when it becomes action. An imam should obviously have the right to speak publicly about whatever he wants, even to advocate virulently anti-American views and violence. But we have, through our common law history in the U.K. and the U.S., made people liable for the things they say in specific situations (e.g., slander, assault, an incitement to a riot, the classic yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater). Are his ideas too dangerous to be publicized? I believe not. Do they reach the level of a crime in my view? I couldn't say unless I heard him or read a transcript, and I am also not a judge. For now.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #17
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I guess that I should be more specific: the point at which the crime may be committed would be when it becomes action. An imam should obviously have the right to speak publicly about whatever he wants, even to advocate virulently anti-American views and violence. But we have, through our common law history in the U.K. and the U.S., made people liable for the things they say in specific situations (e.g., slander, assault, an incitement to a riot, the classic yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater). Are his ideas too dangerous to be publicized? I believe not. Do they reach the level of a crime in my view? I couldn't say unless I heard him or read a transcript, and I am also not a judge. For now.
    Thanks for specifying. I no longer see a contradiction. So no thought too dangerous unless it can be said to directly or to some extent indirectly cause action? Of course that still leaves the discussion of to what extent a specific idea can be blamed for the actions of people influenced by it (like Marilyn Manson or Counterstrike influencing people who go on a rampage), but the principle is clear at least.

    Edit: Or more precisely: No thought too dangerous to be publicized, but doing so could still mean repercussions.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  8. #18
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Thanks for specifying. I no longer see a contradiction. So no thought too dangerous unless it can be said to directly or to some extent indirectly cause action? Of course that still leaves the discussion of to what extent a specific idea can be blamed for the actions of people influenced by it (like Marilyn Manson or Counterstrike influencing people who go on a rampage), but the principle is clear at least.

    Edit: Or more precisely: No thought too dangerous to be publicized, but doing so could still mean repercussions.
    Nice summation. I also have a knee-jerk negative reaction to people criticizing artists/video games/whatever for the violent and/or stupid acts of others. If a song or a video game actually made you shoot someone, the problem ain't with the song or video game, buddy.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #19
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Nice summation. I also have a knee-jerk negative reaction to people criticizing artists/video games/whatever for the violent and/or stupid acts of others. If a song or a video game actually made you shoot someone, the problem ain't with the song or video game, buddy.
    I couldn't agree more.

    "Guns don't kill people, video games kill people"
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  10. #20
    Member suzyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    95

    Default

    All ideas should be respected, no matter how stupid they are, as long as the person genuinely takes it seriously. The human mind is a network of intricate connections, the next plausible idea thought up could get fame and controversy. Animal/human hybrids, for example. I don't see why it's so wrong.
    "I can write better than anybody who can write faster, and I can write faster than anybody who can write better."
    - A. J. Liebling

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO