• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Thoughtcrime

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
Are some ideas too dangerous to be seriously considered and given credence? Are gut level reactions of abhorrence or distaste to certain ideas hardwired or trappings of societal prohibitions?

Just in case, I don't mean people can't literally think these thoughts, I mean should they be given a public platform say on Good Morning America (or whatever the equivalent is in your country).
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
You mean like this? ;)

Some thoughts are considered completely unacceptable because it is so engrained in our culture that they are wrong, and evil (often with a good reason) that we NATURALLY associate them with revulsion. These thoughts are often things that cause harm to others in a truly cruel way! :(

For instance- I doubt that Jeffrey Dahmer would have ever been invited onto Oprah's show to discuss his ideas! :yes:
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
...For instance- I doubt that Jeffrey Dahmer would have ever been invited onto Oprah's show to discuss his ideas! :yes:

What about after his seeming conversion to Christianity?

(There's nothing America likes better than a redemption story.)


... never EVER must a thought or a belief become a crime. Only actions (or, conceivably, inactions) may be criminal.

Admittedly being devil's advocate here, but the question has to be asked:

Can there be such a sharp and clear delineation drawn between thought and action, or do realistically the two muddy together?

One of the most prominent features, for example, of those who commit crimes against others would be the act of visualization within the mind. (Serial killers/rapists are the most notorious culprits, but you'll find the same thing in "normal people," who might have violent or destructive thoughts against others or desires to commit adultery, for example, and entertain those as harmless and having no future impact on choices... which isn't necessarily the case.) If you think about doing something enough times, it seems to lessen the self-restrictions one might impose against actually doing it.

Also, is there a distinction to be made between "punishing" particular thoughts as if they were crimes, versus simply restricting them?
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
THAT would probably get attention- but advice on how to cook and consume humans would probably not be all that TV friendly! :D
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
THAT would probably get attention- but advice on how to cook and consume humans would probably not be all that TV friendly! :D

hee, Martha Stewart, eat your heart out!




oh. Sorry. Bad choice of words there. :(
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
What about after his seeming conversion to Christianity?

(There's nothing America likes better than a redemption story.)




Admittedly being devil's advocate here, but the question has to be asked:

Can there be such a sharp and clear delineation drawn between thought and action, or do realistically the two muddy together?

One of the most prominent features, for example, of those who commit crimes against others would be the act of visualization within the mind. (Serial killers/rapists are the most notorious culprits, but you'll find the same thing in "normal people," who might have violent or destructive thoughts against others or desires to commit adultery, for example, and entertain those as harmless and having no future impact on choices... which isn't necessarily the case.) If you think about doing something enough times, it seems to lessen the self-restrictions one might impose against actually doing it.

Also, is there a distinction to be made between "punishing" particular thoughts as if they were crimes, versus simply restricting them?


Yes, I think a sharp delineation can and must be made here. The crime is killing someone else, not having fantasies of murder. There is no legitimate way to prosecute someone for those types of thoughts, and, frankly, what someone thinks about is not up for governmental review. If someone is clearly delusional and may be judged to have diminished mental capacity as a result, then there are judicial proceedings in place to determine if they to be placed in a facility (but even that process kinda scares me, given its checkered history). I am also against hate crime legislation, because it involves assigning more punishment based on something that cannot ever truly be quantified or "proven" to be more than anything but an assertion.

As to your final question, you would have to tell me. How would you restrict the mind? And can that ever be done in a free society without horrifying methods?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yes, I think a sharp delineation can and must be made here. The crime is killing someone else, not having fantasies of murder. There is no legitimate way to prosecute someone for those types of thoughts, and, frankly, what someone thinks about is not up for governmental review. If someone is clearly delusional and may be judged to have diminished mental capacity as a result, then there are judicial proceedings in place to determine if they to be placed in a facility (but even that process kinda scares me, given its checkered history). I am also against hate crime legislation, because it involves assigning more punishment based on something that cannot ever truly be quantified or "proven" to be more than anything but an assertion.

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?

As to your final question, you would have to tell me. How would you restrict the mind? And can that ever be done in a free society without horrifying methods?

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?
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I think we should let all ideas be aired out and debated, so we can come to see which hold merit and which don't.

Take religion as an example. Free speech regarding religion was considered too dangerous at one point and questioning the church was considered anathema, literally.

Establishing a policy whereby we hide ideas is much too tricky since we don't know which ideas are good and bad. It's precisely that reason that we SHOULD allow them to be aired out, even if we find them offensive or libertine. Only then can we decide which ideas are worth keeping, and only then can we help others and ourselves grow.
 

white

~dangerous curves ahead~
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
2,591
MBTI Type
ENTP
Having the thought per se is not the crime. Legally speaking, what constitutes a crime is the motive, and the act. That is what differentiates murder from manslaughter, isn't it?

Intent.

In the case of an online forum, I'm ok with people holding any ideas, and discussing them in a sensible manner. What I find objectionable, is that some ideas could be thrown up just to rile up others, and debate descends into ad hominems and a sort of self-grandiosing? :huh:

i.e. in that context, I question the intent of posting the thought. Is it an opinion truly held, and wanting to be tested. Or is it something just thrown in to garner whatever it is a person is after...

Intent matters.
 
Last edited:

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
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?
 

white

~dangerous curves ahead~
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
2,591
MBTI Type
ENTP
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?
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
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.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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. :)
 

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
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.
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 

Carebear

will make your day
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,449
MBTI Type
INFP
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" :doh:
 

suzyk

New member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
95
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 
Top