Polygraphs for the elimination of thought-crimes?

Page 3 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Do you approve of the silencing of people who offend you?
Yes 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No 100%  100%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 12

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

19 Oct 2010, 3:23 am

Oh, FFS! Of course no one has the right to remain unoffended.

However,
Neither do you have the right to say something that tangentially (or directly) offends someone and expect them to remain silent about it. It is neither 'totalitarian' nor 'censorship' to speak up when one is offended; it is still neither totalitarian nor censorship when multiple offended people speak up.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age:37
Posts: 1,148

19 Oct 2010, 3:38 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Since certain thoughts ought not to be thought, oughtn't these thoughts be sought at the root and preemptively uprooted? Free and mandatory polygraphs for everyone on Earth, the punishment being death for thought-crimes*. This way, evil thoughts will be purged prior to the possibility of them ever reaching the public in any fashion.





Notes: * Thought-crimes© means precisely what I mean it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.


No, but Knocking on my door at 8am to talk about religion should result in the painful execution of you, your family, your friends, your friends' families, everyone you went to school with, your idols, your favourite sports team and all the voice actors who portray your favourite cartoon characters.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 8:53 am

I have added a poll to this thread, for which my own vote is no.



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age:43
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

19 Oct 2010, 9:46 am

AngelRho wrote:
Though it hasn't been styled as such, "thought crimes" do exist and are enforced. It's just a matter of being just smart enough to not get sucked into those kinds of groups/societies. Take any kind of closed or authoritarian pseudo-religious cult. The Branch Davidians immediately spring to mind, though they did have a large degree of freedom. You COULD walk out, but their thoughts had become so aligned to the purpose of Koresh that they really didn't want to. Thus thought crimes are suppressed by intense isolation.

Other cults/religions are much more subtle. The one that is most overtly thought-crimeish in my opinion would be the "Church" of Scientology. They ACTIVELY seek to purge thoughts they perceive to be wrong. They cover it by appearing to allow a great deal of freedom for their members. Just don't join the Sea Org.

As for a method of government, what really stands in the way of something like that happening? Most likely diversity of thought and a highly independent spirit. So it's a matter of right time, right place, and right people.

i agree with this. persecution of thought crimes seems to be largely religious - not a government issue. well, thank goodness for the separation of church and state!


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age:29
Posts: 924
Location: california

19 Oct 2010, 2:15 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Though it hasn't been styled as such, "thought crimes" do exist and are enforced. It's just a matter of being just smart enough to not get sucked into those kinds of groups/societies. Take any kind of closed or authoritarian pseudo-religious cult. The Branch Davidians immediately spring to mind, though they did have a large degree of freedom. You COULD walk out, but their thoughts had become so aligned to the purpose of Koresh that they really didn't want to. Thus thought crimes are suppressed by intense isolation.

Other cults/religions are much more subtle. The one that is most overtly thought-crimeish in my opinion would be the "Church" of Scientology. They ACTIVELY seek to purge thoughts they perceive to be wrong. They cover it by appearing to allow a great deal of freedom for their members. Just don't join the Sea Org.

As for a method of government, what really stands in the way of something like that happening? Most likely diversity of thought and a highly independent spirit. So it's a matter of right time, right place, and right people.

i agree with this. persecution of thought crimes seems to be largely religious - not a government issue. well, thank goodness for the separation of church and state!



"where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?" -official gop candidate for united states senate in 2010.

don't thank goodness yet.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 2:33 pm

waltur wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Though it hasn't been styled as such, "thought crimes" do exist and are enforced. It's just a matter of being just smart enough to not get sucked into those kinds of groups/societies. Take any kind of closed or authoritarian pseudo-religious cult. The Branch Davidians immediately spring to mind, though they did have a large degree of freedom. You COULD walk out, but their thoughts had become so aligned to the purpose of Koresh that they really didn't want to. Thus thought crimes are suppressed by intense isolation.

Other cults/religions are much more subtle. The one that is most overtly thought-crimeish in my opinion would be the "Church" of Scientology. They ACTIVELY seek to purge thoughts they perceive to be wrong. They cover it by appearing to allow a great deal of freedom for their members. Just don't join the Sea Org.

As for a method of government, what really stands in the way of something like that happening? Most likely diversity of thought and a highly independent spirit. So it's a matter of right time, right place, and right people.

i agree with this. persecution of thought crimes seems to be largely religious - not a government issue. well, thank goodness for the separation of church and state!



"where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?" -official gop candidate for united states senate in 2010.

don't thank goodness yet.


Do you expect the Spanish Inquisition? :twisted:



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

19 Oct 2010, 2:42 pm

No, we expect a good, old-fashioned, American witch- or communist-hunt. Or, in this case, more likely a homosexual/Muslim/Mexican hunt. Shall we make prison camps for them, like we did with Japanese citizens in WW2, or shall we just ship them all to Guantanamo?

Or perhaps just kill off most of them, like we did with the Native Americans?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 2:46 pm

LKL wrote:
No, we expect a good, old-fashioned, American witch- or communist-hunt. Or, in this case, more likely a homosexual/Muslim/Mexican hunt. Shall we make prison camps for them, like we did with Japanese citizens in WW2, or shall we just ship them all to Guantanamo?

Or perhaps just kill off most of them, like we did with the Native Americans?


Wow, your expectations are rather low aren't they? How about total nuclear annihilation of all known life in the universe?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age:39
Posts: 7,662

19 Oct 2010, 2:48 pm

I'm merely listening to the rhetoric of the tea-party candidates and taking it seriously.

As for annihilation of the universe, we do not currently have that technical capacity.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 3:17 pm

LKL wrote:
I'm merely listening to the rhetoric of the tea-party candidates and taking it seriously.

As for annihilation of the universe, we do not currently have that technical capacity.


I didn't say the universe, I said all known life in the universe - which means basically that which is on Earth alone. There may be life elsewhere, but currently what is known is what is here, thus the difference between the two clauses.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age:29
Posts: 924
Location: california

19 Oct 2010, 3:17 pm

LKL wrote:
I'm merely listening to the rhetoric of the tea-party candidates and taking it seriously.

As for annihilation of the universe, we do not currently have that technical capacity.



keet: nobody expects the spanish inquisition. i generally expect candidates for senate who claim to be well acquainted with the constitution to know that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and prohibits the government from making rules about religion, effectively separating the two.

LKL: dude, he's got a god. i'm pretty sure he's not worried about technical capacity.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age:43
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

19 Oct 2010, 3:20 pm

waltur wrote:
LKL: dude, he's got a god. i'm pretty sure he's not worried about technical capacity.

:lol:



EDIT: true, now where can i get one? i want one that is more powerful than his god.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 3:55 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
waltur wrote:
LKL: dude, he's got a god. i'm pretty sure he's not worried about technical capacity.

:lol:



EDIT: true, now where can i get one? i want one that is more powerful than his god.


Mocking my Christianity are we now? Shame on you, I thought you were so high above that.



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age:43
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

19 Oct 2010, 4:07 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
waltur wrote:
LKL: dude, he's got a god. i'm pretty sure he's not worried about technical capacity.

:lol:



EDIT: true, now where can i get one? i want one that is more powerful than his god.


Mocking my Christianity are we now? Shame on you, I thought you were so high above that.

nope, i think it's funny that he is implying that an all-powerful god would destroy the planet at a human's request. presumably, nobody on earth has that power, do they? and if you had that power, i would want a stronger god to oppose your god. they could fight it out.

funny you would nitpick at me instead of the person who made the joke though.... you sure get upset at me, don't you? poor you.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age:29
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Oct 2010, 4:21 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
destroy the planet at a human's request. presumably, nobody on earth has that power, do they?


Lets see, Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, and Vladimir Putin, I think, would be the current three who are able to fry the Earth. They probably won't though.