Thought Police Philosophy
This is exactly what I mean: Certain political opinions, like that of advocating genocide, should not be tolerated.
I think the form in which they are "not tolerated" matters.
_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>
People’s thoughts and votes are sacred and private. But public advocacy is not. To me it feels entirely inappropriate for the state to punish thoughts or votes, but appropriate for it to punish public advocacy if there is a very compelling reason (genocide certainly being one of them).
Ok, that's a deal. We should make it illegal and imprison anyone who publicly advocates genocide.
But why stop at people who advocate genocide? Why not also imprison anyone who say they support/publicly declare they would like to vote for someone having been found guilty in advocating genocide (regardless of the fact that they may not be able to vote for the person anyway, because of a prison term - the public support is bad enough)?
Ok, that's a deal. We should make it illegal and imprison anyone who publicly advocates genocide.
But why stop at people who advocate genocide? Why not also imprison anyone who say they support/publicly declare they would like to vote for someone having been found guilty in advocating genocide (regardless of the fact that they may not be able to vote for the person anyway, because of a prison term - the public support is bad enough)?
In a democratic western world talking about something is not a crime because democracy requires the freedom of speech however obserd in order for it to coreectly function.
Acting upon what has been suggested, if it breaks any laws is a crime and is different.
Now there are other governing methods like dictatorship, communism along with other similar governing methods which are similar can have a restriction on the freedom of speech, but democracy can't, as if speech is restricted, then it is no longer democracy but changes to a different form of governing a country.
_________________
.
The First Amendment does not shield you from opposing points of view, criticism, or the consequences of your words; so if you are criticized, boycotted, ghosted, erased, or just plain disrespected for something you said (or that someone only thought you said), then your rights are not being violated.
It only means that someone thinks you are an anal sphincter, and they're simply showing you their contempt.
_________________
The British psychologist Adrian Raine once - in his book The Anatomy of Violence from 2013 - presented the evidence for aggressive/antisocial traits based on brain activity - especially from studying the activity in the Prefrontal cortex and the Amygdala in persons with a known history of aggression and violence.
He then suggested that we at some time in the (not-so-distant) future might progress so far with our understanding of the human brain that we could actually predict future homicidal tendencies in an individual with a brain scan (PET/MRI etc.).
As I recall, Raine then asks: What should we do if we come across a person who - based on our scientific knowledge of the brain - would have a 50 percent chance of committing murder in the future - even though that person had not (yet) committed any crimes?
Should we act as a *literal* Thought Police and pre-emptively incarcerate/restrict* a completely innocent person? Or should we do nothing and risk the life of another innocent person?
... and what if it was not a 50 percent chance, but 10, 25, 75 or 90 percent?
... or 61.73084 percent, for that matter?
... hmm, I suddenly feel like watching both The Minority Report and Equilibrium again.
*If venting him/her out of the airlock is not an option...
^ Welcome back. Great to see an old face. How are you doing?
_________________
I've left WP.
Last edited by smudge on 01 Aug 2020, 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He then suggested that we at some time in the (not-so-distant) future might progress so far with our understanding of the human brain that we could actually predict future homicidal tendencies in an individual with a brain scan (PET/MRI etc.).
As I recall, Raine then asks: What should we do if we come across a person who - based on our scientific knowledge of the brain - would have a 50 percent chance of committing murder in the future - even though that person had not (yet) committed any crimes?
Should we act as a *literal* Thought Police and pre-emptively incarcerate/restrict* a completely innocent person? Or should we do nothing and risk the life of another innocent person?
... and what if it was not a 50 percent chance, but 10, 25, 75 or 90 percent?
... or 61.73084 percent, for that matter?
... hmm, I suddenly feel like watching both The Minority Report and Equilibrium again.
*If venting him/her out of the airlock is not an option...
Interesting, but in law we can not punish someone for a crime they have not committed. Some forms of rulership one can, but you need a dictatorship form of government to do that.
_________________
.
The First Amendment does not shield you from opposing points of view, criticism, or the consequences of your words; so if you are criticized, boycotted, ghosted, erased, or just plain disrespected for something you said (or that someone only thought you said), then your rights are not being violated.
It only means that someone thinks you are an anal sphincter, and they're simply showing you their contempt.
Here in the UK we are not protected by these ammendments, but we are protected from past laws written in the Magna Carter along with other past laws, where technically the UK can't be ruled from outside of these shores.
_________________
.
Sen. Joseph P. McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) believed that he could harass and erase people at will for even being suspected of communist beliefs. This belief gave rise to the concept of McCarthyism: The practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.
If someone wanted to ruin someone else's life, all they had to do was accuse that someone of being a Communist, and testify to the same during a Senate hearing. No one needed to show any evidence, and if the accused did not show up to their own hearing, that was considered de facto proof that they were indeed Communists and a threat to "Life, Liberty, and the American Way".
In this way, Sen. McCarthy was practically the Commissioner-In-Chief of the Anti-Communist Thought Police.
_________________
If someone wanted to ruin someone else's life, all they had to do was accuse that someone of being a Communist, and testify to the same during a Senate hearing. No one needed to show any evidence, and if the accused did not show up to their own hearing, that was considered de facto proof that they were indeed Communists and a threat to "Life, Liberty, and the American Way".
In this way, Sen. McCarthy was practically the Commissioner-In-Chief of the Anti-Communist Thought Police.
Ironically converting democracy into a form of communism to tackle communism if my thoughts are correct?
_________________
.
_________________
Ok, that's a deal. We should make it illegal and imprison anyone who publicly advocates genocide.
But why stop at people who advocate genocide? Why not also imprison anyone who say they support/publicly declare they would like to vote for someone having been found guilty in advocating genocide (regardless of the fact that they may not be able to vote for the person anyway, because of a prison term - the public support is bad enough)?
In a democratic western world talking about something is not a crime because democracy requires the freedom of speech however obserd in order for it to coreectly function.
Acting upon what has been suggested, if it breaks any laws is a crime and is different.
Now there are other governing methods like dictatorship, communism along with other similar governing methods which are similar can have a restriction on the freedom of speech, but democracy can't, as if speech is restricted, then it is no longer democracy but changes to a different form of governing a country.
Germany is a democracy.
In Germany, talking in favor of genocide or even nazism is illegal.
Yet, Germany works perfectly well as a democracy.
He then suggested that we at some time in the (not-so-distant) future might progress so far with our understanding of the human brain that we could actually predict future homicidal tendencies in an individual with a brain scan (PET/MRI etc.).
As I recall, Raine then asks: What should we do if we come across a person who - based on our scientific knowledge of the brain - would have a 50 percent chance of committing murder in the future - even though that person had not (yet) committed any crimes?
Should we act as a *literal* Thought Police and pre-emptively incarcerate/restrict* a completely innocent person? Or should we do nothing and risk the life of another innocent person?
... and what if it was not a 50 percent chance, but 10, 25, 75 or 90 percent?
... or 61.73084 percent, for that matter?
... hmm, I suddenly feel like watching both The Minority Report and Equilibrium again.
*If venting him/her out of the airlock is not an option...
Very pleased to see you again Viper Didn’t recognise you with the new avatar at first.
I would say in that situation the patient should ideally be offered an evidence-based treatment program. This should in the first instance be non-invasive, such as anger management or CBT. These advances in detecting murderous thought may also lead to experimental neurosurgical options. However, I suspect that the people who agree to the neurosurgery are probably the people who already wouldn’t commit murder.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Has anybody ever done something that they thought would... |
29 Feb 2024, 11:52 pm |
Why an autistic teen’s death raises questions about police t |
09 Apr 2024, 12:39 pm |
Australian police fed 13-year-old’s ISIS Special Interest |
05 Feb 2024, 10:07 am |
Uranus & Neptune Aren't Made of What We Thought |
17 Apr 2024, 5:53 pm |