Page 2 of 2 [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,734
Location: Poland

30 Jul 2020, 5:19 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Then you've already imposed "thought police".
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.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,337
Location: Reading, England

30 Jul 2020, 5:53 am

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).



thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 816

30 Jul 2020, 7:34 am

The_Walrus wrote:
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)?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,337
Location: Reading, England

01 Aug 2020, 3:25 pm

I think the benefits of that policy would not be worth the infringement upon people’s rights.



Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,350
Location: Wales,UK Relationship: Single Interests: Trains AgeGroup: 40's FavouriteColor: Green Music: CyndiLauper

01 Aug 2020, 4:11 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
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)?


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.


_________________
Awaiting asessment. Neurodiverse 173/200. Neurotypical 21/200. Empathy 11/80. AQ 39. https://everything2.com/user/Zifendorf/ ... s/shutdown

Do not press this button --》 ▪▪▪ \ ●●● \ ▪●▪ \ ▪●▪ \ ●▪●●


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,062
Location: Stendec

01 Aug 2020, 4:28 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
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).
"Freedom of Speech" means only that the government cannot arrest you for what you say.  It does not mean that anyone else has to listen to what you say, or even accept it if they do listen; and no one can be forced to give you a platform on which to say it, either.

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.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,277

01 Aug 2020, 4:48 pm

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...


_________________
Omit needless words.


smudge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,330
Location: London

01 Aug 2020, 5:00 pm

^ Welcome back. :D Great to see an old face. How are you doing?



Last edited by smudge on 01 Aug 2020, 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,350
Location: Wales,UK Relationship: Single Interests: Trains AgeGroup: 40's FavouriteColor: Green Music: CyndiLauper

01 Aug 2020, 5:01 pm

GGPViper wrote:
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...


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.


_________________
Awaiting asessment. Neurodiverse 173/200. Neurotypical 21/200. Empathy 11/80. AQ 39. https://everything2.com/user/Zifendorf/ ... s/shutdown

Do not press this button --》 ▪▪▪ \ ●●● \ ▪●▪ \ ▪●▪ \ ●▪●●


Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,350
Location: Wales,UK Relationship: Single Interests: Trains AgeGroup: 40's FavouriteColor: Green Music: CyndiLauper

01 Aug 2020, 5:37 pm

Fnord wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
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).
"Freedom of Speech" means only that the government cannot arrest you for what you say.  It does not mean that anyone else has to listen to what you say, or even accept it if they do listen; and no one can be forced to give you a platform on which to say it, either.

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.


_________________
Awaiting asessment. Neurodiverse 173/200. Neurotypical 21/200. Empathy 11/80. AQ 39. https://everything2.com/user/Zifendorf/ ... s/shutdown

Do not press this button --》 ▪▪▪ \ ●●● \ ▪●▪ \ ▪●▪ \ ●▪●●


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,062
Location: Stendec

01 Aug 2020, 5:49 pm

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".

Image

In this way, Sen. McCarthy was practically the Commissioner-In-Chief of the Anti-Communist Thought Police.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,350
Location: Wales,UK Relationship: Single Interests: Trains AgeGroup: 40's FavouriteColor: Green Music: CyndiLauper

01 Aug 2020, 6:02 pm

Fnord wrote:
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".

Image

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?


_________________
Awaiting asessment. Neurodiverse 173/200. Neurotypical 21/200. Empathy 11/80. AQ 39. https://everything2.com/user/Zifendorf/ ... s/shutdown

Do not press this button --》 ▪▪▪ \ ●●● \ ▪●▪ \ ▪●▪ \ ●▪●●


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,062
Location: Stendec

01 Aug 2020, 7:12 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
Ironically converting democracy into a form of communism to tackle communism if my thoughts are correct?
More like using the tactics of a Fascist-Nationalist state to protect the Traditionalist leaders of a Democratic state from Progressive influences of Socialist states.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 816

02 Aug 2020, 3:11 am

Mountain Goat wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
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)?


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.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,337
Location: Reading, England

02 Aug 2020, 3:35 am

GGPViper wrote:
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...

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.