14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUnless you can explicitly connect 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 to the issue of men raping their wives, then you citing this Bible verse is not an objective or even particularly relevant contribution to this discussion.
our friend FMF is only interested in slime, he has literally no concept of objective rational debate and struggles immensely with the concept of testing a premise by subjecting it to falsification.
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHas your premise that marital rape is "not logically possible" been falsified yet in your view?
[FMF] has literally no concept of objective rational debate and struggles immensely with the concept of testing a premise by subjecting it to falsification.
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you or do you not defend the cover up of sexual abuse of children in instances where there is not "mandatory reporting"?
In fact if anyone reads the thread they will find I actually support mandatory reporting [of JW child abusers] making your allegation not only false, but demonstrably so.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWeren't his vilification of Muslims and calls for their mass murder ["fantasy genocidal threads" you call them] the very essence and substance of his malicious hate speech - which you described as "hate crime"? Either you think his posts were "hate crime" or you don't ~ the elements of "fantasy" and untruth in the vilification are surely irrelevant?
fantasy genocidal threads - lets be clear.
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou mean the threads and comments about genocide were themselves, "fantasies" in your mind?
fantasy genocidal threads - lets be clear.
Or his genocidal abusive threads and comments were "fantasies" in his mind and not actually posted?
Or his breach of the site's ToS for posting genocideal abuse was a "fantasy"?
Or you are just being a dick?
Originally posted by FMFyes but no one is disputing that they were hate speech or hate crimes, what was actually disputed was that there was not a chance of them ever being carried out. Now why is this important? because it makes the text a fantasy and you cannot be prosecuted for engaging in a fantasy no matter how sinister. There was a New York policeman who had his conviction for fantasising about kidnapping, cooking and eating women quashed because it was proven that it was nothing more than a fantasy and you cannot be held accountable for fantasising no matter how horrific the fantasy is. He was labelled, 'the cannibal cop' and posted his fantasises on-line in some crazy fetish website. You may want to familiarise yourself with the case and will you please try to refrain from reducing every text to a false dilemma, its annoying and unnecessary.
Weren't his vilification of Muslims and calls for their mass murder ["fantasy genocidal threads" you call them] the very essence and substance of his malicious hate speech - which you described as "hate crime"? Either you think his posts were "hate crime" or you don't ~ the elements of "fantasy" and untruth in the vilification are surely irrelevant?
Originally posted by divegeesterI mean droogster that he had no way of ever carrying out his genocidal threats and they were therefore nothing more than fantasy. Furthermore i suspect that he was goaded by the Ghost and Rank outsider making them at least partially complicit for his banning.
You mean the threads and comments about genocide were themselves, "fantasies" in your mind?
Or his genocidal abusive threads and comments were "fantasies" in his mind and not actually posted?
Or his breach of the site's ToS for posting genocideal abuse was a "fantasy"?
Or you are just being a dick?
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you agree it was hate speech. You have described this hate speech as "hate crime". You accept that a "hate crime" of this kind is a malicious act. His posts were alerted for their hate speech. The moderators took action against him for his hate speech. So why have you condemned the posters and the moderators who took action against him for his hate speech and "hate crime" as the "thought police"?
yes but no one is disputing that they were hate speech or hate crimes, what was actually disputed was that there was not a chance of them ever being carried out. Now why is this important? because it makes the text a fantasy and you cannot be prosecuted for engaging in a fantasy no matter how sinister.
14 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut surely he was banned (or "prosecuted" as you put it) for his malicious hate speech and not for "engaging in a fantasy"? Why would you condemn people for standing up to a poster whose behaviour you yourself have described as criminal?
...there was not a chance of them ever being carried out. Now why is this important? because it makes the text a fantasy and you cannot be prosecuted for engaging in a fantasy no matter how sinister.
14 May 16
Originally posted by FMFnone of that is in dispute and has been already covered countless times, It appared to me he was banned for making fantasy claims that he could never carry out and its incredulous that people took them seriously. I have no qualms with the moderators at all, they must act as they see fit.
So you agree it was hate speech. You have described this hate speech as "hate crime". You accept that a "hate crime" of this kind is a malicious act. His posts were alerted for their hate speech. The moderators took action against him for his hate speech. So why have you condemned the posters and the moderators who took action against him for his hate speech and "hate crime" as the "thought police"?
Originally posted by FMFI have not condemned them as you put it, only you condemn people, infact its one of the things you are good at, condemning people, i have merely drawn attention to the fact that it appears to me that he was banned for expressing a complete and utter fantasy and also that he was partially goaded. that under law it constitutes a hate crime does not negate this , even those who engage in hate crimes are due a defence as i have already stated again and again as you regurgitate the same tedious questions again and again.
But surely he was banned (or "prosecuted" as you put it) for his malicious hate speech and not for "engaging in a fantasy"? Why would you condemn people for standing up to a poster whose behaviour you yourself have described as criminal?