1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWere not the things that he typed merely the expression of what he thought?
Although many posters try very hard to practice mind reading in this forum (myself included), they usually fail miserably. Because of this it simply isn't practical to base rules on what people think. As you correctly note, this is different if a God that can accurately read minds exists, or if you decide to judge yourself.
Dasa was banned for things he ...[text shortened]... d on its site could make itself vulnerable to being found guilty of aiding and abetting a crime.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, but you need the basic level of knowledge that, under UK law, the presumption is that an offence relating to a posting on a website takes place where the individual is located. So, in Dasa's case, the offence most likely took place in Brisbane Australia.
Do I need to me a mechanic to realise that I have a flat tyre? Do I? The fact is that the texts needed to be threatening to constitute a crime and you have not proven that they threatened anyone. The reference encompasses race, religion and so called sexual orientation hate crimes and is good enough for my purposes.
So what is your considered view on whether Dasa's comments (which you didn't read) amount to a crime under the relevant law?
Originally posted by FMFThis is a public forum where people of all shapes and sizes, religious and atheistic backgrounds, social/economic status, and racial diversity meet together in a pseudo-world to exchange ideas, promote philosophies and downright critique/criticize others. I do not believe much takes place in the way of value in online forums, you can try as you might but I don't know that it really happens.
Is that how you dealt with him and his ideas?
If you look through the majority of threads, they start out harmless enough but quickly turn into a puffed up chest bumping, I am smarter than you, your momma wears combat boots playground brawl... but with words.
I may have had a few exchanges with Dasa but I don't recall that he ever responded back. I for the most part simply ignored his rants and did not read them, because I found him offensive and just downright boring. There are several posters that I treat in a similar fashion, and for the same reasons, it's not a hard thing to do... garbage in garbage out.
Instead, we have yet another thread about Dasa and his antics as if the antics are missed... let it go.
Self policing has its merits, running to the teacher because someone called you a name is... well it is what it is.
To answer your question... Yes!
1 edit
Originally posted by yoctobyteDo you think there was anything morally unsound - acting as a kind of "thought police" for example - in the behaviour of those who stood up to him and his ideas?
This is a public forum where people of all shapes and sizes, religious and atheistic backgrounds, social/economic status, and racial diversity meet together in a pseudo-world to exchange ideas, promote philosophies and downright critique/criticize others. I do not believe much takes place in the way of value in online forums, you can try as you might but ...[text shortened]... ecause someone called you a name is... well it is what it is.
To answer your question... Yes!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFor the Christian the matter is settled, thoughts are almost as important as the deed itself for they can lead to action, 'every man that keeps on looking at a women so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery in his heart'. But many of those who condemned Dasa for thinking the way he did were not Christian and do not hold Christian values.
Are we to take it from this (which is from your OP) that you think, in the context of a spirituality debate and discussion forum, that the Christians here ~ given that they believe that "thoughts are almost as important as the deed itself for they can lead to action" ~ should have condemned Dasa for both his thoughts and his words?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou might be surprised to find that if I, in a fit of anger, say 'I am going to kill you, Robbie', you probably won't succeed in getting me arrested for attempted murder.
were these not your very words?
he [dasa] advocated executing all Muslims pre-emptively
therefore the texts is sound.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI see, its most interesting. Citing the racial and religious intolerance act 2001 it appears that Dasa was indeed guilty of hate crime, that is the religious vilification of Muslims.
No, but you need the basic level of knowledge that, under UK law, the presumption is that an offence relating to a posting on a website takes place where the individual is located. So, in Dasa's case, the offence most likely took place in Brisbane Australia.
So what is your considered view on whether Dasa's comments (which you didn't read) amount to a crime under the relevant State (not federal) law?
RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ACT 2001 - SECT 8
Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
So there you have it folks, the suppression of freedom of thought and speech by the thought police!!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn what way are you claiming Dasa's freedom of thought was infringed?
Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
So there you have it folks, the suppression of freedom of thought and speech by the thought police!!