Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe actually did not have the right to express his thoughts based on the laws of his country which put certain restrictions on what thoughts you may express in public. In reality he was not, as far as I know, prosecuted by his country.
He had the right but not the freedom to express his thoughts??
But even if expressing his thoughts had been legal, having the right to express your thoughts does not automatically require anyone else to publish your thoughts. RHP can choose what it allows on this site regardless of freedom of speech regulations.
The idea that Dasa would ever likely to be able to carry out his plans of evil are ludicrous ..../[b]
Which begs the question why you keep bringing it up since nobody actually thinks that is the case nor has anyone suggested that that is the case.
[b]You have condemned a man for thinking 'stuff', Ghastly one, yes hateful, abusive 'stuff', but never the less you have proved yourself a thoroughly paid up member of the Inner party!
If condemning a man for thinking ghastly stuff makes me a member of the inner party, then I am a proud member and I condemn you for no being a member. If you think genocidal thoughts you are a terrible person worthy of condemnation. I would never punish you for thoughts alone purely because I could not prove that you had the thoughts. But if you try to incite genocide, even if you have no chance of success, I would, if given the opportunity, punish you for doing so, and if I cannot, I will openly condemn you for doing so.
Also, if you are a rape apologist, I will openly condemn you for expressing such an opinion.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes this is an astute point that you make, we have laws which do restrict a persons freedom of speech, under certain circumstances.
He actually did not have the right to express his thoughts based on the laws of his country which put certain restrictions on what thoughts you may express in public. In reality he was not, as far as I know, prosecuted by his country.
But even if expressing his thoughts had been legal, having the right to express your thoughts does not automatically re ...[text shortened]...
Also, if you are a rape apologist, I will openly condemn you for expressing such an opinion.
You see the problem that I have is that peoples rationality seems to disintegrate when they learn that other people think 'wired', stuff. For example, if a blind man held a gun to what he thought was someone with wads of cash but it turned out to be a tree, would you condemn him as a proud inner party member for his crime, because he thought that he was robbing someone? would you?
-Removed-You seem to harbour an inability to grasp concepts objectively and because of that seem destined forever to get caught in the trap of attempting to make them personal as if its the only real way you know how to assimilate them. I am suggesting nothing, his thoughts were what he posted and you condemned him for thinking those thoughts.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere's nothing in the TOS that seeks to govern the "thinking of thoughts" so he will have been banned for posting hate speech and perhaps also for spamming the forum with new threads.
I am suggesting nothing, his thoughts were what he posted and you condemned him for thinking those thoughts.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes indeed, 'the idea that Dasa would ever carry out his plans of evil are ludicrous.' So ludicrous in fact that you are the only person who has suggested it. 🙄
Well well the chief of the thought police himself Herr Ghost! How long will you keep Dasa in room 101 before you let him out and disintegrate him?
He had the right but not the freedom to express his thoughts?? Clearly his right to express his thoughts was not worth anything or is this site a police state? patrolled by thought police like you, goad ...[text shortened]... ff', but never the less you have proved yourself a thoroughly paid up member of the Inner party!
Imagine a club tennis match which everyone is enjoying and watching respectfully, when some chump stands up and starts shouting obscenities and vile comments. Now you. Robbie Carrobie, may very well take no stance on his comments, pretend you don't hear what he is saying and claim that he has the right to express his opinions. Every other reasonable person however would challenge him, alert the attendants and cheer when he was kicked out of the club.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes.
For example, if a blind man held a gun to what he thought was someone with wads of cash but it turned out to be a tree, would you condemn him as a proud inner party member for his crime, because he thought that he was robbing someone? would you?
I must also point out that attempted robbery and attempted murder are recognised crimes.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThankyou Nurse Ratched,
Yes indeed, 'the idea that Dasa would ever carry out his plans of evil are ludicrous.' So ludicrous in fact that you are the only person who has suggested it. 🙄
Imagine a club tennis match which everyone is enjoying and watching respectfully, when some chump stands up and starts shouting obscenities and vile comments. Now you. Robbie Carrobie, m ...[text shortened]... however would challenge him, alert the attendants and cheer when he was kicked out of the club.
Let me point out the flaws of your absurd analogy. Firstly in such a situation the spectators do not have any choice but to remove the man, for he created a disturbance. This is not the case in this forum because no one is under any duress to read anyone else's texts and can simply choose to ignore them.
Secondly expressing ones thoughts through the medium of text is not the same as shouting them out audibly to an audience engaged in watching something entirely unrelated. This forum exists for the purpose of the expression of thought, a tennis match does not. A much better scenario would be is said miscreant started to text his obscenities to those watching the tennis mass on his smart phone.
You have condemned a man merely for thinking, 'stuff'. I want you to consider the implications of that, deeply.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere was no victim and there was no crime committed. There is no such thing as attempting to rob a tree. You would convict a man merely for thinking. You are truly the thought police.
Yes.
I must also point out that attempted robbery and attempted murder are recognised crimes.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere doesn't have to be a victim for me to condemn someones behaviour. If their intent was to cause harm, I will condemn them. And as I pointed out, in some cases it is a crime to attempt to cause harm even when there is no victim.
There was no victim and there was no crime committed.
There is no such thing as attempting to rob a tree.
I never suggested there was, nor am I sure that the person in question had committed a crime.
You would convict a man merely for thinking.
I didn't say that, did I? I said I would condemn. There is a difference in spelling in case you hadn't noticed. I see you keep confusing the two. But yes, I would, if I were a prosecutor. Of course, as I clearly pointed out in another thread on this exact subject, it does matter which thoughts. Don't suddenly falsely accuse me of wanting to convict everyone for every possible thought they may have.
You are truly the thought police.
Yes. Do you have a problem with it? You are too, you just don't want your own thoughts policed, but you sure do police the thoughts of others. Much as you pretend that you only police their actions, that is blatantly untrue. If the same blind man had held a gun pointed at a bank teller thinking it was his purse, would you convict him of bank robbery?
Actions reflect thoughts just as words and forum posts reflect thoughts. Every criminal justice system in the world looks at intent when dealing with a crime. There is a reason insanity is a valid defence in most criminal justice systems, and a reason for the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder.