-Removed-You still here, i thought you were bored? I am not a Dasa apologist I am an advocate of free speech but because you have difficulty reasoning objectively you cannot assimilate the idea that is why you time and again attempt to make debate personal. I stated at the outset that the issue was not me, or Dasa nor even the content of what Dasa said, the issue was condemning someone for expressing thought.
This is the second time that you have attempted to construct a strawman argument and rather tediously the second time that I have had to point out that Dasa said and thought the things that he posted. Why you are having trouble again assimilating this I have really no idea, its as if you cannot think rationally at all and make up irrational arguments that seem as if you have NO idea what you are talking about. You appear as a kind of blubbering wreck, someone thats dazed and confused and doesn't know how he got here or how he is going to get home.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe are talking about thought, condemning someone merely for thinking and expressing that thought. In your world view if someone thought about hiring a Lear jet, flying to Columbia, buying ten Kg's of cocaine and smuggling it into the UK by bribing border control they should be condemned. You are prepared to condemn someone simply for musing, for daydreaming, for fantasising, for imaging, for wondering, for dreaming! and you ask me if I have a problem with that? Yes I have a problem with that.
There 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.
[b]There is no such thing as attempting to rob a tree.
I never suggested there was, nor am I sure that the person in ...[text shortened]... l justice systems, and a reason for the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder.[/b]
You are our first self confessed thought policeman. Is it like a control thing? Are you a control freak? perhaps I can help you loosen up and not be such a stiff?
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, I know.
We are talking about thought, condemning someone merely for thinking and expressing that thought.
In your world view if someone thought about hiring a Lear jet, flying to Columbia, buying ten Kg's of cocaine and smuggling it into the UK by bribing border control they should be condemned.
What makes you think that?
I said very very clearly so that there would be no confusion in the matter, that I would not condemn nor convict for any random thought that you can think up. Did you not read my post?
In my world view, if it were possible to reliably read thoughts, and someone were to genuinely plan to smuggle cocaine as you say, then yes, I would not only condemn them but would argue that they should be arrested and charged as if they had actually done it.
Do you have a problem with this, or any rational argument against it?
You are prepared to condemn someone simply for musing, for daydreaming, for fantasising, for imaging, for wondering, for dreaming!
No, I am not. I never said not implied anything of the sort and in fact I quite specifically said that I would not condemn someone for any thought whatsoever.
and you ask me if I have a problem with that? Yes I have a problem with that.
No, I did not ask you if you have a problem with that. I asked if you have a problem with what I actually said, not what you made up me saying. What you thought I thought. What you policed me supposedly thinking. You have a problem with what you imagine me thinking. You are the thought police. And not very good at it. You tried to convict me for something I didn't even think.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere are a small selection of recent threads Dasa started, along with their titles, bits in square brackets are my addition to explain context:
I don't know because it appeared to me that there was an element of goading which may have some bearing on whether it was 'fair'.
Threads about Islam:
Thread 168243 270 million murdered [allegedly by Muslims]
Thread 168157 Cologne attacks
Thread 168069 Lovers of terrorism [anyone not supporting Dasa's call to genocide is a "lover of terrorists"]
Thread 168038 filthy-and-vile-islam [Note that the OP was removed by the moderators]
Thread 167911 those-vile-muslim-scum. [Another thread where the OP was removed]
Thread 165786 muslim-murdered-by-hindus-for-allegedly-eating-beef-in-india [Thread started by Duchess64, Dasa defends the attackers on the first page]
Dasa on other subjects:
Thread 168100 We're not created equal [defence of inequality based on ideas surrounding reincarnation - although by Dasa's standards it's reasonable]
Thread 168070 Freedom of Speech Crap [Dasa disagrees with freedom of speech]
I could dig back further but these recent ones are enough to be going on with. Just after a terrorist outrage I can understand some intemperate posts, but this is systematic. I really think that Dasa had overstepped the mark by a barn mile.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAs luck would have it, Robbie didn't read any of that so couldn't possibly condemn it or take a stance against it. At the time he was in the kitchen making a cup of tea; was in the garden deadheading roses, was in the garage polishing his girly pink bicycle, up a tree chasing a squirrel, at the hospital having his spine surgically removed.
Here are a small selection of recent threads Dasa started, along with their titles, bits in square brackets are my addition to explain context:
Threads about Islam:
Thread 168243 270 million murdered [allegedly by Muslims]
Thread 168157 Cologne attacks
Thread 168069 Lovers of terrorism [anyone not support ...[text shortened]... osts, but this is systematic. I really think that Dasa had overstepped the mark by a barn mile.