Originally posted by twhitehead
My 'why?' wasn't intended to apply to why you missed the thread, but why you are against thought crimes. I realise my post was a bit ambiguous.
PS: hope you get better if you haven't already.
Yeah, just a case of serious man flu π
I accept that in some cases why a person does an action has a baring on whether that action is
moral/legal or not.
If you accidentally trip and destroy a priceless vase then that's clumsy but not immoral or illegal.
If you deliberately destroy a priceless vase then that's immoral and illegal [if it's not yours].
However a thought crime is claiming it's illegal to simply think about destroying that vase.
Or [for example] to simply think that crashing a passenger plane into a skyscraper is a good idea.
Those are not nice things to think, but they only become crimes [or should only become crimes]
when they lead to some kind of action towards actioning those thoughts.
It's the actions [+ the thoughts] that make the crime and not the thoughts by themselves.
Now sometimes the action might be inciting others to do those actions but that is still an action
effecting other people, and not simply a thought.
And I view this as a position of principle beyond simply a case of practicality, as in I would hold this
position even if/when we develop the technology to be able to tell what people are thinking beyond
what is betrayed by their words and deeds.