Dasa and the thought police

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If for example Dasa had stated that he had a Death star hidden far out in the galaxy and planned to disintegrate all Muslims with his death-ray then we are free to dismiss the chances of overt action as being extremely unlikely and his threats as pure fantasy.

Why attempt to make a joke of it with a comment about "his death-ray"? Why not use examples of the kind of genocidal acts ~ things that already have precedent in human history ~ which he explicitly called for and proposed many hundreds of times?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thoughts and the expression of thoughts are fine, however if those thoughts express an intent to commit violence or incite others to commit violence then they are in danger of going beyond the realm of mere thought and manifest themselves in overt action. However even here there is cause for consideration for one must consider the likelihood of these thoughts actually being carried out.

Let me repeat this question - which you ignored - from page 8. I've added a 4th option.

If a headmaster was chairing a meeting of his school's parent teacher association and

[1] he fantasized about having sex with all the mothers at the meeting but kept this thought to himself

[2] he said to the assembled meeting that he wished he could have sex with the mothers at the meeting

[3] he showed a power point slide to the meeting with the text: "I wish I could have sex with all the mothers attending this meeting" but said nothing out loud

[4] he posted a message on his school PTA's web site message board saying ""I wish I could have sex with the mothers of the children at our school but I won't."

...in your view, should any of these, [1], [2], [3] or [4], result in any condemnation and/or punishment of [or restrictions placed upon] the headmaster?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thus even if advocating violence against others one distinguishes between the validity of the claim and the likely hood of it being carried out by overt action.

On page 3, finnegan put it to you that "Hate speech is a behaviour that has demonstrable social consequences". You deflected and therefore sidestepped the issue. Would you care to comment on it now?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because my Celtic cousin Dasa is simply a convenient effigy if you like for the real issue at hand, that being the act of condemnation levelled against others for thinking and expressing, thoughts. Yes they were abusive. Yes they were intolerant· Yes they sought to vilify others and yes they were the projection of a mind that was filled with prejud ...[text shortened]... eedom of thought and expression and the Orwellian vision is now truly upon us like never before.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/celtic_trivia.shtml

The ancient Celts were a branch of the Indo-Europeans, an ethnico-linguistic group that also included Germanic, Slavic, Greek and Indo-Iranian people. From their homeland in the Pontic-Caspian Steppes, the Proto-Indo-Europeans went to conquer most of Europe, Central Asia and South Asia from 4000 BCE onwards thanks to the advent of the Bronze Age in the North Caucasus. => See the History of the Indo-Europeans for more details.
Proto-Celtic people arrived from the Balkans to Central Europe around 2500 BCE. Equipped with horses and superior bronze weapons, the Celts quickly conquered Western Europe, from Iberia to the British Isles.

You need to recognise that while Celts may be considered a sub-group or a branch or descendents of Indo-Europeans, as described here, it does not follow that all Indo-Europeans are Celts. In my reading, the Celts have not been located much further East than the Balkans. So Dasa may be your cousin but hardly your Celtic cousin, if it is the case that he is from India. However, since there have been so many generations since, say, 2500 BCE, it is pretty likely that you do both share common ancestors and can describe yourselves as cousins in that sense; as can every human. What you can't really justify is the label "Celtic cousin". Also part of the Indo-European peoples were the Germans, of whom some members of a sub-group, the Anglo Saxons, went on to become the English. So would you describe David Cameron or George Osbourne as your Celtic cousin, using the same criteria?

Originally posted by finnegan
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/celtic_trivia.shtml
[quote]The ancient Celts were a branch of the Indo-Europeans, an ethnico-linguistic group that also included Germanic, Slavic, Greek and Indo-Iranian people. From their homeland in the Pontic-Caspian Steppes, the Proto-Indo-Europeans went to conquer most of Europe, Central Asia and South Asia from 4000 BCE ...[text shortened]... d you describe David Cameron or George Osbourne as your Celtic cousin, using the same criteria?

Ummm actually the term Celtic cousin was a reference to you being Irish not dasa because he is Australian and considering that I live in the West of Scotland and my grandparents were Irish I think its rather fitting. How you could have failed to understand that I was addressing anyone but you with the appellation begs belief, still, we are human and prone to aberration.

Originally posted by FMF
On page 3, finnegan put it to you that "Hate speech is a behaviour that has demonstrable social consequences". You deflected and therefore sidestepped the issue. Would you care to comment on it now?

I refered specifically, also , to religious violence in India, which is described in a historical context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India

Given the horrifying scale and nature of such violence, I wonder why people would think it such a terrible idea to seek to restrict the expression of religious hatred in terms that advocate or condone violence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ummm actually the term Celtic cousin was a reference to you being Irish not dasa because he is Australian.

because my Celtic cousin Dasa

Interesting what a radical difference it would make to use punctuation correctly in such a phrase as this and yet how aggravated people become if anyone complains about the poor punctuation displayed on these forums.

Originally posted by finnegan
I refered specifically, also , to religious violence in India, which is described in a historical context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India

Given the horrifying scale and nature of such violence, I wonder why people would think it such a terrible idea to seek to restrict the expression of religious hatred in terms that advocate or condone violence.

Ummm it seems to me that you have a rather one dimensional approach based possibly on a proclivity for assumption. The idea of violence and how it relates to thought has already been addressed and as far as i can discern you have made NO attempt to differentiate between thought that incites others to overt acts of violence and violence that exists within the realm of pure fantasy. Why is that?

Originally posted by finnegan

because my Celtic cousin Dasa

Interesting what a radical difference it would make to use punctuation correctly in such a phrase as this and yet how aggravated people become if anyone complains about the poor punctuation displayed on these forums.

why dont you hire a knife wielding grammar prigg like Duchess64 to clean the place up. Also why would I be replying to Dasa, he is banned? to do so makes NO SENSE!

Originally posted by finnegan
I refered specifically, also , to religious violence in India, which is described in a historical context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India

Given the horrifying scale and nature of such violence, I wonder why people would think it such a terrible idea to seek to restrict the expression of religious hatred in terms that advocate or condone violence.

robbie has often extolled [on this forum] marriage in India as an example that the world beset by divorce and martial disharmony can look to. He persevered with this even in the face of the shocking data on domestic violence and marital rape and the social and economic barriers women seeking divorce face. He even found himself insisting that marital rape was "not logically possible" in his defence of his "moral stance" on marriage and his championing of Indian culture in that regard.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont you hire a knife wielding grammar prigg like Duchess64 to clean the place up. Also why would I be replying to Dasa, he is banned? to do so makes NO SENSE!

I notice you didn't respond to DeepThought's post on page 8. Here it is again for your perusal. (It pretty much puts a nail in this whole thread).

'Yes. There are limits to free speech, "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.", really cannot apply to things like calls for genocide. Had he been arguing for a ban on immigration of Muslims then I'd disagree and it would be a fairly extreme position, but it wouldn't exceed the limits of free speech.

I disagree with your statement in reply to another poster that "no one would act on such a fantasy". There are two difficulties. The first is that while I agree that 99% or 99.9% of people would not, that one in a hundred or one in a thousand would. In the UK 0.1% of the population is 60,000 people. The second problem is that if such calls are tolerated they become normalized so that a call for genocide becomes an extreme, but normal position. This makes an actual genocide attempt far more likely. It has happened before.

Further he'd clearly and repeatedly violated the Terms of Service which are pretty clear on this type of behaviour, it contains the words: "Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;"

His call for the annihilation of all Muslims was probably illegal and certainly hateful. He'd broken the implicit agreement we all make with the site not to break the rules, so the moderators were entitled to act. There are limits to free speech and calls for genocide clearly overstep that mark.'

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I notice you didn't respond to DeepThought's post on page 8. Here it is again for your perusal. (It pretty much puts a nail in this whole thread).

'Yes. There are limits to free speech, "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.", really cannot apply to things like calls for genocide. Had he been argu ...[text shortened]... tled to act. There are limits to free speech and calls for genocide clearly overstep that mark.'

No one is saying that he has not broken the site terms of service, lets be clear.

Unless you can adequately and satisfactorily explain to the forum just how Dasa was going to carry out his mass murder then we are free to dismiss the claims that they would result in overt action as absurd and as likely to result in the death of anyone as if he proclaimed that he was building a Death Star and would eliminate Muslims by means of it!

You seem to be fond of these rather trite sayings, 'puts a nail in this whole thread', when infact it does nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one is saying that he has not broken the sites terms of service, lets be clear.

Unless you can adequately and satisfactorily explain to the forum just how Dasa was going to carry out his mass murder then we are free to dismiss the claims that they would result in overt action as absurd and as likely to result in the death of anyone as if he proclaimed that he was building a Death Star and would eliminate Muslims by means of it!

Of course we all realise that in this thread you are just being the forum's raggedy jester, being a devil's advocate in order to attract some attention to yourself. You don't really believe any of the things you are saying anymore than FreakyKBH really believes the earth is flat.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one is saying that he has not broken the sites terms of service, lets be clear.

Unless you can adequately and satisfactorily explain to the forum just how Dasa was going to carry out his mass murder then we are free to dismiss the claims that they would result in overt action as absurd and as likely to result in the death of anyone as if he p ...[text shortened]... ther trite sayings, 'puts a nail in this whole thread', when infact it does nothing of the sort.

Do you agree that hate speech is a behaviour that has demonstrable social consequences?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You seem to be fond of these rather trite sayings, 'puts a nail in this whole thread', when infact it does nothing of the sort.

What put the "nail in this thread" was your OP; your subsequent silliness simply increased the rate of deflation (to maintain the metaphor).