01 May 16
Originally posted by Rank outsiderNo but then again I don't expect that if you say that you loath and hate me and I make you vomit and my wife is fat and ugly that you should be subject to recrimination.
You 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.
01 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterLets try again, do you think that you can be condemned for thinking, 'stuff'. Its rather interesting that when your moral sensibilities are incensed you lose all ability to think rationally.
You just don't get it do you. He publicly spread religious hatred and incitement to kill, even genocide. Your mind is trapped in the paradigm created by your religious overlords, which is why you readily accept their dangerous teachings and write OPs like this one.
01 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEvery one of my posts in this thread is completely thought through and rational; you just don't like the rational being offered.
Lets try again, do you think that you can be condemned for thinking, 'stuff'. Its rather interesting that when your moral sensibilities are incensed you lose all ability to think rationally.
Dasa was not condemned for what he thought, he was condemned for what he posted, as has been pointed out to you on several occasions.
If you wanted to offer a hypothetical discussion on "thought crimes" then why do you use dasa as an example?
01 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow does this square with these words - which expressed your opinion - in the thread's OP?
It appears to me that speech is merely the vocalisation of thought and even if it can be argued that it in itself constitutes an act, the mere 'act of speaking' is not in itself a sufficient reason for banning it.
"For 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'."
01 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesteryou dont think that his posts were merely the vocalisation of his thoughts? that somehow his texts were abstract from his thoughts? what has led you to this conclusion?
Every one of my posts in this thread is completely thought through and rational; you just don't like the rational being offered.
Dasa was not condemned for what he thought, he was condemned for what he posted.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would imagine that the sanctions against Dasa were imposed because of [1] the content of his posts (the content of his thoughts are not governed by the TOS), and [2] he was starting up to ten threads an hour all on the same subject. I presume he did not respond to fair warnings by the web site.
So he was condemned for his thought then despite what you have just said.
01 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you really think it is necessary to commit a crime in order to be banned from the site?!
Dasa has the right to express his thoughts, that they are hateful does not constitute a crime or a reason for banning him, he needs to engage in some overt action for it to constitute a crime. If you are unable or unwilling to refrain from further attempts to make the debate personal i shall ignore your texts completely. strike two.
Dasa indeed had a right to express his thoughts, but equally the Mods had a right to view his posts as extreme and not acceptable on this site. (They acted correctly).
All your comments in this thread are moot, as you have gone to great lengths to say you had no stance against what he wrote,.....and never read them anyway, which pretty much makes you the least qualified person on this site to make comment.
On a final note I would say that as much as Dasa had a 'right' to express his hatred, you had a 'responsibility' to challenge it.
01 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe wasn't even playing chess on this site.
I cannot say with any certainty what Dasa did other than he seemed to harbour extreme anti Islamic views, this is because I rarely read his text. I understand that some held that these views were disgusting and extreme. It really got me wondering though whether merely 'thinking' disturbing or offensive thoughts warranted a banning or even constitut ...[text shortened]... me kind of 'thought police' and reported him to the site administration for his 'thought crime'?
01 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you being deliberately dim because you know you have once again dug a pit and fallen into it yourself. He was condemned for what he posted, why are you pretending you don't understand that?
So he was condemned for his thought then despite what you have just said.
01 May 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWell 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?
Do you really think it is necessary to commit a crime in order to be banned from the site?!
Dasa indeed had a right to express his thoughts, but equally the Mods had a right to view his posts as extreme and not acceptable on this site. (They acted correctly).
All your comments in this thread are moot, as you have gone to great lengths to say y ...[text shortened]... as much as Dasa had a 'right' to express his hatred, you had a 'responsibility' to challenge it.
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, goading poor thinkers into betraying their thoughts so as to catch and condemn them?
The idea that Dasa would ever likely to be able to carry out his plans of evil are ludicrous and i truly look with incredulity at those who took his claims seriously. 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!
01 May 16
Originally posted by divegeesterumm I am sorry to have to point it out but you dont seem to understand anything you say, first you say that he is not condemned for his thoughts and then you say that he is, are you in your senses?
Are you being deliberately dim because you know you have once again dug a pit and fallen into it yourself. He was condemned for what he posted, why are you pretending you don't understand that?
01 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe was condemned for what he posted. As a dasa apologist, are you defending him by saying that what he posted was not an output of his thoughts?
umm I am sorry to have to point it out but you dont seem to understand anything you say, first you say that he is not condemned for his thoughts and then you say that he is, are you in your senses?