|
lol Stre, you twist and turn like a snake xD
I wasn't hypothesising someone to murder you, in the example you responded to before do you think the person who had contemplated sex with children wanted to rape you? You apply it to yourself in the latter to justify giving the same response.
And your willing to presume that someone who contemplated murder has personal and understandable reasons for doing so, again to avoid dealing with the double standard that we are trying to highlight as being flawed.
|
On November 12 2010 06:16 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:11 Nightfall.589 wrote:
So, do you think that someone should go on the sex offender registry for pedophilic thoughtcrime? Sigh, it's not about thoughtcrime, it's about giving parents a more educated choice as to whom should be around their children. Example, a parent wants to send his kid to a daynursery. Example (a) has a pedophile working there, example (b) does not. Which does the parent choose? Would you blame the parent for preferring choice "a"?
Convicted pedophiles are not being discussed. You are either being purposely difficult and should be banned for trolling or are just an idiot.
|
On November 12 2010 06:19 Xanbatou wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 05:51 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote:
Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.
When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.
Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.
Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.
And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.
For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?
To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals? What about fiction books of a similar nature? What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder? What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre? None of those are instructon manuals. Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say.
Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide.
There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication.
|
On November 12 2010 06:21 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:17 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:12 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:04 XeliN wrote:
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts. They are different yes. If you wish to murder someone then, presumably, you have personal, perhaps even understandable reasons for this. The same does not apply to rape, hence it is a sick thought. "But, officer, she was asking for it. I couldn't help it." There you go. A personal, "understandable" reason. I guess I shouldn't be surprised if you think that is understandable... but I was more thinking of: a: randomly killing a person on the street b: killing someone who killed your whole family One of the two makes you a threat to others, while the other doesn't.
So people who ever think A) in their own minds ought to not be allowed round other people?
+ Show Spoiler + I have thought A) before 
|
On November 12 2010 06:24 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:21 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:17 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:12 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:04 XeliN wrote:
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts. They are different yes. If you wish to murder someone then, presumably, you have personal, perhaps even understandable reasons for this. The same does not apply to rape, hence it is a sick thought. "But, officer, she was asking for it. I couldn't help it." There you go. A personal, "understandable" reason. I guess I shouldn't be surprised if you think that is understandable... but I was more thinking of: a: randomly killing a person on the street b: killing someone who killed your whole family One of the two makes you a threat to others, while the other doesn't. So people who ever think A) in their own minds ought to not be allowed round other people? + Show Spoiler + I have thought A) before
Likewise, people listening to Run For Your Life, Little Girl should not be allowed to have relationships.
+ Show Spoiler +That came up in my playlist half an hour ago
|
On November 12 2010 06:12 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:04 XeliN wrote:
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts. They are different yes. If you wish to murder someone then, presumably, you have personal, perhaps even understandable reasons for this. The same does not apply to rape, hence it is a sick thought. Show nested quote +Would you also never want to be alone with someone who has contemplated murder in their own mind and think that such a person should never be around others? Someone who contemplated to murder me? No, of course i wouldn't want to be around such a person. Someone who contemplated to murder another specific person, for specific reasons? That would depend on the reasons and such. Of course this would all apply only if I knew about the persons thoughts, I hope that was obvious enough.
Pedophilia is a naturally occurring disorder. You cannot control whether or not you are attracted to children. Murder is chosen action.
As long as we continue to demonize thoughts of pedophilia and not the act of child sexual abuse, pedophiles will be afraid to be open about their disorder and receive proper help/treatment. They will continue to try to act out on their behaviour, harming more children in the process.
I'm doubtful that society will ever get to a place of this kind of understanding. This saddens me, as a non-acting pedophile has a very very difficult and lonely life, and the children who are victims of acting pedophiles will have severe psychological trials to overcome.
|
On November 12 2010 06:24 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:21 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:17 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:12 stre1 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:04 XeliN wrote:
Stre, you havent actually addressed his question at all, he is asking what is the difference between someone who has violent thoughts of murdering someone at times, but they are merely thoughts, and someone who has urges of sex with children sometimes, but again merely thoughts. They are different yes. If you wish to murder someone then, presumably, you have personal, perhaps even understandable reasons for this. The same does not apply to rape, hence it is a sick thought. "But, officer, she was asking for it. I couldn't help it." There you go. A personal, "understandable" reason. I guess I shouldn't be surprised if you think that is understandable... but I was more thinking of: a: randomly killing a person on the street b: killing someone who killed your whole family One of the two makes you a threat to others, while the other doesn't. So people who ever think A) in their own minds ought to not be allowed round other people?
Depends entirely on what kind of society you want I suppose, one where random killings occur, or one where they do not. if you don't want that kind of society you look at what options there are. I already stated numerous times that the best, possibly only option, is if people simply make sure they don't do it.
|
I want to live in a society where thoughts are not considered actions. Where the punishment of thought is considered abhorrent or laughable and where people are able to seperate feelings, urges, thoughts, ideas and beliefs from actions against others.
|
On November 12 2010 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:19 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 05:51 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote:
Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.
When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.
Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.
Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.
And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.
For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?
To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals? What about fiction books of a similar nature? What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder? What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre? None of those are instructon manuals. Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say. Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide. There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication.
So the difference is that one is suggesting that you should murder your neighbour and the other is merely outlining what you should do, should you want to murder your neighbour?
|
On November 12 2010 06:32 Xanbatou wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:19 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 05:51 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote:
Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.
When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.
Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.
Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.
And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.
For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?
To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals? What about fiction books of a similar nature? What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder? What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre? None of those are instructon manuals. Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say. Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide. There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication. So the difference is that one is suggesting that you should murder your neighbour and the other is merely outlining what you should do, should you want to murder your neighbour?
Indeed. One of them incites a crime. The purpose for its existance, is to get its reader to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I'd be an accessory - I incited him - just like if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I'd be an accessory. If I were a chemistry professor, and I told my students that they should go out and build bombs, I'm pretty sure that I could be convicted for it.
The other is an informational. The purpose of its existance, is to inform its reader how to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I wouldn't be an accessory - I didn't incite him - I gave him knowledge, and he chose to apply it. If I were a chemistry professor, I wouldn't be an accessory to a bombing, if one of my students decides to apply some of what he learned. Or, if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen how to best commit murder... And he then went on to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I never gave the order. I wouldn't be an accessory.
|
On November 12 2010 06:29 XeliN wrote:
I want to live in a society where thoughts are not considered actions. Where the punishment of thought is considered abhorrent or laughable and where people are able to seperate feelings, urges, thoughts, ideas and beliefs from actions against others.
Ah, so I assume then that you would have no problems if you kid was in contact with a pedophile then? After all he might not abuse the kid, right. I'm sorry but I think you'll find that this is a risk most parent will not take. If a few "non-active pedophiles" get their feelings hurt because of it than that's ok in comparison.
|
The book is fine as long as it has the line: "Purpose of this book is for educational purposes and in no way endorse pedophile activities"
|
On November 12 2010 06:41 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:29 XeliN wrote:
I want to live in a society where thoughts are not considered actions. Where the punishment of thought is considered abhorrent or laughable and where people are able to seperate feelings, urges, thoughts, ideas and beliefs from actions against others. Ah, so I assume then that you would have no problems if you kid was in contact with a pedophile then? After all he might not abuse the kid, right.
At last, it comes down to this. Think of the children!
I'd have as many problems with having my kid be in contact with someone who had pedophilic thoughts, but didn't act on them as I would with someone who had homicidal thoughts, but didn't act on them. Or someone who had rape fantasies. And didn't act on them.
Fortunately, we can't jail people before they commit a crime. Unfortunately, this carries with it the risk that some crime will indeed happen. And there is nothing we can do to prevent it.
|
On November 12 2010 06:38 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:32 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:19 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 05:51 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote:
Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.
When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.
Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.
Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.
And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.
For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?
To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals? What about fiction books of a similar nature? What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder? What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre? None of those are instructon manuals. Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say. Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide. There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication. So the difference is that one is suggesting that you should murder your neighbour and the other is merely outlining what you should do, should you want to murder your neighbour? Indeed. One of them incites a crime. The purpose for its existance, is to get its reader to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I'd be an accessory - I incited him - just like if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I'd be an accessory. If I were a chemistry professor, and I told my students that they should go out and build bombs, I'm pretty sure that I could be convicted for it. The other is an informational. The purpose of its existance, is to inform its reader how to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I wouldn't be an accessory - I didn't incite him - I gave him knowledge, and he chose to apply it. If I were a chemistry professor, I wouldn't be an accessory to a bombing, if one of my students decides to apply some of what he learned. Or, if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen how to best commit murder... And he then went on to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I never gave the order. I wouldn't be an accessory.
Can providing knowledge on how to commit a crime make you an accessory?
|
On November 12 2010 06:41 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:29 XeliN wrote:
I want to live in a society where thoughts are not considered actions. Where the punishment of thought is considered abhorrent or laughable and where people are able to seperate feelings, urges, thoughts, ideas and beliefs from actions against others. Ah, so I assume then that you would have no problems if you kid was in contact with a pedophile then? After all he might not abuse the kid, right. I'm sorry but I think you'll find that this is a risk most parent will not take. If a few "non-active pedophiles" get their feelings hurt because of it than that's ok in comparison.
Yes, this is exactly what we were discussing, that serves as a great argument for punishing or restricting the thoughts of others.
|
" Looking for something?
We're sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site"
sup ??
|
On November 12 2010 06:44 Xanbatou wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:38 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:32 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:19 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 05:51 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote:
Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.
When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.
Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.
Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.
And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.
For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?
To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals? What about fiction books of a similar nature? What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder? What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre? None of those are instructon manuals. Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say. Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide. There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication. So the difference is that one is suggesting that you should murder your neighbour and the other is merely outlining what you should do, should you want to murder your neighbour? Indeed. One of them incites a crime. The purpose for its existance, is to get its reader to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I'd be an accessory - I incited him - just like if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I'd be an accessory. If I were a chemistry professor, and I told my students that they should go out and build bombs, I'm pretty sure that I could be convicted for it. The other is an informational. The purpose of its existance, is to inform its reader how to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I wouldn't be an accessory - I didn't incite him - I gave him knowledge, and he chose to apply it. If I were a chemistry professor, I wouldn't be an accessory to a bombing, if one of my students decides to apply some of what he learned. Or, if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen how to best commit murder... And he then went on to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I never gave the order. I wouldn't be an accessory. Can providing knowledge on how to commit a crime make you an accessory?
If I'm a chem prof, and my student asks me how to make a bomb that he intends to use illegally, sure I'd be an accessory.
On the other hand, if he pays attention in class, and takes home the relevant knowledge, builds a bomb, blows up a federal building, no, I wouldn't be.
A gun store is not responsible for someone buying a gun, and shooting his neighbour. A gun store is responsible for selling "Machine Gun" Tommy a gun, when he tells them that he needs it to whack "Three Fingers" Jojo. Information is the same.
|
On November 12 2010 06:43 Nightfall.589 wrote:
Fortunately, we can't jail people before they commit a crime. Unfortunately, this carries with it the risk that some crime will indeed happen. And there is nothing we can do to prevent it.
Of course we can take action to prevent it [a register would give people that choice] ever heard of security cameras, patrolling police men, etc. If you compare modern society to the way people lived to begin with I think you'll see that we have given up much in terms of freedom - for security.
It's troubling to hear that you accept crime, especially such horrific ones as this, as a natural part of society which you can do nothing about.
|
On November 12 2010 06:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:44 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 06:38 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:32 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 06:23 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 06:19 Xanbatou wrote:On November 12 2010 05:51 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 12 2010 05:44 Xanbatou wrote:
Bah, I leave for 10 minutes and my point is completely misconstrued.
When I said "possible crimes" I was only referring to the specific instance of an instructive guide of any sort. The difference is that with an instructive guide there is intent.
Steven Spielberg should not go to jail for Jaws because he wasn't instructing anyone on anything.
Avatar was not instructing anyone to join the taliban.
And I DEFINITELY wasn't saying to restrict any freedom of speech that could cause possible crimes.
For that matter, if you tell someone in person that the best time to break into a certain bank and how to crack a bank safe and you know that the person wants to break into a bank and that person breaks in, does that not make you an accessory?
To take it further, what if you distribute flyers to people that say that in a few days you are going to reveal the best ways to break into a bank. What happens then? Should you be detained before the event to prevent anything from happening? Or should you only be detained if someone actually uses your advice to break into a bank?
Are Doom, Modern Warfare, Manhunt murder instruction manuals? What about fiction books of a similar nature? What if I write a work of fiction that goes into excruciating detail about how the protagonist gets away with murder? What if someone goes ahead and uses it as inspiration for their own crime. Am I an accessory to murder? Is ID Software an accessory to the Columbine Massacre? None of those are instructon manuals. Instruction implies excruciating detail, so the only one that fits that criteria is the work of fiction. However, it is also a work of fiction, so it's not clearly an instruction manual. It's a definite grey area, however, I don't think something like that should be banned. If that was the case though, it would be very easy to get around any laws about books that instruct on how to commit crimes just by adding in a plot, so it's hard to say. Which is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. There is no particular distinction between a book about Bob Joe plotting to murder his neighbour, that goes over each step of the crime, and a "How to murder your neighbour" instruction guide. There is however, a very noteworthy distinction between the above, and a "You should murder your neighbour, and this is how to do it" publication. So the difference is that one is suggesting that you should murder your neighbour and the other is merely outlining what you should do, should you want to murder your neighbour? Indeed. One of them incites a crime. The purpose for its existance, is to get its reader to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I'd be an accessory - I incited him - just like if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I'd be an accessory. If I were a chemistry professor, and I told my students that they should go out and build bombs, I'm pretty sure that I could be convicted for it. The other is an informational. The purpose of its existance, is to inform its reader how to commit a crime. If I were to write that book, and a reader did the crime, I wouldn't be an accessory - I didn't incite him - I gave him knowledge, and he chose to apply it. If I were a chemistry professor, I wouldn't be an accessory to a bombing, if one of my students decides to apply some of what he learned. Or, if I were a mob boss, and I told one of my henchmen how to best commit murder... And he then went on to whack Three-Fingered Jojo, I never gave the order. I wouldn't be an accessory. Can providing knowledge on how to commit a crime make you an accessory? If I'm a chem prof, and my student asks me how to make a bomb that he intends to use illegally, sure I'd be an accessory. On the other hand, if he pays attention in class, and takes home the relevant knowledge, builds a bomb, blows up a federal building, no, I wouldn't be. A gun store is not responsible for someone buying a gun, and shooting his neighbour. A gun store is responsible for selling someone a gun, who tells them that he's going to shoot his neighbour with it.
Well obviously providing general knowledge would not get you nailed as an accessory. However, what if the chemistry professor taught a class specifically about making bombs, where to place them to cause the most damage, and how to cover your tracks so that you would not get caught by the authorities for placing it? All without ever explicitly telling them to go do it, but giving them the know how to not only do it if they wanted to, but also avoid the law.
I think specifically teaching things like where to place a bomb to cause the most damage and how to evade the law is stuff that should get you in trouble for sure. Why? Because people that aren't going to commit a crime won't need to know that (for example they could have a perfectly legitimate reason for needed to know how to build a bomb), but people that are going to commit a crime WILL need to know that. So you ARE essentially aiding and abetting a criminal to help him avoid being caught.
|
On November 12 2010 06:54 stre1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:43 Nightfall.589 wrote:
Fortunately, we can't jail people before they commit a crime. Unfortunately, this carries with it the risk that some crime will indeed happen. And there is nothing we can do to prevent it.
Of course we can take action to prevent it [a register would give people that choice] ever heard of security cameras, patrolling police men, etc. If you compare modern society to the way people lived to begin with I think you'll see that we have given up much in terms of freedom - for security.
The illusion of security. At best, cameras and police patrols help with prosecution. Unless, of course, you're going to install telescreens in every home.
It's troubling to hear that you accept crime, especially such horrific ones as this, as a natural part of society which you can do nothing about.
It's even more troubling to listen to an advocate for thoughtpolicing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
