Inevitably acrimonious racism discussion Page 7

Quote: Mike Greybloke @ July 25 2008, 12:50 PM BST

is there anything inherently wrong in racism if the racist remains silent about it?

View original

Thought crimes? Yes, some thoughts are criminal in their nature but I also think that the concept of a thought crime is actually as (or more) dangerous to society than the crime it's designed to prevent. It hands over too much power to authorities.

First, how could you prove the thought had taken place? Second, how could you prove the seriousness of the thought because sometimes a thought pops into your mind before the rational side of it can reject it. "Don't imagine a pink elephant" is a classic example of involuntary thoughts. Third, what about previous thoughts in the case of, for example, an ex-racist or someone who evaluated those thoughts and then rationally rejected them. Fourth, what danger or effect can a thought pose to society if it is never ever communicated or expressed to the outside world by action or speech?

The recent developments in mind-machine interfacing have been suggested as a potential way to find crims (especially terrorists) before the crime. Thought crimes are a dangerous idea, open to abuse, but we as a society will most likely get desensitised to the notion and eventually accept it at some future date.

There's a distinct pattern to serious violent offenders (rape, murder, maiming etc), that are not commited in emotive cricumstances.

Severe animal cruelty, weak father figure, literacy/continence started to late etc (there's about 12).

If you rounded up all such people, there'd be virtually no violent crime...

You can only judge people by their actions, but that must include unconcious actions.

Quote: sootyj @ July 25 2008, 1:22 PM BST

If you rounded up all such people, there'd be virtually no violent crime...

View original

There'd be virtually no people too.

And serious animal cruelty isn't indicative of potential criminality, it is criminality. And if you've ever slept with a bed-wetter, so is incontinence.

You'd lose about 10% of the population, it's a chance our society doesn't choose to make.

Being judged on your actions as opposed to one's thought I think is more sinister.

Had to do institutional racism training twice, it always infuriastes me.

I'm not racist, not in thought or action.

But because my organisation is racist in action, then I am considered raicst by association.

[quote name="SlagA" post="216249" date="July 25 2008, 1:30 PM BST"]There'd be virtually no people too.

And serious animal cruelty isn't indicative of potential criminality

It's the most consistent indicator for serious socio-pathic violence,

The RSPCA had a campaign for mandatory 6 months sentences for serious animal cruelty, just to be able to get to helping these people early.

Quote: swerytd @ July 25 2008, 1:06 PM BST

It wasn't meant to shut it down. It is a genuine point (though obviously uncomfortable, to me included) that I probably phrased in the wrong way, due to an inherent awkwardness!

Is it not better that a paedophile look at pictures than go out and rape a little kid? The press would have you believe that they're exactly the same, when they're clearly not. I'm not saying either is right, btw, just that the second type are surely far worse than the first.

chip probably has a point: the 'quiet' racist is better than the BNP fundamentalist!

(Sorry Griff for bringing the 'p' word up again)

Dan

View original

No Dan, it's not better - the pictures have to come from somewhere. If people think they can make money out of paedophilia, then abuse on kids will increase as an industry is made out of it.

With regards to thought crime, I have occasionally wanted to strangle someone, but haven't, so I'm not a murderer. It's the same with racism and p'philia I guess - you're only one if you act on it, you're not one if you know better.

Quote: Griff @ July 25 2008, 1:13 PM BST

The way this thread's going I might as well have him flicking through a copy of Horny Asian Toddlers.

View original

You're basing your character on Aaron?

Quote: sootyj @ July 25 2008, 1:35 PM BST

You'd lose about 10% of the population, it's a chance our society doesn't choose to make.

View original

Yikes! I can imagine thousands of people sitting in bed-wetter death row, then they'd really have something to pee the bed over.

The idea of imprisoning 5 million Brits because they were born with inattentive fathers, had inattentive bladders, and weren't interested in reading? I'd volunteer to go to prison just to escape a society like that.

In fairness, I did say animal abuse doesn't 'indicate' potential criminality - it is criminal. So to use it as an indicator of being a potential criminal is not fair because commiting it would have already made you a criminal.

A guy who kicks a kitten to death, is likely to kick his wife to death 10 years later.

That is a statistical fact. What our society chooses to do with it is the question.

An innability to empathise, is the first step to sociopathological behaviour.

Well we do already.

Go to your Somerfield and start shouting irrationally for 5 minutes.

Then when the police come to collect you tell them you hear voices, giving you the cricket scores.

Voila one section that may last from 2 months, to life. Depending on your willingness to repeat that you hear voices, but won't take your pills.

We lock people up for being "ill" all the time. Many of whom are no real threat to anyone.

Well I think the idea we should lock up criminals, or the ill is a waste of time.

One already has committed a crime, the other might or might not.

We should lock up people who are likely to commit crimes.

Protecting the common good, whilst enabling the potential criminal to attone for the crime, with out the guilt of having commited it in the first place.

Probably every one will be locked up for some period of time, but is that such a bad thing?

Just a different view.

Imprisoning prisoners, and making it hard for them to reintegrate when they leave prison. Is a shocking example of prejudice.

If one looks at the ethnic/social profile of msot prisoners it's also racist, sexist, ablsit, and classist.

A fair society would lock every one up equally on a basis of if they needed to be incarcerated.

Not merely if they commited a crime.

Send them all to Australia, it worked last time.

I'm confused. Is a racist paedophile, who won't go anywhere near non-white children, better than an equal opps paedophile?

On the one hand ... but on the other hand...

See who writes the laws, it's merely another system for social control.

One would think something closer to the peoples courts of Maosit China.

Of course the trick would be avoiding whole sale slaughter, and chaos.

Maybe the anarch0-synidcalist model of multiple individual communtiies?

Me persoanlly I distrust any system of law, or gouvernemnt that is in the main accepted.

They are by far the msot dangerous.

Sooty I'm beginning to suspect your avatar is a real picture.

I'm not yet persuaded by your view. I can't see the fairness in the idea of locking up people who might possibly commit a future crime but then refusing to lock up people who have committed crimes. In that world, commiting a crime carries less weight and punishment than the potential to commit the crime. Surely the incentive is then to break the law rather than have the potential to break the law (which would surely include the whole of the non-criminal populace? because everyone has the potential to break the law).

I take your point that people who mistreat animals tend to mistreat people too. But when they mistreat animals they are already criminals. So isn't that like using pickpocketing as a sign of potential thievery?