What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
By the way, some of that is already illegal...
Police accuse two students, age 12, of cyberbullying in suicide
You can feel however you like about the federal government; you just can't wage war against it and kill people. If you disagree with a public official, vote them out or press for grassroots change directly.
We already have nonviolent alternatives to treason.
There's no way of knowing if a work of fiction "inspires" an act of violence. If somebody stages an assassination based on a James Bond movie or something, I don't think the filmmaker is responsible because there was no suggestion that the killing was a good idea--it merely depicted it.
A call to violence or advocacy of violence, however, is very different. And this document by Matt Shea is literally advocating mass murder:
That's what it says. This isn't a colorful interpretation; these are the actual words of Matt Shea, who is calling for mass murder unless a highly specific theocracy is implemented.
"If they do not yield - kill all males."
I don't think we should just shake it off and say "well, it's unlikely to happen because not many people support this." This is not normal, and this is not acceptable.
One of our own Congressional representatives supports mass violence, rebellion against our democratic government, and the establishment of a theocracy through force of arms. And no, that's not okay.
We'd better start tape recording every sermon and have the Thought Police start rounding people up then. We'll probably need a lot more prisons though. Well that'll be a lot of good construction jobs created anyway...
This guy is allowed to believe a literal interpretation of the Bible if he wants to. It's called freedom of religion. All of that stuff, barring the direct reference to communism, is in the Old Testament, right down to the troops following the Ark into battle. If morons want to vote for him that's their prerogative.
Also mentioned that is not biblical:
1. Scorched earth tactics and Sherman's March to the Sea. 2. Modern military ranks in the organizational structure. 3. Majority rule (and that god doesn't use majorities) 4. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and (a) plot to kill Hitler, which I have my doubts about his involvement reading up on it, he'd been arrested and imprisoned for more than a year before the plot he was said to be implicated in. 5. Guerilla warfare
"Don't give anything to the government" is proof it's not Old Testament.
We'll it's certainly not New Testament. Ok, you got me, how about 'Old Testament inspired' would that be a better way of stating it? The principles he's listing are Biblical is more my point here. It's still an outline, not a manifesto however. Even if he believes this it wouldn't disqualify him from office according to the Constitution.
There's no way of knowing if a work of fiction "inspires" an act of violence. If somebody stages an assassination based on a James Bond movie or something, I don't think the filmmaker is responsible because there was no suggestion that the killing was a good idea--it merely depicted it.
A call to violence or advocacy of violence, however, is very different. And this document by Matt Shea is literally advocating mass murder:
That's what it says. This isn't a colorful interpretation; these are the actual words of Matt Shea, who is calling for mass murder unless a highly specific theocracy is implemented.
"If they do not yield - kill all males."
I don't think we should just shake it off and say "well, it's unlikely to happen because not many people support this." This is not normal, and this is not acceptable.
One of our own Congressional representatives supports mass violence, rebellion against our democratic government, and the establishment of a theocracy through force of arms. And no, that's not okay.
Well, he's a STATE Congressman (of Washington state), not a U.S. Congressman.
And this is NOT an isolated incident. He advocated on Infowars 4 years ago that local police and government should not support the federal government. There have been more speeches in between now and then as well.
I don't think local police and government are required to 'support' the federal government. The Feds can take away money but they're not going to force them to do their bidding. That's why the Feds have their own police (FBI). Again, what's the big deal here? Are you saying that he's wrong and that local governments should be required to swear fealty to the Feds? Trump would love that!
The FBI has jurisdiction on federal crimes and when federalism becomes an issue (such as crossing state lines in the commission of a crime). They don't have blanket jurisdiction on any and every crime that happens in America. Running a stop sign isn't a federal crime, it's a common law offense handled at the local level.
There's a difference between "Not going to do your job for you (the sanctuary city argument re: illegal immigrants)" and "Not going to do ANYTHING you say, you do it all."
And yes, last I knew, EVERYONE in public service had to swear an oath to the Constutition (and thus federal government).
What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
I don't believe what you propose would work either. It woild be the start down the slope of thought control. We may have to agree to disagree on this. I enjoyed the debate though!
What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
I don't believe what you propose would work either. It woild be the start down the slope of thought control. We may have to agree to disagree on this. I enjoyed the debate though!
As did I. I just don't think holding people accountable for the effects of their words to be anywhere near "Thought Control". I am not saying anything about *thought*. You are free to think what you like, say what you like, listen to what you like and read what you like. But if your hateful words cause someone to die, or be hurt, then you should pay a penalty. Maybe the threat of a fine would make them think twice before spewing hate.
Is this also on the road to "Thought Control"?
Two middle school students, 12, charged with cyberstalking for 'harassing girl, 12, who told her mother she was getting bullied online just before she committed suicide'
What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
I don't believe what you propose would work either. It woild be the start down the slope of thought control. We may have to agree to disagree on this. I enjoyed the debate though!
As did I. I just don't think holding people accountable for the effects of their words to be anywhere near "Thought Control". I am not saying anything about *thought*. You are free to think what you like, say what you like, listen to what you like and read what you like. But if your hateful words cause someone to die, or be hurt, then you should pay a penalty. Maybe the threat of a fine would make them think twice before spewing hate.
Is this also on the road to "Thought Control"?
Two middle school students, 12, charged with cyberstalking for 'harassing girl, 12, who told her mother she was getting bullied online just before she committed suicide'
If this is okay, why is requiring a fine for words or rhetoric that lead to the synogogue shooting or the Pipe Bomber a bridge too far?
I think the basic thing I believe is that people are responsible for their own actions. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to these crackpots. If nobody listened to them they'd be powerless. In my opinion the answer is educating people, not fining or locking crackpots up for their idiotic ideas. My way would solve the problem. Your way drives the problem underground but doesn't solve it. My dilemma is that people also have to choose to educate themselves. Therefore, your idea works a little bit on the surface, whereas mine is probably a pipe-dream. C'est la vie...
Edit: I was one of those people bullied in high school so I know at least a little bit of what that girl went through. If I had chosen to kill myself, is it really the bullies who are to blame? Or is it the horrible self-esteem I had as a child? I think it's a bit of both maybe. My aura of vulnerability set myself up for the bullying, to end it I had to stand up for myself. I'm a better person for overcoming that, but I can empathise with the feeling of despair. Even as an adult now I feel like an outsider partly because of what happened all those years ago.
You know what's funny though? There were people I myself picked on in high school. I didn't go out of my way to pick on anybody mind you, but people who wanted to hang around me I gave the cold-shoulder to and sometimes I even made fun of them and joked about them with my friends. Imagine that, even the bullied still managed to be the bully. I think about that sometimes too. Middle school and High school sucked...
I still don't know where this conversation is going after 2 or 3 pages. Are there laws restricting speech to any degree that are unreasonable in the US that I am unaware of?? A bunch of white nationalists in Charlottesville were allowed to march down a street carrying lit torches shouting Nazi slogans and surround a church full of people and the cops didn't even seem to bat an eyelash until the next day when one of them plowed his car into a group of people. So I think we're fairly safe on the protection of unpopular opinions, even at the expense of people's lives.
I still don't know where this conversation is going after 2 or 3 pages. Are there laws restricting speech to any degree that are unreasonable in the US that I am unaware of?? A bunch of white nationalists in Charlottesville were allowed to march down a street carrying lit torches shouting Nazi slogans and surround a church full of people and the cops didn't even seem to bat an eyelash until the next day when one of them plowed his car into a group of people. So I think we're fairly safe on the protection of unpopular opinions, even at the expense of people's lives.
Just people shooting the shit @jjstraka34. Nothing to see here...
We'll it's certainly not New Testament. Ok, you got me, how about 'Old Testament inspired' would that be a better way of stating it? The principles he's listing are Biblical is more my point here. It's still an outline, not a manifesto however. Even if he believes this it wouldn't disqualify him from office according to the Constitution.
@Quickblade has already briefly mentioned it, but it's worth repeating. All state and national representatives and all government officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Calling for armed insurrection and changing the entire basis of government is about as far from keeping that oath as I could possibly imagine ...
What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
I don't believe what you propose would work either. It woild be the start down the slope of thought control. We may have to agree to disagree on this. I enjoyed the debate though!
As did I. I just don't think holding people accountable for the effects of their words to be anywhere near "Thought Control". I am not saying anything about *thought*. You are free to think what you like, say what you like, listen to what you like and read what you like. But if your hateful words cause someone to die, or be hurt, then you should pay a penalty. Maybe the threat of a fine would make them think twice before spewing hate.
Is this also on the road to "Thought Control"?
Two middle school students, 12, charged with cyberstalking for 'harassing girl, 12, who told her mother she was getting bullied online just before she committed suicide'
If this is okay, why is requiring a fine for words or rhetoric that lead to the synogogue shooting or the Pipe Bomber a bridge too far?
I think the basic thing I believe is that people are responsible for their own actions. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to these crackpots. If nobody listened to them they'd be powerless. In my opinion the answer is educating people, not fining or locking crackpots up for their idiotic ideas. My way would solve the problem. Your way drives the problem underground but doesn't solve it. My dilemma is that people also have to choose to educate themselves. Therefore, your idea works a little bit on the surface, whereas mine is probably a pipe-dream. C'est la vie...
Edit: I was one of those people bullied in high school so I know at least a little bit of what that girl went through. If I had chosen to kill myself, is it really the bullies who are to blame? Or is it the horrible self-esteem I had as a child? I think it's a bit of both maybe. My aura of vulnerability set myself up for the bullying, to end it I had to stand up for myself. I'm a better person for overcoming that, but I can empathise with the feeling of despair. Even as an adult now I feel like an outsider partly because of what happened all those years ago.
You know what's funny though? There were people I myself picked on in high school. I didn't go out of my way to pick on anybody mind you, but people who wanted to hang around me I gave the cold-shoulder to and sometimes I even made fun of them and joked about them with my friends. Imagine that, even the bullied still managed to be the bully. I think about that sometimes too. Middle school and High school sucked...
Underground, how? All my idea does is says that speech can also have consequences. Financial ones. And yes, it's also got some method of making people see and learn about the people they are hating on as well. I'm not talking about locking them up. They can still say what they want. If they think, "Gee, if someone takes my words and hurts and kills people, I could be fined," maybe they'd think more before doing so. I'm not controlling their thoughts. It's making them think before they speak- something we should all do.
I was bullied as well, Literally until I got to college. I would only take so much before I'd turn around and take it out physically on my bullies, which only made it worse. There were times I thought people would be happier if I wasn't there. But I tended to fight back. It didn't usually help.
When I was in high school, a girl grabbed my glasses right off my face and broke them in half right in front of me. I (literally) saw red, something I had always thought was hyperbole, and ended up breating the girl so badly, when I came back to myself, I was slamming her upper body into the floor, shouting, "You won't do that again, will you?" When what she'd done came out, her mother was forced to pay for my glasses to be replaced, and she screamed like someone was stealing her soul when she found out how much they cost. That's why I advocate for a financial penalty, rather than jail time or some other penalty. It's a way to hit someone where it really hurts- their pocketbook.
I went from bullied to protector. I'd take on the bullies who were bullying other kids. My childhood friend Mary Ellen was being bullied by a classmate of ours and his two years older brother. I took on the brother, and when I had him on the ground, I told him that if he didn't stop, I'd be back. He never bothered her again.
We'll it's certainly not New Testament. Ok, you got me, how about 'Old Testament inspired' would that be a better way of stating it? The principles he's listing are Biblical is more my point here. It's still an outline, not a manifesto however. Even if he believes this it wouldn't disqualify him from office according to the Constitution.
@Quickblade has already briefly mentioned it, but it's worth repeating. All state and national representatives and all government officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Calling for armed insurrection and changing the entire basis of government is about as far from keeping that oath as I could possibly imagine ...
I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
We'll it's certainly not New Testament. Ok, you got me, how about 'Old Testament inspired' would that be a better way of stating it? The principles he's listing are Biblical is more my point here. It's still an outline, not a manifesto however. Even if he believes this it wouldn't disqualify him from office according to the Constitution.
@Quickblade has already briefly mentioned it, but it's worth repeating. All state and national representatives and all government officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Calling for armed insurrection and changing the entire basis of government is about as far from keeping that oath as I could possibly imagine ...
Another thing that has already been mentioned (by @LadyRhian) is Trump's statement that throwing stones is equivalent to being shot at and border officials should respond with deadly force. That was almost immediately quoted by the Nigerian army as a reason for shooting Shia protestors. Would they have done it anyway - well, probably. However, if you believe in peaceful protest this is yet another worrying escalation of rhetoric.
To me it looks like Trump is deliberately trying to set up a totally unnecessary confrontation with asylum seekers. The smallest violence then shown by them will be met by overwhelming force portrayed as necessary to protect the US from the rapists and gang members besieging the border (ignoring the fact that many of them are women and children). Perhaps I wouldn't go quite as far as to say this is not the behavior I expect of a democracy, but it is absolutely not the behavior I would hope to see from a democracy.
What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
I don't believe what you propose would work either. It woild be the start down the slope of thought control. We may have to agree to disagree on this. I enjoyed the debate though!
As did I. I just don't think holding people accountable for the effects of their words to be anywhere near "Thought Control". I am not saying anything about *thought*. You are free to think what you like, say what you like, listen to what you like and read what you like. But if your hateful words cause someone to die, or be hurt, then you should pay a penalty. Maybe the threat of a fine would make them think twice before spewing hate.
Is this also on the road to "Thought Control"?
Two middle school students, 12, charged with cyberstalking for 'harassing girl, 12, who told her mother she was getting bullied online just before she committed suicide'
If this is okay, why is requiring a fine for words or rhetoric that lead to the synogogue shooting or the Pipe Bomber a bridge too far?
I think the basic thing I believe is that people are responsible for their own actions. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to these crackpots. If nobody listened to them they'd be powerless. In my opinion the answer is educating people, not fining or locking crackpots up for their idiotic ideas. My way would solve the problem. Your way drives the problem underground but doesn't solve it. My dilemma is that people also have to choose to educate themselves. Therefore, your idea works a little bit on the surface, whereas mine is probably a pipe-dream. C'est la vie...
Edit: I was one of those people bullied in high school so I know at least a little bit of what that girl went through. If I had chosen to kill myself, is it really the bullies who are to blame? Or is it the horrible self-esteem I had as a child? I think it's a bit of both maybe. My aura of vulnerability set myself up for the bullying, to end it I had to stand up for myself. I'm a better person for overcoming that, but I can empathise with the feeling of despair. Even as an adult now I feel like an outsider partly because of what happened all those years ago.
You know what's funny though? There were people I myself picked on in high school. I didn't go out of my way to pick on anybody mind you, but people who wanted to hang around me I gave the cold-shoulder to and sometimes I even made fun of them and joked about them with my friends. Imagine that, even the bullied still managed to be the bully. I think about that sometimes too. Middle school and High school sucked...
Underground, how?
Underground just like prohibition made alcohol production & consumption go underground. Like abortion before Roe vs. Wade was forced to be underground. Like pornography used to be underground. Like sex slavery is underground now. Like illicit drug use is underground. Like prostitution is mostly underground. Like cock fights and dog fights are underground. Not one of those things was ever eliminated by legislation. Laws don't change people's hearts. Your fines will likely become a moron tax more than anything else. If they spend the money on something useful maybe I can get on board. Anti-bullying could use some funding.
I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
@Balrog99. OK you forced me to read the document, which I really didn't want to . Having read it I fail to see how anyone could consider that consistent with the Oath of Office required of a State representative: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
I don't believe what you propose would work either. It woild be the start down the slope of thought control. We may have to agree to disagree on this. I enjoyed the debate though!
As did I. I just don't think holding people accountable for the effects of their words to be anywhere near "Thought Control". I am not saying anything about *thought*. You are free to think what you like, say what you like, listen to what you like and read what you like. But if your hateful words cause someone to die, or be hurt, then you should pay a penalty. Maybe the threat of a fine would make them think twice before spewing hate.
Is this also on the road to "Thought Control"?
Two middle school students, 12, charged with cyberstalking for 'harassing girl, 12, who told her mother she was getting bullied online just before she committed suicide'
If this is okay, why is requiring a fine for words or rhetoric that lead to the synogogue shooting or the Pipe Bomber a bridge too far?
I think the basic thing I believe is that people are responsible for their own actions. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to these crackpots. If nobody listened to them they'd be powerless. In my opinion the answer is educating people, not fining or locking crackpots up for their idiotic ideas. My way would solve the problem. Your way drives the problem underground but doesn't solve it. My dilemma is that people also have to choose to educate themselves. Therefore, your idea works a little bit on the surface, whereas mine is probably a pipe-dream. C'est la vie...
Edit: I was one of those people bullied in high school so I know at least a little bit of what that girl went through. If I had chosen to kill myself, is it really the bullies who are to blame? Or is it the horrible self-esteem I had as a child? I think it's a bit of both maybe. My aura of vulnerability set myself up for the bullying, to end it I had to stand up for myself. I'm a better person for overcoming that, but I can empathise with the feeling of despair. Even as an adult now I feel like an outsider partly because of what happened all those years ago.
You know what's funny though? There were people I myself picked on in high school. I didn't go out of my way to pick on anybody mind you, but people who wanted to hang around me I gave the cold-shoulder to and sometimes I even made fun of them and joked about them with my friends. Imagine that, even the bullied still managed to be the bully. I think about that sometimes too. Middle school and High school sucked...
Underground, how? All my idea does is says that speech can also have consequences. Financial ones. And yes, it's also got some method of making people see and learn about the people they are hating on as well. I'm not talking about locking them up. They can still say what they want. If they think, "Gee, if someone takes my words and hurts and kills people, I could be fined," maybe they'd think more before doing so. I'm not controlling their thoughts. It's making them think before they speak- something we should all do.
I was bullied as well, Literally until I got to college. I would only take so much before I'd turn around and take it out physically on my bullies, which only made it worse. There were times I thought people would be happier if I wasn't there. But I tended to fight back. It didn't usually help.
When I was in high school, a girl grabbed my glasses right off my face and broke them in half right in front of me. I (literally) saw red, something I had always thought was hyperbole, and ended up breating the girl so badly, when I came back to myself, I was slamming her upper body into the floor, shouting, "You won't do that again, will you?" When what she'd done came out, her mother was forced to pay for my glasses to be replaced, and she screamed like someone was stealing her soul when she found out how much they cost. That's why I advocate for a financial penalty, rather than jail time or some other penalty. It's a way to hit someone where it really hurts- their pocketbook.
I went from bullied to protector. I'd take on the bullies who were bullying other kids. My childhood friend Mary Ellen was being bullied by a classmate of ours and his two years older brother. I took on the brother, and when I had him on the ground, I told him that if he didn't stop, I'd be back. He never bothered her again.
Damn. Similar backgrounds different resulting philosophies. Basically, you became a crusader while I became a self-determinalist. I don't take on the bullies directly, I try to help the bullied take them on themselves like I did. I always try to help people build their self-esteem now as an adult. That's my way of fighting back. Yours is battling the bullies!
What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
I don't believe what you propose would work either. It woild be the start down the slope of thought control. We may have to agree to disagree on this. I enjoyed the debate though!
As did I. I just don't think holding people accountable for the effects of their words to be anywhere near "Thought Control". I am not saying anything about *thought*. You are free to think what you like, say what you like, listen to what you like and read what you like. But if your hateful words cause someone to die, or be hurt, then you should pay a penalty. Maybe the threat of a fine would make them think twice before spewing hate.
Is this also on the road to "Thought Control"?
Two middle school students, 12, charged with cyberstalking for 'harassing girl, 12, who told her mother she was getting bullied online just before she committed suicide'
If this is okay, why is requiring a fine for words or rhetoric that lead to the synogogue shooting or the Pipe Bomber a bridge too far?
I think the basic thing I believe is that people are responsible for their own actions. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to these crackpots. If nobody listened to them they'd be powerless. In my opinion the answer is educating people, not fining or locking crackpots up for their idiotic ideas. My way would solve the problem. Your way drives the problem underground but doesn't solve it. My dilemma is that people also have to choose to educate themselves. Therefore, your idea works a little bit on the surface, whereas mine is probably a pipe-dream. C'est la vie...
Edit: I was one of those people bullied in high school so I know at least a little bit of what that girl went through. If I had chosen to kill myself, is it really the bullies who are to blame? Or is it the horrible self-esteem I had as a child? I think it's a bit of both maybe. My aura of vulnerability set myself up for the bullying, to end it I had to stand up for myself. I'm a better person for overcoming that, but I can empathise with the feeling of despair. Even as an adult now I feel like an outsider partly because of what happened all those years ago.
You know what's funny though? There were people I myself picked on in high school. I didn't go out of my way to pick on anybody mind you, but people who wanted to hang around me I gave the cold-shoulder to and sometimes I even made fun of them and joked about them with my friends. Imagine that, even the bullied still managed to be the bully. I think about that sometimes too. Middle school and High school sucked...
Underground, how?
Underground just like prohibition made alcohol production & consumption go underground. Like abortion before Roe vs. Wade was forced to be underground. Like pornography used to be underground. Like sex slavery is underground now. Like illicit drug use is underground. Like prostitution is mostly underground. Like cock fights and dog fights are underground. Not one of those things was ever eliminated by legislation. Laws don't change people's hearts. Your fines will likely become a moron tax more than anything else. If they spend the money on something useful maybe I can get on board. Anti-bullying could use some funding.
I'm not making anything illegal. Just imposing a penalty if your words lead to killing or violence. Alcohol was illegal, as was abortion. Yes, anti-bullying would be a great use of those fines. Perhaps also support to the families of those killed or hurt. Applied to the medical bills of those hurt as well.
I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
@Balrog99. OK you forced me to read the document, which I really didn't want to . Having read it I fail to see how anyone could consider that consistent with the Oath of Office required of a State representative: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
It you deem the United States to be under the control of a domestic enemy then you're fully constitutional in resisting. It's right there in black and white. If that's what they believe then it's their duty to resist.
Underground just like prohibition made alcohol production & consumption go underground. Like abortion before Roe vs. Wade was forced to be underground. Like pornography used to be underground. Like sex slavery is underground now. Like illicit drug use is underground. Like prostitution is mostly underground. Like cock fights and dog fights are underground. Not one of those things was ever eliminated by legislation. Laws don't change people's hearts. Your fines will likely become a moron tax more than anything else. If they spend the money on something useful maybe I can get on board. Anti-bullying could use some funding.
@Balrog99 I agree with some of what you say, but not all. I think laws can help to change people's hearts. That doesn't mean that a law will totally eradicate any particular sort of behavior, but it can help substantially reduce it and make it generally socially unacceptable. Think about something like drink driving for instance, which at one stage was not only normal but actually socially encouraged ("one for the road"). From your list above cock-fighting and dog-fighting may still occur, but they're not mainstream activities any more.
I don't actually think you're that far from @LadyRhian on this issue. You've said that you believe education is the answer and that seems like a good response to me. She has said that a system of fines would help concentrate minds to accelerate that educational process. I'm not sure how workable that would be, but the principle sounds good.
What if they got their ideas from books? Or movies? Or watching a documentary on the History Channel? What if it was music that inspired them? All of those have been inspirations for killers in the past. Should we start banning books? Censoring music? Are authors and musicians then to blame when they inspire violence?
No. I'm not up with banning or censoring anything. I'm strictly speaking of "Hate Speech", nothing else.
What if the hate speech is in the song, book or movie? How is that any different?
You can say whatever you like. I just think there should be a penalty for espousing hate. Hey, I've read "Mein Kampf", the Little Red Book of Mao and the Communist Manifesto. You're talking something far more punitive than I am. How does imposing a monetary penalty if your words end up causing death or harm equate now to banning and/or censoring?
What about verbally abusive parents, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, relatives, etc... Far more people have been damaged, wounded and yes even killed (via suicide) from that than from 'hate speech'. Hate speech sells newspapers though...
Then you can devise some kind of penalty you want to enact on them, and if I feel it's good and appropriate, maybe I'll end up supporting it. Go right ahead. I'm not obligated to solve all of the world's problems around speech that causes problems.
I don't believe what you propose would work either. It woild be the start down the slope of thought control. We may have to agree to disagree on this. I enjoyed the debate though!
As did I. I just don't think holding people accountable for the effects of their words to be anywhere near "Thought Control". I am not saying anything about *thought*. You are free to think what you like, say what you like, listen to what you like and read what you like. But if your hateful words cause someone to die, or be hurt, then you should pay a penalty. Maybe the threat of a fine would make them think twice before spewing hate.
Is this also on the road to "Thought Control"?
Two middle school students, 12, charged with cyberstalking for 'harassing girl, 12, who told her mother she was getting bullied online just before she committed suicide'
If this is okay, why is requiring a fine for words or rhetoric that lead to the synogogue shooting or the Pipe Bomber a bridge too far?
I think the basic thing I believe is that people are responsible for their own actions. Nobody is forcing anybody to listen to these crackpots. If nobody listened to them they'd be powerless. In my opinion the answer is educating people, not fining or locking crackpots up for their idiotic ideas. My way would solve the problem. Your way drives the problem underground but doesn't solve it. My dilemma is that people also have to choose to educate themselves. Therefore, your idea works a little bit on the surface, whereas mine is probably a pipe-dream. C'est la vie...
Edit: I was one of those people bullied in high school so I know at least a little bit of what that girl went through. If I had chosen to kill myself, is it really the bullies who are to blame? Or is it the horrible self-esteem I had as a child? I think it's a bit of both maybe. My aura of vulnerability set myself up for the bullying, to end it I had to stand up for myself. I'm a better person for overcoming that, but I can empathise with the feeling of despair. Even as an adult now I feel like an outsider partly because of what happened all those years ago.
You know what's funny though? There were people I myself picked on in high school. I didn't go out of my way to pick on anybody mind you, but people who wanted to hang around me I gave the cold-shoulder to and sometimes I even made fun of them and joked about them with my friends. Imagine that, even the bullied still managed to be the bully. I think about that sometimes too. Middle school and High school sucked...
Underground, how?
Underground just like prohibition made alcohol production & consumption go underground. Like abortion before Roe vs. Wade was forced to be underground. Like pornography used to be underground. Like sex slavery is underground now. Like illicit drug use is underground. Like prostitution is mostly underground. Like cock fights and dog fights are underground. Not one of those things was ever eliminated by legislation. Laws don't change people's hearts. Your fines will likely become a moron tax more than anything else. If they spend the money on something useful maybe I can get on board. Anti-bullying could use some funding.
I'm not making anything illegal. Just imposing a penalty if your words lead to killing or violence. Alcohol was illegal, as was abortion. Yes, anti-bullying would be a great use of those fines. Perhaps also support to the families of those killed or hurt. Applied to the medical bills of those hurt as well.
Ok, you swayed me a little. I don't think a fine will dissuade many of these crackpots but if the money is put to good use then so be it...
I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
@Balrog99. OK you forced me to read the document, which I really didn't want to . Having read it I fail to see how anyone could consider that consistent with the Oath of Office required of a State representative: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
It you deem the United States to be under the control of a domestic enemy then you're fully constitutional in resisting. It's right there in black and white. If that's what they believe then it's their duty to resist.
If you really believe that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I can't see any middle ground . The constitution is very specific about the basis of government it mandates. Even if you believed the US was controlled by a secret cabal (and there are plenty of people that do believe that), the appropriate response under the Constitution would be to eliminate the cabal and allow the Constitution to work as originally designed. The appropriate response would not be to "support and defend the Constitution" by setting up a theocracy led by a divinely-inspired leader, who wants to kill every male that doesn't accept their belief.
I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
@Balrog99. OK you forced me to read the document, which I really didn't want to . Having read it I fail to see how anyone could consider that consistent with the Oath of Office required of a State representative: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
It you deem the United States to be under the control of a domestic enemy then you're fully constitutional in resisting. It's right there in black and white. If that's what they believe then it's their duty to resist.
If you really believe that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I can't see any middle ground . The constitution is very specific about the basis of government it mandates. Even if you believed the US was controlled by a secret cabal (and there are plenty of people that do believe that), the appropriate response under the Constitution would be to eliminate the cabal and allow the Constitution to work as originally designed. The appropriate response would not be to "support and defend the Constitution" by setting up a theocracy led by a divinely-inspired leader, who wants to kill every male that doesn't accept their belief.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I said that by what is written in the Constitution they would be justified in resisting. They do think a 'cabal' is in control of the country. I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this. I grew up in a fundamentalist church. I know how they think. Most of those folks would give you the shirt off their backs though. You'd love my parents and they're as far right as can be. It's the weirdest thing in the world that most people I know are good people regardless of what side of the political spectrum they're on yet neither side can see that. Our differences are largely bullshit and for the most part could be figured out in a few days if the two parties really wanted to work together.
I posted in the immediate aftermath of Khashoggi's disappearance that the incident had the potential to cause trouble for Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudi failure to offer a credible explanation for what led to Khashoggi's death has allowed the story to keep running and Erdogan has now directly blamed the Saudi government (as opposed to a rogue operation). The position of MBS is now in serious jeopardy.
If the fallout continues there are also going to be increasingly nasty questions asked about the extent to which the US encouraged or sanctioned the operation - it's already clear the US passed information to Saudi Arabia about Khashoggi and knew in advance at least that some sort of action would be taken against him.
I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
@Balrog99. OK you forced me to read the document, which I really didn't want to . Having read it I fail to see how anyone could consider that consistent with the Oath of Office required of a State representative: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
It you deem the United States to be under the control of a domestic enemy then you're fully constitutional in resisting. It's right there in black and white. If that's what they believe then it's their duty to resist.
If you really believe that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I can't see any middle ground . The constitution is very specific about the basis of government it mandates. Even if you believed the US was controlled by a secret cabal (and there are plenty of people that do believe that), the appropriate response under the Constitution would be to eliminate the cabal and allow the Constitution to work as originally designed. The appropriate response would not be to "support and defend the Constitution" by setting up a theocracy led by a divinely-inspired leader, who wants to kill every male that doesn't accept their belief.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I said that by what is written in the Constitution they would be justified in resisting. They do think a 'cabal' is in control of the country. I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this. I grew up in a fundamentalist church. I know how they think. Most of those folks would give you the shirt off their backs though. You'd love my parents and they're as far right as can be. It's the weirdest thing in the world that most people I know are good people regardless of what side of the political spectrum they're on yet neither side can see that. Our differences are largely bullshit and for the most part could be figured out in a few days if the two parties really wanted to work together.
But they're not just resisting usurpers - they want to overthrow the Constitution. I believe strongly in compromise and shades of grey, but there's no room for that in this case. The document states as clearly as you could possibly imagine that a totally different system of government should be put in place to that required by the Constitution. It doesn't matter how divinely inspired they are or whether their belief in a particular God is correct or not - the action being called for is not consistent with the Oath of Office. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to those beliefs under the Constitution, but it does mean that a person with those beliefs should not seek and hold office.
I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
@Balrog99. OK you forced me to read the document, which I really didn't want to . Having read it I fail to see how anyone could consider that consistent with the Oath of Office required of a State representative: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
It you deem the United States to be under the control of a domestic enemy then you're fully constitutional in resisting. It's right there in black and white. If that's what they believe then it's their duty to resist.
If you really believe that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I can't see any middle ground . The constitution is very specific about the basis of government it mandates. Even if you believed the US was controlled by a secret cabal (and there are plenty of people that do believe that), the appropriate response under the Constitution would be to eliminate the cabal and allow the Constitution to work as originally designed. The appropriate response would not be to "support and defend the Constitution" by setting up a theocracy led by a divinely-inspired leader, who wants to kill every male that doesn't accept their belief.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I said that by what is written in the Constitution they would be justified in resisting. They do think a 'cabal' is in control of the country. I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this. I grew up in a fundamentalist church. I know how they think. Most of those folks would give you the shirt off their backs though. You'd love my parents and they're as far right as can be. It's the weirdest thing in the world that most people I know are good people regardless of what side of the political spectrum they're on yet neither side can see that. Our differences are largely bullshit and for the most part could be figured out in a few days if the two parties really wanted to work together.
But they're not just resisting usurpers - they want to overthrow the Constitution. I believe strongly in compromise and shades of grey, but there's no room for that in this case. The document states as clearly as you could possibly imagine that a totally different system of government should be put in place to that required by the Constitution. It doesn't matter how divinely inspired they are or whether their belief in a particular God is correct or not - the action being called for is not consistent with the Oath of Office. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to those beliefs under the Constitution, but it does mean that a person with those beliefs should not seek and hold office.
Ok, here's my main beef with you on this. This is not a call to action. It's an outline. It's like bullet points on a presentation I give at my companies safety meeting. Almost as boring too. It's a list of thoughts. Nothing more. Furthermore, all of those points are justified from a fundamentalist religious point of view. If you're willing to say that should be grounds for prosecution then I say that Muslims should be put under that same scrutiny. I don't care if they're the 'minority' anymore if that's your logic. Every religion should be put under the microscope. Nearly all of them would fail the government vs. religion test too. Good luck in eradicating them...
If the fallout continues there are also going to be increasingly nasty questions asked about the extent to which the US encouraged or sanctioned the operation - it's already clear the US passed information to Saudi Arabia about Khashoggi and knew in advance at least that some sort of action would be taken against him.
But... ********** do you guys have to have your filthy ******* fingers in EVERY dirty cookie jar?
If the fallout continues there are also going to be increasingly nasty questions asked about the extent to which the US encouraged or sanctioned the operation - it's already clear the US passed information to Saudi Arabia about Khashoggi and knew in advance at least that some sort of action would be taken against him.
But... ********** do you guys have to have your filthy ******* fingers in EVERY dirty cookie jar?
I didn't really see a call to arms there though. Looked like a boring outline of what to do in case they feel like uprising sometime in the future. Other than getting their asses kicked by real military people if they're wrong about divine intervention, I don't see a whole lot to be afraid of myself. Unless God really is on their side I guess.
@Balrog99. OK you forced me to read the document, which I really didn't want to . Having read it I fail to see how anyone could consider that consistent with the Oath of Office required of a State representative: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
It you deem the United States to be under the control of a domestic enemy then you're fully constitutional in resisting. It's right there in black and white. If that's what they believe then it's their duty to resist.
If you really believe that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one - I can't see any middle ground . The constitution is very specific about the basis of government it mandates. Even if you believed the US was controlled by a secret cabal (and there are plenty of people that do believe that), the appropriate response under the Constitution would be to eliminate the cabal and allow the Constitution to work as originally designed. The appropriate response would not be to "support and defend the Constitution" by setting up a theocracy led by a divinely-inspired leader, who wants to kill every male that doesn't accept their belief.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I said that by what is written in the Constitution they would be justified in resisting. They do think a 'cabal' is in control of the country. I don't know how many times I have to emphasize this. I grew up in a fundamentalist church. I know how they think. Most of those folks would give you the shirt off their backs though. You'd love my parents and they're as far right as can be. It's the weirdest thing in the world that most people I know are good people regardless of what side of the political spectrum they're on yet neither side can see that. Our differences are largely bullshit and for the most part could be figured out in a few days if the two parties really wanted to work together.
But they're not just resisting usurpers - they want to overthrow the Constitution. I believe strongly in compromise and shades of grey, but there's no room for that in this case. The document states as clearly as you could possibly imagine that a totally different system of government should be put in place to that required by the Constitution. It doesn't matter how divinely inspired they are or whether their belief in a particular God is correct or not - the action being called for is not consistent with the Oath of Office. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to those beliefs under the Constitution, but it does mean that a person with those beliefs should not seek and hold office.
Ok, here's my main beef with you on this. This is not a call to action. It's an outline. It's like bullet points on a presentation I give at my companies safety meeting. Almost as boring too. It's a list of thoughts. Nothing more. Furthermore, all of those points are justified from a fundamentalist religious point of view. If you're willing to say that should be grounds for prosecution then I say that Muslims should be put under that same scrutiny. I don't care if they're the 'minority' anymore if that's your logic. Every religion should be put under the microscope. Nearly all of them would fail the government vs. religion test too. Good luck in eradicating them...
I've not called anywhere for prosecution - just pointed out that this sort of belief is incompatible with the Oath of Office. I agree the same would also apply with Islamic fundamentalists, but that's not the point. If you don't believe in a system of government it's of course your right to say so (in the US at least), but you shouldn't swear to uphold a system of government you're working to bring down.
There has been for a long time discussions of a similar nature among British Muslims (I'm not aware of similar discussions in Christian groups, but Christian fundamentalism is far more prevalent in the US than the UK). Most accept the UK system of government and believe that this is compatible with their religion. There are a small minority though that believe that is not the case and that their God requires them to work towards setting up a theocracy.
Comments
Police accuse two students, age 12, of cyberbullying in suicide
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/us/florida-cyberstalking-charges-girl-suicide/index.htmlWe already have nonviolent alternatives to treason.
There's a difference between "Not going to do your job for you (the sanctuary city argument re: illegal immigrants)" and "Not going to do ANYTHING you say, you do it all."
And yes, last I knew, EVERYONE in public service had to swear an oath to the Constutition (and thus federal government).
Is this also on the road to "Thought Control"?
Two middle school students, 12, charged with cyberstalking for 'harassing girl, 12, who told her mother she was getting bullied online just before she committed suicide'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5304021/Students-charged-classmate-12-commits-suicide.html
If this is okay, why is requiring a fine for words or rhetoric that lead to the synogogue shooting or the Pipe Bomber a bridge too far?
Edit: I was one of those people bullied in high school so I know at least a little bit of what that girl went through. If I had chosen to kill myself, is it really the bullies who are to blame? Or is it the horrible self-esteem I had as a child? I think it's a bit of both maybe. My aura of vulnerability set myself up for the bullying, to end it I had to stand up for myself. I'm a better person for overcoming that, but I can empathise with the feeling of despair. Even as an adult now I feel like an outsider partly because of what happened all those years ago.
You know what's funny though? There were people I myself picked on in high school. I didn't go out of my way to pick on anybody mind you, but people who wanted to hang around me I gave the cold-shoulder to and sometimes I even made fun of them and joked about them with my friends. Imagine that, even the bullied still managed to be the bully. I think about that sometimes too. Middle school and High school sucked...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1783753395066757&set=a.279697822138996&type=3&eid=ARDL9zwD8_MEJCen40n-40ppSX4Q5FfAbj5uNUpA-vmbRFb6JWuvsR-rIcd0ivKlsnP4RwmxirjERKHZ
Pentagon rejected request for troops it viewed as emergency law enforcement at border
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/white-house-pentagon-troops-border/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0tiH7s_4g-DL4gnXnbQJixHPpvKfB2XT5RXnvLfz5X09jcGalo8CegV1cFormer Labor Secretary reveals why Trump won’t talk about the economy ahead of the midterms
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/former-labor-secretary-reveals-trump-wont-talk-economy-ahead-midterms/?utm_source=push_notifications&fbclid=IwAR1Qa-o3TspFk47hJBmBKre-1p_QztOczRGv-ixAKEwWjYdRdhj7Flf54zQAmerica’s Forgotten Pogroms
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/02/americas-forgotten-pogroms-222181?cid=apnPentagon rejected request for troops it viewed as emergency law enforcement at border
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/white-house-pentagon-troops-border/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0tiH7s_4g-DL4gnXnbQJixHPpvKfB2XT5RXnvLfz5X09jcGalo8CegV1cJudge rules against Brian Kemp over Georgia voting restrictions days before gubernatorial election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/03/judge-rules-against-brian-kemp-over-georgia-voting-restrictions-days-before-gubernatorial-election/?utm_term=.fbe7de194f12I was bullied as well, Literally until I got to college. I would only take so much before I'd turn around and take it out physically on my bullies, which only made it worse. There were times I thought people would be happier if I wasn't there. But I tended to fight back. It didn't usually help.
When I was in high school, a girl grabbed my glasses right off my face and broke them in half right in front of me. I (literally) saw red, something I had always thought was hyperbole, and ended up breating the girl so badly, when I came back to myself, I was slamming her upper body into the floor, shouting, "You won't do that again, will you?" When what she'd done came out, her mother was forced to pay for my glasses to be replaced, and she screamed like someone was stealing her soul when she found out how much they cost. That's why I advocate for a financial penalty, rather than jail time or some other penalty. It's a way to hit someone where it really hurts- their pocketbook.
I went from bullied to protector. I'd take on the bullies who were bullying other kids. My childhood friend Mary Ellen was being bullied by a classmate of ours and his two years older brother. I took on the brother, and when I had him on the ground, I told him that if he didn't stop, I'd be back. He never bothered her again.
To me it looks like Trump is deliberately trying to set up a totally unnecessary confrontation with asylum seekers. The smallest violence then shown by them will be met by overwhelming force portrayed as necessary to protect the US from the rapists and gang members besieging the border (ignoring the fact that many of them are women and children). Perhaps I wouldn't go quite as far as to say this is not the behavior I expect of a democracy, but it is absolutely not the behavior I would hope to see from a democracy.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
If you think it is consistent, care to explain why?
I don't actually think you're that far from @LadyRhian on this issue. You've said that you believe education is the answer and that seems like a good response to me. She has said that a system of fines would help concentrate minds to accelerate that educational process. I'm not sure how workable that would be, but the principle sounds good.
If the fallout continues there are also going to be increasingly nasty questions asked about the extent to which the US encouraged or sanctioned the operation - it's already clear the US passed information to Saudi Arabia about Khashoggi and knew in advance at least that some sort of action would be taken against him.
Yet, you get all surprised and upset every time this is mentioned;
https://www.globalresearch.ca/polls-u-s-is-the-greatest-threat-to-peace-in-the-world-today/5603342
Because you deserve it.
Edit: Sorry, the link mentioned peace while your meme mentioned freedom. They're not the same thing...
is incompatible with the Oath of Office. I agree the same would also apply with Islamic fundamentalists, but that's not the point. If you don't believe in a system of government it's of course your right to say so (in the US at least), but you shouldn't swear to uphold a system of government you're working to bring down.
There has been for a long time discussions of a similar nature among British Muslims (I'm not aware of similar discussions in Christian groups, but Christian fundamentalism is far more prevalent in the US than the UK). Most accept the UK system of government and believe that this is compatible with their religion. There are a small minority though that believe that is not the case and that their God requires them to work towards setting up a theocracy.