Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 99 (8820 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2018 2:53 PM
332 online now:
Coyote, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, xongsmith (6 members, 326 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: danlovy
Post Volume:
Total: 827,220 Year: 2,043/29,783 Month: 709/1,334 Week: 34/318 Day: 10/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9899100101
102
103Next
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5384
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1516 of 1540 (826979)
01-15-2018 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1514 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 9:29 AM


Re: Tension from Faith
NCE writes:

But that decision doesn't determine if you really have hate or not. As you go on to say:

quote:
The law has no interest what you think and feel, only what you say and do.

If people only thought the words, the law not only doesn't care but can't care. The saying and doing is the outward evidence of the hate. This is how we know that Trump is a racist, he says the things that racists say. The fact that he might not think that he is a racist is of no relevance. Bigoted people probably do not think they are bigoted, just ask Faith.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1514 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 9:29 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1518 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:47 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10342
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1517 of 1540 (826981)
01-15-2018 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1502 by New Cat's Eye
01-14-2018 9:07 AM


Re: Tension from Faith
Hate is an emotion held by a person. Only you, yourself, know what emotions you're feeling.

This statement borders on being silly. We can infer your emotions from your speech, facial expressions, and your actions. Now those methods may not be 100% accurate, but those are fairly reliable indicators. People are more than justified in drawing conclusions from those external indicators.

On the other hand, folks deceive themselves all of the time, and might well not understand that they are hateful.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1502 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2018 9:07 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1518 of 1540 (826994)
01-15-2018 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1516 by Tangle
01-15-2018 12:31 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
If people only thought the words, the law not only doesn't care but can't care. The saying and doing is the outward evidence of the hate.

Still though: only you, yourself, know if you have hate or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1516 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2018 12:31 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1519 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2018 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 1523 by Percy, posted 01-15-2018 7:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13486
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1519 of 1540 (826999)
01-15-2018 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1518 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 1:47 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Just like only you, yourself, can know if you intended to kill ?

It is not a strange idea that the law can make determinations about your mental state, or take those determinations into account in sentencing. It is a common principle called mens rea - and it can even be applied to liability in civil cases.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1518 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1520 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 4:38 PM PaulK has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1520 of 1540 (827013)
01-15-2018 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1519 by PaulK
01-15-2018 1:59 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Just like only you, yourself, can know if you intended to kill ?

Huh? Here, have some context:

quote:
The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
Definitely not the person declaring the statement.

That doesn't have anything to do with mens rea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1519 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2018 1:59 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1521 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2018 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13486
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1521 of 1540 (827014)
01-15-2018 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1520 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 4:38 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
I think you are the one who needs context. You’re not replying directly to Stile. You are replying to Tangle, who introduced the idea of hate as an aggravating factoring sentencing.

Message 1503


Just as a point of information, English law can decide whether you hate or not

quote:
Under section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court must treat as an aggravating factor the fact that:

an offender demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on his or her disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity (or presumed disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity); or

the offence was motivated by hostility towards persons who have a particular disability, who are of a particular sexual orientation or who are transgender.



quote:

That doesn't have anything to do with mens rea.

When it comes to judging hate as a motive for a criminal act - and sentencing more severley if it is judged to be so - the relationship is pretty obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1520 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1522 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 5:21 PM PaulK has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1522 of 1540 (827018)
01-15-2018 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1521 by PaulK
01-15-2018 4:51 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
I think you are the one who needs context. You’re not replying directly to Stile. You are replying to Tangle, who introduced the idea of hate as an aggravating factoring sentencing.

Tangle's response to my direct reply to Stile is as irrelevant as you responding with mens rea.

When it comes to judging hate as a motive for a criminal act...

That has nothing to do with what I engaged Stile about. You should've went three of my messages back instead of just two.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1521 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2018 4:51 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1524 by PaulK, posted 01-16-2018 12:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16681
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1523 of 1540 (827024)
01-15-2018 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1518 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 1:47 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
New Cat's Eye writes:

Still though: only you, yourself, know if you have hate or not.

Oh, I don't know. Try burning a cross on someone's lawn or painting a swastika on a synagogue or participating in a lynching, and that's pretty conclusive that one has hate in their heart, unless maybe one is a psychopath.

In Message 1522 you said:

New Cat's Eye in Message 1522 writes:

PaulK writes:

When it comes to judging hate as a motive for a criminal act...

That has nothing to do with what I engaged Stile about. You should've went three of my messages back instead of just two.

You had only one reply to Stile, Message 1502, the rest of your discussion was with Tangle. In that message to Stile you said the exact same thing that you said in Message 1518 that PaulK replied to:

New Cat's Eye in Message 1518 writes:

Still though: only you, yourself, know if you have hate or not.

You replied to PaulK in Message 1520 quoting from Stile's Message 1501, strangely saying that you were providing context while not saying the words were Stile's or what message they were from:

New Cat's Eye in Message 1520 writes:

Huh? Here, have some context:

quote:
The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
Definitely not the person declaring the statement.

But Stile was as wrong as you. The law does have a say in whether a statement is hateful.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1518 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1525 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 9:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1529 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 10:47 AM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13486
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1524 of 1540 (827031)
01-16-2018 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1522 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 5:21 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
quote:

Tangle's response to my direct reply to Stile is as irrelevant as you responding with mens rea.

Stile’s point was that bigots are often unaware of their bigotry. And yes, Faith is a good example.

Tangle added the point that it is often possible to identify hate in others - to a standard that the courts will accept.

I added the point that it is not restricted to hate and that in fact judging states of mind - despite it being internal - is a regular part of the court system.

These are all obviously relevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1522 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 5:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1525 of 1540 (827040)
01-16-2018 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1523 by Percy
01-15-2018 7:30 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Oh, I don't know. Try burning a cross on someone's lawn or painting a swastika on a synagogue or participating in a lynching, and that's pretty conclusive that one has hate in their heart, unless maybe one is a psychopath.

Or a troll. Or prankster.

You had only one reply to Stile, Message 1502, the rest of your discussion was with Tangle.

The "rest of my discussion" was just telling Tangle they were off-point.

But Stile was as wrong as you. The law does have a say in whether a statement is hateful.

Me and Stile aren't talking about the law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1523 by Percy, posted 01-15-2018 7:30 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1528 by Rrhain, posted 01-17-2018 9:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3125
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1526 of 1540 (827059)
01-16-2018 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1502 by New Cat's Eye
01-14-2018 9:07 AM


Re: Tension from Faith
New Cat's Eye writes:

Stile writes:

The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
Definitely not the person declaring the statement.

Wait, wuuuuuut?

Hate is an emotion held by a person. Only you, yourself, know what emotions you're feeling.

Nobody but you can know if you really have hate or not.

Exactly.

Only you, yourself, know what emotions you're feeling.

I was attempting to point out the absurdity in prefacing statements with a disclaimer such as: "There is no hate in what I'm saying..."

The only thing we can claim is that we are not intending to cause hate with what we're saying.
We cannot claim if there actually is or is not any hate in a statement... because that depends on how the statement is received.

The statement is received by other people. Each of those other people are under the same declaration you've made - that only they, themselves, know what emotions they're feeling.

Therefore, the person making a statement doesn't get to declare if there is "no hate" in what they're saying.
The best they can declare is that there is "no intention of hate" in what they're saying.

But if someone takes offense... then that offense is fair to have.
And then we all get to judge whether or not we care if that offense is worthy of changing the statement/action.

Hatred doesn't reside in statements, it resides in the heart. It's an emotion and it comes from your ego.

I agree.

When I say "the statement contains hate" I'm talking about the emotion that resides in the hearts of those who hear/receive the statement. (What else is a statement for other than to be received by others in some way?)

My point was that no one gets to declare something like "I'm not hating on anyone when I say: ....".
And then act as if they get a free pass regardless of whether or not anyone takes offence.

My point was that it's perfectly valid for anyone to take any offence on any statement (regardless of it being prefaced by "I'm not hating on anyone when I say: ..."

It's just a matter of caring about the reactions.

Most people who start sentences like that actually mean something along the lines of "I don't care if I hurt anyone, I believe this so I'm going to say it to your face!"
They're just too much of a coward to actually say that. They think people will respect them more if they feign some sort of attempt at not wanting to hurt other people... and then proceed to make statements that hurt other people...

Now, such things can actually be badass if it's about a statement such as "all people should be treated equally."
But it can also be pretty horrible if it's about a statement such as "gay people are all sinners."

My point is that we all get to have a valid reaction.
And then we all get to decide if we care about anyone's reaction enough to change the statement.
And on top of that, we all get to decide if we thing those who change the statement (or not) are dicks (or not).

And no one gets to say "You're not allowed to feel offended... I said my statement didn't include any hate!" Because that's just a silly thing to say if you understand how people and feelings work.

Hmm, why the scare-quotes? What are you talking about, really?

Sometimes I quote things because I think I'm using the word in the way the original person intended it... but I'm not sure (because I'm not them) so it's my indication that I'm sort of guessing/assuming on what they meant originally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1502 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2018 9:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1527 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 1:01 PM Stile has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1527 of 1540 (827062)
01-16-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1526 by Stile
01-16-2018 12:16 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
I was attempting to point out the absurdity in prefacing statements with a disclaimer such as: "There is no hate in what I'm saying..."

Ah, I see. I did misunderstand.

Therefore, the person making a statement doesn't get to declare if there is "no hate" in what they're saying.

I don't really agree, but I understand.

But if someone takes offense... then that offense is fair to have.

I agree that the receiver may take offense, but I don't think there has to be hate there for that to happen. And I don't think offense taken means that there is hate there.

When I say "the statement contains hate" I'm talking about the emotion that resides in the hearts of those who hear/receive the statement.

Okay, well I only impose hatred to a statement via the sender and not the receiver.

But I'm not talking about the haters be hatin' type of hate - I'm talking about real emotional hatred.

Taking offense to something doesn't mean the person who said it was feeling hatred.

And no one gets to say "You're not allowed to feel offended... I said my statement didn't include any hate!" Because that's just a silly thing to say if you understand how people and feelings work.

That I agree with.

So, no need to reply. We're square. And I'm going inactive - this place sucks now. I'll see you on Battle.net (if I do).

Cheers, Stile.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1526 by Stile, posted 01-16-2018 12:16 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1530 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 11:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6254
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1528 of 1540 (827129)
01-17-2018 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1525 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 9:05 AM


Re: Tension from Faith
New Cat's Eye responds to Percy [and I know NCE has quit, but I think this point is important]:

quote:
quote:
Oh, I don't know. Try burning a cross on someone's lawn or painting a swastika on a synagogue or participating in a lynching, and that's pretty conclusive that one has hate in their heart, unless maybe one is a psychopath.

Or a troll.


And thus, hateful. You troll someone not because you like them and want good things for them. You troll someone because you hate them. Let us not pretend that simply because you're not slobbering at your screen, trying to dox them, showing up at their homes to threaten them with physical violence, or even carry it out that it isn't hateful.

quote:
Or prankster.

And thus, hateful. The first rule of a prank is to know who you're pranking. If they're not laughing, then you're not pranking.

Remember, bigots don't get to define what bigotry is.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1525 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 9:05 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3125
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1529 of 1540 (827175)
01-19-2018 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1523 by Percy
01-15-2018 7:30 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Percy writes:

Stile writes:

The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.
Definitely not the person declaring the statement.


But Stile was as wrong as you. The law does have a say in whether a statement is hateful.

I don't think that the law saying whether or not a statement is hateful invalidates what I was saying.
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was saying.

I was talking in the context of actual reality.
Not the context of "good enough to legally prosecute someone over."

Many innocent people have been jailed, even executed according to the law.
The law cannot define the truth or actual reality. The law can be wrong on a great many things.

Even if the law found that a statement contains no hate... I certainly would consider the statement as containing hate if someone actually was deeply, truly offended by it. The only people who wouldn't acknowledge the offense and hateful-statement-towards-that-person would be those who don't care about that person... you could say that they "have hate" for that person.

The only person who can really identify if they are deeply, truly offended by something is that person.
People can lie, yes, and we all get to judge if we think someone is lying or not.
The law can attempt to prescribe such things, yes, but it's only that - an attempt - there is no guarantee of being correct.
And if the person is telling the truth, and the law disagrees? - then the law is wrong. The person may well still be prosecuted under the law - being right/wrong about reality has never stopped the law from prosecuting people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1523 by Percy, posted 01-15-2018 7:30 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1531 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2018 1:54 PM Stile has responded
 Message 1532 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 2:33 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3125
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1530 of 1540 (827176)
01-19-2018 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1527 by New Cat's Eye
01-16-2018 1:01 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
New Cat's Eye writes:

I'll see you on Battle.net (if I do).

Sounds good.

My BNet tag changed a while ago. Not sure which one you have.
I forgot I had one, made a different one to play some World of Warcraft, then remembered the old one and had them merged into a single account.

My only BNet tag now is: ColdRaven#11666
The Stile one got destroyed in the merger.

But haven't been on in a long time.
Purchased the Necromancer expansion for D3, but haven't played it yet
Just been piddling here and there in FF14 with the Wifey lately.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1527 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
9899100101
102
103Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018