Hitler in the 21st century

No, it would be the crime of attaching a S&M image to your post.The crime is viewing the images, not thinking about the images.You are conflating the action of viewing the images with thinking in order to call it a thought crime. But really, its a viewing crime.

Read Archer's post again:

quote:

---

Legend:
Don't look at what it's called, look at the motivation behind it.

​

Judge the thought, not the action. Gotcha.

​

It's the spirit of the law you should be looking at, as well as its letter. The motivation as well as the definition.

​

Of course. Anyone can see the outrage lies in the thought, not the act. That's where we need to start drawing lines.

​

Yes, that's what Thought-Crime is all about : implication and perceived intent.

​

Good thing we have Thought Police to sniff it out.

​

Like you, officer.

---

You responded to Mod with this: You're argument is this (from Message 118): Your first premise is false. The crime is the possession, not the thought. You label the crime as thought and then conclude that the crime is though. Circularly Reasoning.And since you insist that the crime be thought, you are making yourself out to be the Thought Police. All the while trying to argue against Thought Police.The irony is hilarious and I'm glad Archer pointed it out.

From Message 125That's not true. What if you lose one of such images on the bus and a child finds it? That'd be potentail harm.But even without my example, the lack of actual or potential harm for outlawing something does not mean that the reason it was outlawed is for perceived intent.Maybe they just don't want those images floating around, regardless of whether they harm or not. But you're adding all that in there on your own. It isn't necessarily in there. It isn't some logical extenstion of the law.I don't know the intentions of the lawmakers. Do you? Actually, you're making up the motivation and drive behind the legislation. Do you have a link to the lawmakers rationalization for the law? Its because you're insisting that the laws be interpreted in a way that makes them out to be thought crime a priori. When you're quote was taken out of contest, you had said the same thing that a Thought Cop would say. They'd say things like these too:

quote:

---

Don't look at what it's called, look at the motivation behind it.

​

It's the spirit of the law you should be looking at, as well as its letter. The motivation as well as the definition.

---

Hey, bring those goalposts back over here But anyways, the production of those images does constitute potential harm within realistic boundaries.But again, it doesn't really matter with or without the harm. I don't agree with your opinion on what the reason is.Maybe they don't want the images floating around because they don't like them.It doesn't reall matter what the reasoning behind the law is. The law says that the viewing and production of the images is illegal. It doesn't say anything about thinking being illegal.You fail. QED. Nuh-uh!You've just decided that this is a thought crime, a priori, and are insisitng that it be viewed as a thought crime, but really, the law doesn't say anything about thinking.I guess you just really got to want it for it to be so.

And that's what I disagree with. Its a non-sequitor.The lack of harm does not mean that the thought is being punished.Drugs, polygamy, and incest are 3 things that come to mind that are not harmful but are outlawed. The criminalization of these things is not a thought crime.