Question about throught crime.

[GrandizerII]

My question, based on a discussion in another thread, is as follows:

Would it be thought crime if we criminalized people for imposing certain thoughts on others? Or is thought crime only as such if we criminalize people for merely holding certain thoughts?

[Jackalope]

My question, based on a discussion in another thread, is as follows:

Would it be thought crime if we criminalized people for imposing certain thoughts on others? Or is thought crime only as such if we criminalize people for merely holding certain thoughts?

That isn't quite what I was getting at in the other thread. "Imposing thoughts"? The context was criminalizing parents teaching children what they believe.

If you're going to poll the membership, do me a favor and don't fucking straw man what I said.

[GrandizerII]

My question, based on a discussion in another thread, is as follows:

Would it be thought crime if we criminalized people for imposing certain thoughts on others? Or is thought crime only as such if we criminalize people for merely holding certain thoughts?

That isn't quite what I was getting at in the other thread. "Imposing thoughts"? The context was criminalizing parents teaching children what they believe.

If you're going to poll the membership, do me a favor and don't fucking straw man what I said.

It's only a straw man if it's a strawman.

But if that's where you want to go, you strawmanned me as well. The issue was with "indoctrinating" not "teaching".

[Chad32]

I believe someone shouldn't be convicted of a crime unless they actually take some action because of their thoughts. Either attempted rape, murder, ect, or plans to commit it. It isn't adultery or rape if you just look at another person and get turned on. It isn't murder if you just think about beating someone to a pulp, without actally laying hands on them.

The idea that thinking something is as bad as doing it is one of the best examples of one of Jesus' teachings being demonstrably wrong. It's all good to love your neighbor, but you shouldn't turn yourself in to the police because you're a married man who got horny while being surrounded by bikini clad women at the beach.

[Dystopia]

My question, based on a discussion in another thread, is as follows:

Would it be thought crime if we criminalized people for imposing certain thoughts on others? Or is thought crime only as such if we criminalize people for merely holding certain thoughts?

To answer the first part, making it a crime to hold thoughts is the biggest stupidity I've heard in this forum. Since it constitutes a complete impossibility to know what people think, it makes zero sense, that's something special prevention theories wanted to implement but they have proven to be wrong. Criminal law punishes facts and never thoughts, even preparatory acts are generally not punishable since most of them are legal conducts. I'll give my example, my constitution forbids racism and fascism (creating fascists organizations and parties etc, propagating fascism), but it doesn't forbid you from being racist/fascist in your thoughts, you just can't propagate it. If we think clearly about it, most people at some point though 'I'd wish that person I hate died right now', imagine punishing this? Again, by the complete impossibility to know precisely what thoughts people hold criminalizing constitutes a severe violation of any decent constitution and human dignity. The concept of thought crime makes no sense at all from the beginning, it violates the most basic principles of criminal law, mainly the criminal law only applies to real facts principle.

As for your first question, are you talking about imposing religious ideas? That's what I deducted from your question. What do you mean by imposing thoughts? There is a crime called psychological coercion that fits more or less what you are thinking. However, it doesn't make sense how can someone impose an idea.. I mean how? I'm only seeing the case of your state turning into a fascists dictatorship and imposing nationalism on everyone, that would be a public crime. Where is the line between teaching something and imposing it? And how do we know if something was imposed or not?

---

I believe someone shouldn't be convicted of a crime unless they actually take some action because of their thoughts. Either attempted rape, murder, ect, or plans to commit it. It isn't adultery or rape if you just look at another person and get turned on. It isn't murder if you just think about beating someone to a pulp, without actally laying hands on them.

The idea that thinking something is as bad as doing it is one of the best examples of one of Jesus' teachings being demonstrably wrong. It's all good to love your neighbor, but you shouldn't turn yourself in to the police because you're a married man who got horny while being surrounded by bikini clad women at the beach.

Plans to commit crimes aren't punishable if they are not put into action trough execution acts, just to correct that part. Most of these acts are legal (eg Looking at the bank I'm going to rob, buying a kitchen knife). I'll keep my position supported by most criminal law doctrine that only facts are punishable.

---

My question, based on a discussion in another thread, is as follows:

Would it be thought crime if we criminalized people for imposing certain thoughts on others? Or is thought crime only as such if we criminalize people for merely holding certain thoughts?

That isn't quite what I was getting at in the other thread. "Imposing thoughts"? The context was criminalizing parents teaching children what they believe.

If you're going to poll the membership, do me a favor and don't fucking straw man what I said.

So I guess I can't teach morals, traditions, political ideals, social conducts I personally value most? It would be wishful, but highly impossible. It would violate the declaration of human rights and most constitutions around the world.

[GrandizerII]

As for your first question, are you talking about imposing religious ideas? That's what I deducted from your question. What do you mean by imposing thoughts? There is a crime called psychological coercion that fits more or less what you are thinking.

Yeah, that sort of stuff. I don't know where the line is to be honest. I'm just inquiring.

[Jackalope]

That isn't quite what I was getting at in the other thread. "Imposing thoughts"? The context was criminalizing parents teaching children what they believe.

If you're going to poll the membership, do me a favor and don't fucking straw man what I said.

It's only a straw man if it's a strawman.

But if that's where you want to go, you strawmanned me as well. The issue was with "indoctrinating" not "teaching".

Whatever gets you though the night, cupcake.

Let's be clear what you were advocating: substituting *your* preference for what parents out to teach their children for what they believe is correct. Call it whatever you like, but that's what it boils down to.

Is that mischaracterizing what you said?

[Dystopia]

As for your first question, are you talking about imposing religious ideas? That's what I deducted from your question. What do you mean by imposing thoughts? There is a crime called psychological coercion that fits more or less what you are thinking.

Yeah, that sort of stuff. I don't know where the line is to be honest. I'm just inquiring.

Well keep in mind punishing thoughts is completely of the table. Everyone has thought sometime 'I wish the person I hate died', I don't want to be punished for this. The only thing it is required by law is to abstain from conducts that endanger society, people's thoughts if kept as such don't endanger anyone.

As for religious indoctrination, I'm not saying it's commendable and that I support it, but it's impossible to ban it and it would violate several fundamental rights. I want to teach my kids morals and my political ideas, could that be banned too? And how would we know if parents taught or not?

[GrandizerII]

It's only a straw man if it's a strawman.

But if that's where you want to go, you strawmanned me as well. The issue was with "indoctrinating" not "teaching".

Whatever gets you though the night, cupcake.

Let's be clear what you were advocating: substituting *your* preference for what parents out to teach their children for what they believe is correct. Call it whatever you like, but that's what it boils down to.

Is that mischaracterizing what you said?

Yeah, it is. Teach is misleading. I was referring to indoctrinating, which I consider to be a way of imposing one's thoughts on others because they're not letting them think critically about these matters.

By the way, was the cupcake comment necessary?

[Jackalope]

That isn't quite what I was getting at in the other thread. "Imposing thoughts"? The context was criminalizing parents teaching children what they believe.

If you're going to poll the membership, do me a favor and don't fucking straw man what I said.

So I guess I can't teach morals, traditions, political ideals, social conducts I personally value most? It would be wishful, but highly impossible. It would violate the declaration of human rights and most constitutions around the world.

That's what I'd like to know - and what the OP appeared to be advocating. I personally fins the idea of criminalizing it reprehensible.