Proselytizing: sometimes morally unsound?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
but you didn't say guantanamo bay before...
sure you're not pissed at me?

I am sure I am not pissed at you.
My point - which you seem intent on missing - is that despite many people here saying they don't believe in thought crimes, the reality is that most governments do believe in thought crimes when it comes to terrorism. I don't agree with those governments stance.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, but how to differentiate between fantasizing and actual intent...

Fantasizing is when you imagine something but don't intend to do it. Actual intent is when you actually intend to do it. Simple really.
I have never suggested we can actually read peoples minds and charge people with thought crimes.

Originally posted by FMF
If the man only thought something, and didn't do anything, didn’t attempt anything, didn’t start anything, didn't say anything to anyone etc.. then to my way of thinking no crime has taken place, nothing immoral has happened (I see morality as governing behaviour, although I understand why others might disagree), and I still don't see there being a thoughtcrime .

And I understand your stance. What I don't understand is how you justify it.
You seem to agree with me that when an action does take place that the intent or thoughts do matter.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to agree with me that when an action does take place that the intent or thoughts do matter.

Thoughtlessness as well. Negligence ~ carelessness, a lack of thought, dereliction of duty, or disregard etc. ~ without "intent", also.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to agree with me that when an action does take place that the intent or thoughts do matter.

I think the thoughts (or, in some cases, lack of thoughts) help to recognize the morally unsound behaviour and perhaps the impact on its victim. Having thought about it a bit overnight, I think there must be a victim of behaviour if it is to be deemed to have been morally unsound behaviour. If I can think of an exception to that, I will have a think about it, and see if the 'definition' actually works (even for me).

Originally posted by FMF
I think the thoughts (or, in some cases, lack of thoughts) help to recognize the morally unsound behaviour and perhaps the impact on its victim. Having thought about it a bit overnight, I think there must be a victim of behaviour if it is to be deemed to have been morally unsound behaviour. If I can think of an exception to that, I will have a think about it, and see if the 'definition' actually works (even for me).

The main problem is when leaders spout these thoughts, like Trumpf talking about Mexicans and Muslims as rapists, murderers and so forth. Weak minded individuals take that as a license to kill or maim and it has already happened so thought crimes do exist and leads to murder and such things are contagious, once one event happens, it clicks in the weak mind of the next guy, I can do what I have always wanted to do, kill those Mexican Muslim scum....

Originally posted by FMF
Thought[b]lessness as well. Negligence ~ carelessness, a lack of thought, dereliction of duty, or disregard etc. ~ without "intent", also.[/b]

Now you are just dodging.
Thoughtlessness is a form of intent too.
I am sure, however that you would treat accidental homicide due to thoughtlessness differently from premeditated murder.

Originally posted by FMF
I think the thoughts (or, in some cases, lack of thoughts) help to recognize the morally unsound behaviour and perhaps the impact on its victim.

But is the impact on the victim the sole criteria? What about accidents where neither thought nor lack of thought can reasonably be said to be involved? Is the intent ignored?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think proselytizing an ideology about billions of non-believers being consigned to a furnace forever - by way of angry revenge - to children or people with diminished mental or emotional capacity/stability creates any moral issues for the proselytizer to consider about his or her own actions?

What does this have to do with your drinking problem?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now you are just dodging.

I don’t think I am. I don’t think negligence is the same as intent.

Originally posted by Eladar
What does this have to do with your drinking problem?

It's the thread topic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sure, however that you would treat accidental homicide due to thoughtlessness differently from premeditated murder.

Murder and causing death by negligence are both morally unsound to my way of thinking.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But is the impact on the victim the sole criteria?

The sole criterion for what exactly? I see morality as a code governing human interaction, so there needs to be a victim of an action. The other criteria are the presence/occurrence of damage, deceit, coercion.

Originally posted by FMF
It's the thread topic.

The thread is about your drinking problem?

Or is it about your inability to see accurately?

Originally posted by Eladar
The thread is about your drinking problem?

Or is it about your inability to see accurately?

The thread topic is in the OP. There has however been some subsequent topic-drift to a broader conversation about morality.