Topic: The free speech poll - page 3. (Read 8568 times)
maybe naive question, but still.. would people really kill each other more often if it becomes legal?
Wow, you found a topic on which I am amongst the least liberal people.
I think it crosses a line when killing is combined with a context that does not make a logical/symmetric law. E.g. killing blue-eyed but not green-eyed people under otherwise similar circumstances can probably not be justified.
I don't mind the discussion of right-wing ideas. Just when the actual path toward arbitrary killings is paved, which begins with the planning, I turn into an enemy.
I think it crosses a line when killing is combined with a context that does not make a logical/symmetric law. E.g. killing blue-eyed but not green-eyed people under otherwise similar circumstances can probably not be justified.
I don't mind the discussion of right-wing ideas. Just when the actual path toward arbitrary killings is paved, which begins with the planning, I turn into an enemy.
Actually hurting people because they say others should be hurt is... ironic?
...snip...
...snip...
Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.
Actually hurting people because they say others should be hurt is... ironic?
And how is this actually going to go down, will there be an intermediate step where a chief tells minions to go do the arrest/kill as needed? Maybe the minions get paid (200BTC?) too?
And how is this actually going to go down, will there be an intermediate step where a chief tells minions to go do the arrest/kill as needed? Maybe the minions get paid (200BTC?) too?
...snip...
75% of the people here believe there should be no law against ordering a killing and you are deluding yourself if you are making excuses "maybe they don't think the guy really means it."
75% of the people here believe there should be no law against ordering a killing and you are deluding yourself if you are making excuses "maybe they don't think the guy really means it."
You are assuming to know what anyone making that statement means by it and I'm the one deluding myself because I'm not making assumptions. OK then.
I say we can't know intention simply by a statement alone (even if it seems obvious) and it would be dangerous to outlaw it because of the unintended consequences.
You say you know with full certainty what the speakers intentions are and are ready and willing to charge him for it.
I would bet far, far more statements like these result in nothing criminal at all than actually result in someone's murder. Saying stupid shit is common, contracting murder not so much.
"Which of the following is the limit statements below and including which should be punished by the state (or otherwise justifiably responded to with violent force) and statements above which should be allowed? "
Unless the OP meant some weird legal system with its own criminal law, then intent is part of the poll. You don't need to say "What if he is kidding?" because that's the point of making something a crime.
So the 75% who voted for ordering a killing being legal did so knowing that intent to kill would be part of the prosecution.
Again, I'd wager that the vast majority of those voting for that statement did so without presuming it meant "intent to kill." Voting for not throwing people in jail for making a statement isn't the same as voting for allowing people to "order a killing."
Your presumption doesn't even make sense. If there's going to be a system of law at all, few people, even in libertarian circles, are going to agree with "ordering a killing" being legal. Certainly not 75%.
Perhaps you should start a new poll clarifying the issue, and see what the response is?
One bitcoin says the results will prove your presumption wrong. Do you accept?
So the 75% who voted for ordering a killing being legal did so knowing that intent to kill would be part of the prosecution.
Why are you so uncomfortable accepting that people disagree with you and that they are perfectly OK with ordering killings being legal?
Why are you so uncomfortable accepting that people disagree with you and that they are perfectly OK with ordering killings being legal?
I'm not uncomfortable, I just don't agree that intent was part of the poll. I also don't agree that the people who voted "all of the above should be legal" are OK with ordering killings. I do agree that we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, like so many other things, so I guess I should learn my lesson and stop responding to your posts.
Making something illegal doesn't mean that you can't do it in a play or film. My interpretation is the only one that makes sense. And from past experience here, a lot of libertarians are OK with ordering a killing; see here for an example: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.755056 the guy says the answer is that everyone should be free to order killings.
...snip...
75% of the people here believe there should be no law against ordering a killing and you are deluding yourself if you are making excuses "maybe they don't think the guy really means it."
75% of the people here believe there should be no law against ordering a killing and you are deluding yourself if you are making excuses "maybe they don't think the guy really means it."
You are assuming to know what anyone making that statement means by it and I'm the one deluding myself because I'm not making assumptions. OK then.
I say we can't know intention simply by a statement alone (even if it seems obvious) and it would be dangerous to outlaw it because of the unintended consequences.
You say you know with full certainty what the speakers intentions are and are ready and willing to charge him for it.
I would bet far, far more statements like these result in nothing criminal at all than actually result in someone's murder. Saying stupid shit is common, contracting murder not so much.
"Which of the following is the limit statements below and including which should be punished by the state (or otherwise justifiably responded to with violent force) and statements above which should be allowed? "
Unless the OP meant some weird legal system with its own criminal law, then intent is part of the poll. You don't need to say "What if he is kidding?" because that's the point of making something a crime.
So the 75% who voted for ordering a killing being legal did so knowing that intent to kill would be part of the prosecution.
Why are you so uncomfortable accepting that people disagree with you and that they are perfectly OK with ordering killings being legal?
I don't understand why you are hung up on intent. Almost all crimes require the state to prove intent.
Because you keep posting that people are "voting there should be no law against ordering a killing or paying for a killing" when the poll says nothing of the sort. All the poll talks about is speech. If you don't know the intent of the speaker then you don't know if they are "ordering a killing" or planning on "paying for a killing". Therefor people are not necessarily "voting there should be no law against ordering a killing or paying for a killing".
75% of the people here believe there should be no law against ordering a killing and you are deluding yourself if you are making excuses "maybe they don't think the guy really means it."
One day I read about killing blue-eyed people in this thread, the other day I watch video about unusual chinese guy with blue eyes and the second top comment is about killing for them. This is creepy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfs0R-7cS_s
Hope I'm not gonna have nightmares over this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfs0R-7cS_s
Hope I'm not gonna have nightmares over this.
75% of respondents think there should be no law against ordering a killing or paying for a killing.
The poll is about speaking words. You keep beating the same drum. The poll said nothing about ordering or paying. Those are separate events. You are making assumptions.
Let's say you are drowning in a pond. Michael and Ryan are standing there. Michael says to Ryan, "I'll give you 200 bitcoins to save him," and then they both stand there with their hands in their pockets. Did Michael saying those words save your life? No. Was he ordering Ryan to save your life? No. Was there a contract to save your life? No. Apparently no one intended to save your life in that situation.
Let's say Jack and Diane work on an oil rig. Congress passes a law saying all oil drilling is banned. That night Jack and Diane are sitting in a bar trying to figure out how they are going to survive and Jack says to Diane, "Diane, if you kill 5 politicians right now, I'll buy you beer for the rest of your life," and they both laugh and go home. Should they be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder?
To simplify. Should intent be considered when someone says, "If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins" or is saying this automatically intent to commit murder 100% of the time?
Almost all crimes have 2 parts; the guilty act and the guilty intent. "Actus reus et mens rea."
If you say "If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins" and you mean it, both the guilty act and guilty intent are there. It doesn't matter if the person you said it to is an undercover policeman. The words you said are a criminal act.
If you say "If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins" and you are saying it as an actor in a play, then there is no intent. No crime.
This is not groundbreaking stuff. Its not limited to speech either. I don't understand why you are hung up on intent. Almost all crimes require the state to prove intent.
So even if someone walks up to you with a gun clearly in his pocket (assume that such gun carrying is normal and acceptable where you live) and says "give me $200 or I'll shoot you" it's not OK to attack him first?
I doubt it. She doesn't really want to kill you, she just really needs your money (that's why she takes the risk of threatening you). Anyway it is more rational to give her $200 than to risk your life.
Its really your position that someone with a gun saying "give me $200 or I'll shoot you" is covered by free speech?
So even if someone walks up to you with a gun clearly in his pocket (assume that such gun carrying is normal and acceptable where you live) and says "give me $200 or I'll shoot you" it's not OK to attack him first?
I doubt it. She doesn't really want to kill you, she just really needs your money (that's why she takes the risk of threatening you). Anyway it is more rational to give her $200 than to risk your life.
Even if you consider this "conspiracy" or "incitement" and/or a form of aggression, there is still the principle of proportional response to consider. How would one defend the claim that violence, of any sort, is a proportional response to a spoken statement, however threatening?
So even if someone walks up to you with a gun clearly in his pocket (assume that such gun carrying is normal and acceptable where you live) and says "give me $200 or I'll shoot you" it's not OK to attack him first? I'm all for free speech, but once you start taking things this far and outlawing preemptive strikes I really think we're entering into "evil will always defeat good because good is dumb" territory.
Quote
You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now.
75% think this is OK.
And the best excuse you can come up with is "Murder is just an example - some people think homosexuality is just as bad."
You keep saying this.
75% think there should be no law banning the statement.
I would wager the percent of people on this forum that "think it's OK" would be lower than the general population of any given society.
The difference is, most people on this forum don't believe a law should exist just because they don't think something is OK. Consider: in a forum full of committed pacifists, the number of people who would not agree with a law banning the statement would be 100%.
Well I can agree with you on that. 75% of respondents think there should be no law against ordering a killing or paying for a killing.
Quote
You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now.
75% think this is OK.
And the best excuse you can come up with is "Murder is just an example - some people think homosexuality is just as bad."
You keep saying this.
75% think there should be no law banning the statement.
I would wager the percent of people on this forum that "think it's OK" would be lower than the general population of any given society.
The difference is, most people on this forum don't believe a law should exist just because they don't think something is OK. Consider: in a forum full of committed pacifists, the number of people who would not agree with a law banning the statement would be 100%.
I'm amazed.
You guys really are debating whether its OK to incite someone to murder or to tell someone you will pay them to murder.
You guys really are debating whether its OK to incite someone to murder or to tell someone you will pay them to murder.
Gah, morals/=law.
If someone is organising a murder, violence is a proportional response. There is no ethical rule that says you can defend yourself against the person killing you but not against the person hiring people to kill you.
I disagree. If they "organized" it, but didn't actually commit the murder, then any violent response is proportional only to an action (actual murder, not just offering money to someone else to commit murder) which the target of the response never took. Naturally, if you chose to "organize" a murder of your own in response it would be governed by the same rules, so you are free to respond in kind. However, anyone who chooses to accept your hit job would be acting just as aggressively as whoever chose to accept theirs; they could not claim self-defense, even as your agent, any more than the first party's hit man could shift the blame onto his employer.
What you are saying is that its wrong to forbid someone ordering a killing but perfectly ok to organise a killing yourself. So if the intended victim tries to retaliate, they are morally equal to the person who organised the killing.
If someone is organising a murder, violence is a proportional response. There is no ethical rule that says you can defend yourself against the person killing you but not against the person hiring people to kill you.
I disagree. If they "organized" it, but didn't actually commit the murder, then any violent response is proportional only to an action (actual murder, not just offering money to someone else to commit murder) which the target of the response never took. Naturally, if you chose to "organize" a murder of your own in response it would be governed by the same rules, so you are free to respond in kind. However, anyone who chooses to accept your hit job would be acting just as aggressively as whoever chose to accept theirs; they could not claim self-defense, even as your agent, any more than the first party's hit man could shift the blame onto his employer.
If someone is organising a murder, violence is a proportional response. There is no ethical rule that says you can defend yourself against the person killing you but not against the person hiring people to kill you.
Very convincing argument. So I am still in doubts..
1. If Alice hires Bob to kill Tom, then Alice is obviously responsible for murder (as Bob is).
2. If Alice says Tom doesn't deserve to live and Bob kills Tom, then... Is she responsible?
3. If Alice says she doesn't like Tom any more, and Bob kills Tom...
Update:
If someone is organising a murder, violence is a proportional response.
Or maybe not.... Maybe organizing protection (such as talking to a person, calling police, buying a gun, escaping) is a proportional response.
Quote
which should be ... justifiably responded to with violent force
If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins.
If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins.
Even if you consider this "conspiracy" or "incitement" and/or a form of aggression, there is still the principle of proportional response to consider. How would one defend the claim that violence, of any sort, is a proportional response to a spoken statement, however threatening?
Threats matter when it comes to contracts because contracts agreed to under duress are void. They also matter when it comes to self-defense, as one consideration in determining whether there is an imminent risk of irreversible harm. Outside of those domains, only deliberate harm can justify a violent response, because only then is a violent response proportional to the offense.
If someone is organising a murder, violence is a proportional response. There is no ethical rule that says you can defend yourself against the person killing you but not against the person hiring people to kill you.
Jump to: