I think I'm on the side of wanting to whack the demon-summoner with a charge.
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
Is that right? I don't see where the crime is here. It's not harassment, and if it constitutes threatening harm, you'd have to bring up half the priests in the country on charges.
edit: maybe they could get him on trespass and/or mischief if he actually defaced something or left markings, though
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I think I'm on the side of wanting to whack the demon-summoner with a charge.
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
So, you don't believe in freedom of religion? And you think that the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to press charges against other mainstream churches for bringing about God's wrath upon them by holding funerals for homosexuals?
I think I'm on the side of wanting to whack the demon-summoner with a charge.
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
So, you don't believe in freedom of religion? And you think that the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to press charges against other mainstream churches for bringing about God's wrath upon them by holding funerals for homosexuals?
Actually, no. That's where the last clause of the last sentence comes in, which you've so thoughtfully quoted for me. Here, I'll bold it and restate:
..."provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship."
Assholes yelling in their own church? Fine. Assholes yelling at home? Fine. Assholes yelling in a public place? Fine, unless you break the fire-in-theater class of speech. Assholes coming into someone else's specified place of belief and doing so? Not fine.
And since I suspect your next post would have been "but because I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the entire world is my place of belief, so blah blah blah look I could game the system", note "specified". It's certainly not the best word, but a church is pretty obviously a specified place of worship. So is the lodge at the Cheyenne sundance. If the local Wicca group gets together in public woods and sets up a sacred circle, that's their specified area, although that one gets shaky because they don't actually own the land. (If they owned the land, that'd be clear-cut, but then, if they owned the land, they could just kick the guy out for trespassing at the time, since we're talking about Westboro and not Super Sekrit Demon Curser.)
I think I'm on the side of wanting to whack the demon-summoner with a charge.
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
So, you don't believe in freedom of religion? And you think that the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to press charges against other mainstream churches for bringing about God's wrath upon them by holding funerals for homosexuals?
Actually, no. That's where the last clause of the last sentence comes in, which you've so thoughtfully quoted for me. Here, I'll bold it and restate:
..."provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship."
Assholes yelling in their own church? Fine. Assholes yelling at home? Fine. Assholes yelling in a public place? Fine, unless you break the fire-in-theater class of speech. Assholes coming into someone else's specified place of belief and doing so? Not fine.
And since I suspect your next post would have been "but because I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the entire world is my place of belief, so blah blah blah look I could game the system", note "specified". It's certainly not the best word, but a church is pretty obviously a specified place of worship. So is the lodge at the Cheyenne sundance. If the local Wicca group gets together in public woods and sets up a sacred circle, that's their specified area, although that one gets shaky because they don't actually own the land. (If they owned the land, that'd be clear-cut, but then, if they owned the land, they could just kick the guy out for trespassing at the time, since we're talking about Westboro and not Super Sekrit Demon Curser.)
A church is more or less a public building. I mean, I didn't see anything written anywhere about him disturbing anyone while he was doing his ritual. I didn't read anything about him breaking in to the building, either. Everything I've read would seem to imply that he simply walked in, did his ritual, and left. So, are you proposing that we ban doing religious rituals in churches? Are we going to make it illegal to quietly pray for something bad to happen to someone?
I think I'm on the side of wanting to whack the demon-summoner with a charge.
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
So, you don't believe in freedom of religion? And you think that the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to press charges against other mainstream churches for bringing about God's wrath upon them by holding funerals for homosexuals?
Actually, no. That's where the last clause of the last sentence comes in, which you've so thoughtfully quoted for me. Here, I'll bold it and restate:
..."provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship."
Assholes yelling in their own church? Fine. Assholes yelling at home? Fine. Assholes yelling in a public place? Fine, unless you break the fire-in-theater class of speech. Assholes coming into someone else's specified place of belief and doing so? Not fine.
And since I suspect your next post would have been "but because I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the entire world is my place of belief, so blah blah blah look I could game the system", note "specified". It's certainly not the best word, but a church is pretty obviously a specified place of worship. So is the lodge at the Cheyenne sundance. If the local Wicca group gets together in public woods and sets up a sacred circle, that's their specified area, although that one gets shaky because they don't actually own the land. (If they owned the land, that'd be clear-cut, but then, if they owned the land, they could just kick the guy out for trespassing at the time, since we're talking about Westboro and not Super Sekrit Demon Curser.)
A church is more or less a public building. I mean, I didn't see anything written anywhere about him disturbing anyone while he was doing his ritual. I didn't read anything about him breaking in to the building, either. Everything I've read would seem to imply that he simply walked in, did his ritual, and left. So, are you proposing that we ban doing religious rituals in churches?
No. As I said in my first post, I'm suggesting that at first glance, I'm proposing that I'm not opposed to pressing charges for whatever legal term can be made out of "attempted harm by placebo" in instances where that harm was done in a specified place of worship.
As this particular thought of mine is several hours old at the latest, I'm not exactly casting it in stone as my rule to live by, but so far Than has ignored the part where I said "on their turf" and then changed to "but he wasn't harassing them at the time", when I wasn't arguing harassment, for which we have several good laws already in many countries, but attack by placebo. So, you know, not seeing the light of the invisible pink unicorn yet.
EDIT: A really easy hole in my proposal would be a few solid links on how the placebo effect is bullshit. Will look around after getting kids down to bed, but, you know, not hard. Hopefully people who think I'm full of crap will look harder.
I think I'm on the side of wanting to whack the demon-summoner with a charge.
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
So, you don't believe in freedom of religion? And you think that the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to press charges against other mainstream churches for bringing about God's wrath upon them by holding funerals for homosexuals?
Actually, no. That's where the last clause of the last sentence comes in, which you've so thoughtfully quoted for me. Here, I'll bold it and restate:
..."provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship."
Assholes yelling in their own church? Fine. Assholes yelling at home? Fine. Assholes yelling in a public place? Fine, unless you break the fire-in-theater class of speech. Assholes coming into someone else's specified place of belief and doing so? Not fine.
And since I suspect your next post would have been "but because I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the entire world is my place of belief, so blah blah blah look I could game the system", note "specified". It's certainly not the best word, but a church is pretty obviously a specified place of worship. So is the lodge at the Cheyenne sundance. If the local Wicca group gets together in public woods and sets up a sacred circle, that's their specified area, although that one gets shaky because they don't actually own the land. (If they owned the land, that'd be clear-cut, but then, if they owned the land, they could just kick the guy out for trespassing at the time, since we're talking about Westboro and not Super Sekrit Demon Curser.)
A church is more or less a public building. I mean, I didn't see anything written anywhere about him disturbing anyone while he was doing his ritual. I didn't read anything about him breaking in to the building, either. Everything I've read would seem to imply that he simply walked in, did his ritual, and left. So, are you proposing that we ban doing religious rituals in churches?
No. As I said in my first post, I'm suggesting that at first glance, I'm proposing that I'm not opposed to pressing charges for whatever legal term can be made out of "attempted harm by placebo" in instances where that harm was done in a specified place of worship.
As this particular thought of mine is several hours old at the latest, I'm not exactly casting it in stone as my rule to live by, but so far Than has ignored the part where I said "on their turf" and then changed to "but he wasn't harassing them at the time", when I wasn't arguing harassment, for which we have several good laws already in many countries, but attack by placebo. So, you know, not seeing the light of the invisible pink unicorn yet.
You are missing the fundamental point that "attack by placebo" winds up covering so much territory that it's ridiculous.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I think I'm on the side of wanting to whack the demon-summoner with a charge.
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
So, you don't believe in freedom of religion? And you think that the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to press charges against other mainstream churches for bringing about God's wrath upon them by holding funerals for homosexuals?
Actually, no. That's where the last clause of the last sentence comes in, which you've so thoughtfully quoted for me. Here, I'll bold it and restate:
..."provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship."
Assholes yelling in their own church? Fine. Assholes yelling at home? Fine. Assholes yelling in a public place? Fine, unless you break the fire-in-theater class of speech. Assholes coming into someone else's specified place of belief and doing so? Not fine.
And since I suspect your next post would have been "but because I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the entire world is my place of belief, so blah blah blah look I could game the system", note "specified". It's certainly not the best word, but a church is pretty obviously a specified place of worship. So is the lodge at the Cheyenne sundance. If the local Wicca group gets together in public woods and sets up a sacred circle, that's their specified area, although that one gets shaky because they don't actually own the land. (If they owned the land, that'd be clear-cut, but then, if they owned the land, they could just kick the guy out for trespassing at the time, since we're talking about Westboro and not Super Sekrit Demon Curser.)
A church is more or less a public building. I mean, I didn't see anything written anywhere about him disturbing anyone while he was doing his ritual. I didn't read anything about him breaking in to the building, either. Everything I've read would seem to imply that he simply walked in, did his ritual, and left. So, are you proposing that we ban doing religious rituals in churches?
No. As I said in my first post, I'm suggesting that at first glance, I'm proposing that I'm not opposed to pressing charges for whatever legal term can be made out of "attempted harm by placebo" in instances where that harm was done in a specified place of worship.
As this particular thought of mine is several hours old at the latest, I'm not exactly casting it in stone as my rule to live by, but so far Than has ignored the part where I said "on their turf" and then changed to "but he wasn't harassing them at the time", when I wasn't arguing harassment, for which we have several good laws already in many countries, but attack by placebo. So, you know, not seeing the light of the invisible pink unicorn yet.
You are missing the fundamental point that "attack by placebo" winds up covering so much territory that it's ridiculous.
Explain please. Than has so far failed to game the system.
No. As I said in my first post, I'm suggesting that at first glance, I'm proposing that I'm not opposed to pressing charges for whatever legal term can be made out of "attempted harm by placebo" in instances where that harm was done in a specified place of worship.
As this particular thought of mine is several hours old at the latest, I'm not exactly casting it in stone as my rule to live by, but so far Than has ignored the part where I said "on their turf" and then changed to "but he wasn't harassing them at the time", when I wasn't arguing harassment, for which we have several good laws already in many countries, but attack by placebo. So, you know, not seeing the light of the invisible pink unicorn yet.
EDIT: A really easy hole in my proposal would be a few solid links on how the placebo effect is bullshit. Will look around after getting kids down to bed, but, you know, not hard. Hopefully people who think I'm full of crap will look harder.
This would make telling someone "I hope you get sick" a crime. Hell, it would make telling someone "I hope you don't get sick" a crime.
I think I'm on the side of wanting to whack the demon-summoner with a charge.
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
So, you don't believe in freedom of religion? And you think that the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to press charges against other mainstream churches for bringing about God's wrath upon them by holding funerals for homosexuals?
Actually, no. That's where the last clause of the last sentence comes in, which you've so thoughtfully quoted for me. Here, I'll bold it and restate:
..."provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship."
Assholes yelling in their own church? Fine. Assholes yelling at home? Fine. Assholes yelling in a public place? Fine, unless you break the fire-in-theater class of speech. Assholes coming into someone else's specified place of belief and doing so? Not fine.
And since I suspect your next post would have been "but because I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the entire world is my place of belief, so blah blah blah look I could game the system", note "specified". It's certainly not the best word, but a church is pretty obviously a specified place of worship. So is the lodge at the Cheyenne sundance. If the local Wicca group gets together in public woods and sets up a sacred circle, that's their specified area, although that one gets shaky because they don't actually own the land. (If they owned the land, that'd be clear-cut, but then, if they owned the land, they could just kick the guy out for trespassing at the time, since we're talking about Westboro and not Super Sekrit Demon Curser.)
A church is more or less a public building. I mean, I didn't see anything written anywhere about him disturbing anyone while he was doing his ritual. I didn't read anything about him breaking in to the building, either. Everything I've read would seem to imply that he simply walked in, did his ritual, and left. So, are you proposing that we ban doing religious rituals in churches?
No. As I said in my first post, I'm suggesting that at first glance, I'm proposing that I'm not opposed to pressing charges for whatever legal term can be made out of "attempted harm by placebo" in instances where that harm was done in a specified place of worship.
As this particular thought of mine is several hours old at the latest, I'm not exactly casting it in stone as my rule to live by, but so far Than has ignored the part where I said "on their turf" and then changed to "but he wasn't harassing them at the time", when I wasn't arguing harassment, for which we have several good laws already in many countries, but attack by placebo. So, you know, not seeing the light of the invisible pink unicorn yet.
You are missing the fundamental point that "attack by placebo" winds up covering so much territory that it's ridiculous.
Explain please. Than has so far failed to game the system.
Any time you are in a religious gathering and make anyone question any belief ever you would have committed a crime. If you asked your priest some question about a problem you were having with your faith and someone else heard it, boom, crime. If you mess with the jehovah's witnesses who come to your door, crime.
Your stupid "attack by placebo" amounts to criminalizing the act of making someone uncomfortable.
It's dumb.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No. As I said in my first post, I'm suggesting that at first glance, I'm proposing that I'm not opposed to pressing charges for whatever legal term can be made out of "attempted harm by placebo" in instances where that harm was done in a specified place of worship.
As this particular thought of mine is several hours old at the latest, I'm not exactly casting it in stone as my rule to live by, but so far Than has ignored the part where I said "on their turf" and then changed to "but he wasn't harassing them at the time", when I wasn't arguing harassment, for which we have several good laws already in many countries, but attack by placebo. So, you know, not seeing the light of the invisible pink unicorn yet.
EDIT: A really easy hole in my proposal would be a few solid links on how the placebo effect is bullshit. Will look around after getting kids down to bed, but, you know, not hard. Hopefully people who think I'm full of crap will look harder.
This would make telling someone "I hope you get sick" a crime. Hell, it would make telling someone "I hope you don't get sick" a crime.
It's fucking ridiculous.
You don't give someone a placebo by giving them a spoonful of sugar. You make the sugar into a shape of a pill. "I hope you get sick," is a little different from, "I have summoned a demon to infect people and hurt them emotionally." Both are negative, but only one suggests an actual attempt to harm. Like most criminal acts, the burden would be on the police to prove that it was an intentional act of harm.
And of course, you've left the specified place of worship part out.
No. As I said in my first post, I'm suggesting that at first glance, I'm proposing that I'm not opposed to pressing charges for whatever legal term can be made out of "attempted harm by placebo" in instances where that harm was done in a specified place of worship.
As this particular thought of mine is several hours old at the latest, I'm not exactly casting it in stone as my rule to live by, but so far Than has ignored the part where I said "on their turf" and then changed to "but he wasn't harassing them at the time", when I wasn't arguing harassment, for which we have several good laws already in many countries, but attack by placebo. So, you know, not seeing the light of the invisible pink unicorn yet.
EDIT: A really easy hole in my proposal would be a few solid links on how the placebo effect is bullshit. Will look around after getting kids down to bed, but, you know, not hard. Hopefully people who think I'm full of crap will look harder.
This would make telling someone "I hope you get sick" a crime. Hell, it would make telling someone "I hope you don't get sick" a crime.
It's fucking ridiculous.
You don't give someone a placebo by giving them a spoonful of sugar. You make the sugar into a shape of a pill. "I hope you get sick," is a little different from, "I have summoned a demon to infect people and hurt them emotionally." Both are negative, but only one suggests an actual attempt to harm. Like most criminal acts, the burden would be on the police to prove that it was an intentional act of harm.
And of course, you've left the specified place of worship part out.
So, if I walk into a specified place of worship, where the people believe God does the opposite of whatever is said in there, and told someone "get well soon," you're saying I should be arrested/fined?
Hell, you're saying that if I go into a place of worship that believes that when everyone claps, an angel gets its wings, and I don't clap and that upsets some people, I should be arrested.
Hell, you're saying that if I go into a place of worship that believes that when everyone claps, an angel gets its wings, and I don't clap and that upsets some people, I should be arrested.
It's fucking ridiculous.
I'd suggest that any place of worship that believes that the presence of a non-clapper is defilement would most likely not have an open-doors policy. In fact, most places with a "the presence of outsiders is an insult to our sacred spaces" clause don't let people inside, which is why I didn't get to see my buddy's wedding ceremony, since he's Mormon and I'm not.
For what it's worth, my thought process on "what a DA would have to prove to get a charge like this to stick" were:
1) Demonstrable intent to cause harm.
2) Demonstrable susceptibility on the part of the victim.
3) Intrusion into victim's space with intent to cause harm.
After thinking about it, most of that is covered by simple harassment. The kicker here is that the guy didn't harass anybody at the time, he just came in and informed people after the fact that he'd done something they would consider an attack.
So the intention to give offense is there, in that the guy said publicly that he cursed the church. But it didn't cause offense at the time.
So, hypothetically, and this may be a terrible analogy:
You're at the hospital for a routine procedure. You're not on a special diet of any kind. While you're there, a guy in a nursing uniform comes by and asks you to drink something, telling you it's medicine. You do so.
The next day, he calls you at the hospital and informs you that he's not a nurse. He snuck in and gave you poison.
He didn't actually give you poison -- he gave you water with a bit of soda water in there so it'd fizz. He is attempting to hurt you solely by the placebo effect, and you weren't offended or hurt at the time.
Is that harassment?
Alternately, how is my metaphor crap, beyond "I believe in medicine, and I don't believe in religion"?
takyris on
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Okay, the first issue I have with your thoroughly ridiculous meandering musings is that the part where he 'attacked by placebo' happened in public, but I believe you said that things said in public weren't a problem. So the question becomes, what action, exactly, should the demon dude be punished for? Because the ritual or whatever is hard to prohibit without getting into a lot of Than's examples, and the comment later that he had summoned X demon with Y powers is hard to prohibit without also prohibiting the public preaching of doctrines held to by many existing churches.
edit: And I can't think of a way to punish your nurse impersonator except under some sort of fraud or impersonation charge. Something about an implicit claim that he was a nurse, which he is not, and maybe doesn't have the right to pretend. It's hard to apply that to the demon situation. A better analogy would be if some dude came into your room dressed normally and gave you a cup of water, then later called you up and claimed it was poison.
Okay, the first issue I have with your thoroughly ridiculous meandering musings is that the part where he 'attacked by placebo' happened in public, but I believe you said that things said in public weren't a problem. So the question becomes, what action, exactly, should the demon dude be punished for? Because the ritual or whatever is hard to prohibit without getting into a lot of Than's examples, and the comment later that he had summoned X demon with Y powers is hard to prohibit without also prohibiting the public preaching of doctrines held to by many existing churches.
edit: And I can't think of a way to punish your nurse impersonator except under some sort of fraud or impersonation charge. Something about an implicit claim that he was a nurse, which he is not, and maybe doesn't have the right to pretend. It's hard to apply that to the demon situation. A better analogy would be if some dude came into your room dressed normally and gave you a cup of water, then later called you up and claimed it was poison.
It happened in the church, which is public in terms of not requiring a fee for admission but is owned by the religious institution and is known generally to be used for religious ceremonies -- but did not cause offense at the time. And in fact, nobody even saw it, so there was no possibility of offense given, not even "There was a guy there who was acting oddly." (As far as I understand from this thread, that is.)
My argument was that entering into someone else's sacred space specifically for the purpose of screwing around with said sacred space was bad. At least down in the States, where I took high school civics, we can't regulate the soul, so you could walk into a church and hate it as much as you want as long as you didn't interfere with services or break any laws. Regulating speech is limited, and while threats qualify, phrasing your threats in mystical terms of the lord striking you down or demons infesting your soul puts it at arm's reach. If the guy had just announced that he'd placed a curse, it'd be no different from any other religious nutjob preaching their own brand of hellfire. This one, though, went into the church to do it. In my mind, that makes a difference, even if the presence in the church came at a different time from the announcement of ill intent.
I wanted it to be its own crime, but a) harassment seems to fit on everything except causing offense at the time, and b) nobody except me seems to think it works.
If the "no offense caused at time" part of harassment were considered to be met in this case, does anybody know what the penalty for something like this would be? I'm assuming it's on the order of a restraining order and a fine. As much as I want to regulate everyone's religions with my nefarious plans, I wasn't assuming anyone would be doing jail time over interreligious dickery.
takyris on
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I think this is somewhat like a fire and brimstone priest going into the hospital and telling people they will die because they don't believe in god
It's kind of funny how, when you enter a thread about some moron thinking he can summon demons, that the dumbest things you actually end up reading are some rather amusing ideas about Europe.
Protip: Yeah, it doesn't work how you think it does. Also, Europe isn't a country.
That whole "Rawr, all of Europe has horrible laws, that's why Neil Gaiman lives in America!" thing is especially funny, and I think I've seen it several times over the last few days on these boards?
Atlanta and Chicago may have higher crime rates, but that's got something to do with the fact that certain types don't go to backwards hick towns without getting run off or brutalized.
If you're talking about minorities, no, that's not the case. Rural America, especially in the South, has plenty of black people living in hick towns alongside white people. You'll see a lot more black people sitting at diner counters next to white people in Alabama than you'll see black people sitting next to white people in restaurants in Manhattan.
One of the Chicago daily freebie papers is actually tracking all the murders for 2009, and placing them on Google maps. They pretty much 100% coincide with the divisions between the "good" parts of town and the "bad". The South Side is completely lit up, while Lincoln Park has zero.
Here's a map of murders in DC from 2004-2006. You can see the heavy clustering in Anacostia and a couple of other bad neighborhoods, with almost no other murders in parts of Northwest. Furthermore, the murders tend to heavily involve one demographic- young black men with prior criminal records. We're generally not talking about random killings of respectable citizens.
That really doesn't make sense. If we're talking about the South, there are few rural areas without any black people. Heck, in places like Mississippi, large parts of rural areas are majority-black. There really aren't any parts of the US where a black person would be in danger based on his race if he stopped to fill up his gas tank.
In any event, white on black murder is pretty rare. Black people are in much higher danger of being murdered or assaulted by another black person than they are by a white person.
"safe?" Violent crime victiimization rates in rural areas are lower for all demographics. Do you have any evidence that black people in rural areas are at greater risk of interracial crime? White-on-black crime is pretty rare everywhere in this country.
Tell me more of this magical mystery world where there's no race violence and nearly Jim Crow-era segregation in the South, and there is rampant and unrelenting closet racism in the North!
This world you clearly live in sounds awesome!
The world I live in is modern America, where race-motivated violence is, statistically-speaking, almost unheard of. According to the FBI. in 2006 there were less than 8,000 hate crimes in the US, or one per 37,500 Americans.
Interracial crime is predominantly black-on-white, though even the large majority of that crime is regular crime, not racially-based. Black people don't have much to worry about when it comes to violence directed at them from white people- the most likely victimizer, by far, of a black person is another black person.
And there is simply no racial segregation in the US. Any American can live wherever they want, assuming they can afford it.
And there is simply no racial segregation in the US. Any American can live wherever they want, assuming they can afford it.
And there is simply no racial segregation in the US. Any American can live wherever they want, assuming they can afford it.
Don't worry man, I trust you and your 100% true arguements in favor of how Black People are trying to oppress the Poor White Man. Fucking savages, why can't those backwards bunch of motherfuckers learn how to be enlightened. Whatever though, as a Evil Hypocritical Liberal I realize I'm not as Racially Enlightened as you, Mr. Deep South Is Far More Racially Progressive Guy And Man We Should Just Let Them N**gers Fight It Out, Don't Get Involved Okay?
It's just staggering, the level of internal hypocrisy I have. I mean, I thought reasonably limiting hate speech was a good idea, but I realized we should be far more like the Racial Disneyland South, with their Awesome "Call Minorities Anything You Want, It's Your Right To Openly Hate Others In A Way That Intimidates Your Targets!" Policy! Look how well it works for them! There is simply no racial segregation in the U.S., besides the North because us Dirty Liberal Closet Racists aren't allowed to openly terrorize blacks for being black like in Alabama!
Rent on
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
So, hypothetically, and this may be a terrible analogy:
You're at the hospital for a routine procedure. You're not on a special diet of any kind. While you're there, a guy in a nursing uniform comes by and asks you to drink something, telling you it's medicine. You do so.
The next day, he calls you at the hospital and informs you that he's not a nurse. He snuck in and gave you poison.
He didn't actually give you poison -- he gave you water with a bit of soda water in there so it'd fizz. He is attempting to hurt you solely by the placebo effect, and you weren't offended or hurt at the time.
So, hypothetically, and this may be a terrible analogy:
You're at the hospital for a routine procedure. You're not on a special diet of any kind. While you're there, a guy in a nursing uniform comes by and asks you to drink something, telling you it's medicine. You do so.
The next day, he calls you at the hospital and informs you that he's not a nurse. He snuck in and gave you poison.
He didn't actually give you poison -- he gave you water with a bit of soda water in there so it'd fizz. He is attempting to hurt you solely by the placebo effect, and you weren't offended or hurt at the time.
The situation is more sacred than that
More like giving your child the mix while you are away and telling you what he did. The helplessness of the people seems to be going over heads here. Even though they wouldn't believe it, they were basically unrightfully one upped by some dick head in his quest for prominence, who arrogantly disrespected a major part of their lives
My argument was that <<1>>entering into someone else's sacred space specifically for the purpose of screwing around with said sacred space was bad. At least down in the States, where I took high school civics, we can't regulate the soul, so you could walk into a church and hate it as much as you want as long as you didn't <<2>>interfere with services or break any laws. Regulating speech is limited, and while threats qualify, phrasing your threats in mystical terms of the lord striking you down or demons infesting your soul puts it at arm's reach. If the guy had just announced that he'd placed a curse, it'd be no different from any other religious nutjob preaching their own brand of hellfire. This one, though, went into the church to do it. In my mind, that makes a difference, <<3>>even if the presence in the church came at a different time from the announcement of ill intent.
I wanted it to be its own crime, but a) harassment seems to fit on everything except causing offense at the time, and b) nobody except me seems to think it works.
1. Interesting, but some immediate problems I see:
How do you separate being ignorant of what would cause offense from intentional offenses?
What if I didn't enter to screw with the space, but the preacher bugged me and I later decided to screw with the space? Shouldn't the screwing be the thing?
How do you define 'screwing with the space' anyway? Is it tied to the beliefs of those who hold the space sacred? How do you legally determine what those beliefs are? Going back to intent, how do you prove the offender knew what the beliefs were?
What qualifies somewhere as a sacred space? Does a shrine to Jesus in my home count? What about a shrine to Spiderman?
Why do religious spaces get these protections? Why not any privately owned space?
2. Did Mr. Demon Raiser interfere with any services or break any laws (in the sense that you meant above)?
3. So what exactly constitutes an announcement of ill intent?
It's kind of funny how, when you enter a thread about some moron thinking he can summon demons, that the dumbest things you actually end up reading are some rather amusing ideas about Europe.
Protip: Yeah, it doesn't work how you think it does. Also, Europe isn't a country.
That whole "Rawr, all of Europe has horrible laws, that's why Neil Gaiman lives in America!" thing is especially funny, and I think I've seen it several times over the last few days on these boards?
Obviously you can't join the EU with something as barbaric as the death penalty still on the books (whoops, I guess I forgot to put my American nationalist blinders on this morning, can't imagine what happened). EU does have requirements of its member states with regards to human rights, though I was wrong in assuming earlier in this thread that freedom of speech was one of those rights; article 10 is fucking toothless. It seems to state that everyone has the right to free expression except if there's a law against it. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
I mean, if you think that the British law against insulting people isn't a horrible law, that's fine, we disagree, how about presenting some arguments on your behalf instead of threadshitting uselessly?
P.S. Neil Gaiman is awesome but unless there's some illuminating anecdote about him running into speech law issues I could give a shit why he lives wherever he lives.
I agree that it's an unfortunate law in terms of wording. Lots of laws in lots of countries are. Worry about it actually being used to send people behind bars and the actual application of it in the legal system instead of the wording, though.
If you didn't write anything inane about Europe as a whole, or Neil Gaiman (and yes, I'm not sure why he was important here either), you don't really have any reason to get all worked up about those things. If you did, well, sorry. Maybe that was 'threadshitting', but then you wrote something that was just too dumb to pass over.
There are two sentences in this thread (that I'm aware of, there might be a real doozy that I forgot or ignored for sanity-protection reasons) about Europe as a whole. One was my naive, "Doesn't the EU have some kind of standards regarding freedom of speech in its member nations?" to which OptimusZed replied, "Europe as a whole isn't that great on the free speech thing." I fail to see the breathtaking inanity.
And I'm amused that once more I'm told not to read the letter of the law, but to trust in the discretion of the constables and barristers. It's rare that I'm glad, much less proud, to be an American... I should be basking in this. Maybe go out and get a hotdog, oppress some native peoples, start a war, or something.
If you can't see the significance in that, I don't know what to say. Not really interested in debating it, so that's it for me. Enjoy the hotdog and/or oppression. I probably was mostly taking a rather pointless dump on the thread, and wasn't actually referring to your comment.
I fail to see how Europe isn't great on free speech, though - but that wasn't your comment, I think, so let's not argue over that either. Maybe I live in a bizzaro Europe where I can say and write pretty much anything I want and never worry about getting into trouble for it - hell, I think we could be stricter here. I don't really think we need to allow nazism, for example. They had their shot, it didn't work out. But we do, and that's okay. Gotta stand up for what you don't like so they'll stand up for what you like, and all that. I've always seen America as trailing behind a lot of European countries in that regard (which is probably my inane assumption). Go figure.
Europeans have a lower level of freedom of expression than Americans do. I'm not familiar with the free speech laws of every single European nation, but I know there are prohibitions against certain political affiliations in many of the more prominent members of the EU and I know that very very few places have the same level of mandated freedom of expression that Americans get from their constitution. Britain has legality standards for what can be said of the Royalty, for example. There's nothing like that here in the states.
Europeans have a lower level of freedom of expression than Americans do. I'm not familiar with the free speech laws of every single European nation, but I know there are prohibitions against certain political affiliations in many of the more prominent members of the EU and I know that very very few places have the same level of mandated freedom of expression that Americans get from their constitution. Britain has legality standards for what can be said of the Royalty, for example. There's nothing like that here in the states.
Pretty much this. It's not like Europe is some third-world tin-pot-dictatorship, or something. But most of Europe just doesn't have the sorts of protection on speech that the U.S. does. Whether or not that's a good thing is pretty subjective; in a case like this, I personally think it's a bad thing, but that's not to say that I don't think most of Europe isn't better than the U.S. in a lot of other ways.
Posts
But having no knowledge of law, my basic take on it is that this is, essentially, an attempt to do harm by placebo. Or selective vulnerability, maybe.
I'm not sure this metaphor works, but if I give sugar pills to a diabetic, it doesn't matter that most people wouldn't be affected. It doesn't even matter that this specific person only became diabetic because they ate junk food all the time like a dumbass. It only matters that I did it deliberately to harm the person, and the person had a specific vulnerability to what I was doing.
So if you go into a room full of people who believe in religious mythology and try to use the placebo effect to scare or hurt people, you're attempting harm. It doesn't matter that very few of us on this messageboard would have been vulnerable to an attack of that nature. He wasn't aiming for us.
And yes, I would also recommend harassment charges against hellfire preachers who try to invoke the lord's wrath, provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship.
1) Occultist sneaks into church
2) Occultist, sight unseen, performs demon-summoning (?)
3) Occultist notifies(?) church of 1) and 2)
4) Church wants to press charges.
Is that right? I don't see where the crime is here. It's not harassment, and if it constitutes threatening harm, you'd have to bring up half the priests in the country on charges.
edit: maybe they could get him on trespass and/or mischief if he actually defaced something or left markings, though
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Actually, no. That's where the last clause of the last sentence comes in, which you've so thoughtfully quoted for me. Here, I'll bold it and restate:
..."provided they try to invoke the lord's wrath after coming into someone else's specified place of worship."
Assholes yelling in their own church? Fine. Assholes yelling at home? Fine. Assholes yelling in a public place? Fine, unless you break the fire-in-theater class of speech. Assholes coming into someone else's specified place of belief and doing so? Not fine.
And since I suspect your next post would have been "but because I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the entire world is my place of belief, so blah blah blah look I could game the system", note "specified". It's certainly not the best word, but a church is pretty obviously a specified place of worship. So is the lodge at the Cheyenne sundance. If the local Wicca group gets together in public woods and sets up a sacred circle, that's their specified area, although that one gets shaky because they don't actually own the land. (If they owned the land, that'd be clear-cut, but then, if they owned the land, they could just kick the guy out for trespassing at the time, since we're talking about Westboro and not Super Sekrit Demon Curser.)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No. As I said in my first post, I'm suggesting that at first glance, I'm proposing that I'm not opposed to pressing charges for whatever legal term can be made out of "attempted harm by placebo" in instances where that harm was done in a specified place of worship.
As this particular thought of mine is several hours old at the latest, I'm not exactly casting it in stone as my rule to live by, but so far Than has ignored the part where I said "on their turf" and then changed to "but he wasn't harassing them at the time", when I wasn't arguing harassment, for which we have several good laws already in many countries, but attack by placebo. So, you know, not seeing the light of the invisible pink unicorn yet.
EDIT: A really easy hole in my proposal would be a few solid links on how the placebo effect is bullshit. Will look around after getting kids down to bed, but, you know, not hard. Hopefully people who think I'm full of crap will look harder.
You are missing the fundamental point that "attack by placebo" winds up covering so much territory that it's ridiculous.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Explain please. Than has so far failed to game the system.
It's fucking ridiculous.
Any time you are in a religious gathering and make anyone question any belief ever you would have committed a crime. If you asked your priest some question about a problem you were having with your faith and someone else heard it, boom, crime. If you mess with the jehovah's witnesses who come to your door, crime.
Your stupid "attack by placebo" amounts to criminalizing the act of making someone uncomfortable.
It's dumb.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You don't give someone a placebo by giving them a spoonful of sugar. You make the sugar into a shape of a pill. "I hope you get sick," is a little different from, "I have summoned a demon to infect people and hurt them emotionally." Both are negative, but only one suggests an actual attempt to harm. Like most criminal acts, the burden would be on the police to prove that it was an intentional act of harm.
And of course, you've left the specified place of worship part out.
It's fucking ridiculous.
I'd suggest that any place of worship that believes that the presence of a non-clapper is defilement would most likely not have an open-doors policy. In fact, most places with a "the presence of outsiders is an insult to our sacred spaces" clause don't let people inside, which is why I didn't get to see my buddy's wedding ceremony, since he's Mormon and I'm not.
For what it's worth, my thought process on "what a DA would have to prove to get a charge like this to stick" were:
1) Demonstrable intent to cause harm.
2) Demonstrable susceptibility on the part of the victim.
3) Intrusion into victim's space with intent to cause harm.
After thinking about it, most of that is covered by simple harassment. The kicker here is that the guy didn't harass anybody at the time, he just came in and informed people after the fact that he'd done something they would consider an attack.
So the intention to give offense is there, in that the guy said publicly that he cursed the church. But it didn't cause offense at the time.
So, hypothetically, and this may be a terrible analogy:
You're at the hospital for a routine procedure. You're not on a special diet of any kind. While you're there, a guy in a nursing uniform comes by and asks you to drink something, telling you it's medicine. You do so.
The next day, he calls you at the hospital and informs you that he's not a nurse. He snuck in and gave you poison.
He didn't actually give you poison -- he gave you water with a bit of soda water in there so it'd fizz. He is attempting to hurt you solely by the placebo effect, and you weren't offended or hurt at the time.
Is that harassment?
Alternately, how is my metaphor crap, beyond "I believe in medicine, and I don't believe in religion"?
edit: And I can't think of a way to punish your nurse impersonator except under some sort of fraud or impersonation charge. Something about an implicit claim that he was a nurse, which he is not, and maybe doesn't have the right to pretend. It's hard to apply that to the demon situation. A better analogy would be if some dude came into your room dressed normally and gave you a cup of water, then later called you up and claimed it was poison.
It happened in the church, which is public in terms of not requiring a fee for admission but is owned by the religious institution and is known generally to be used for religious ceremonies -- but did not cause offense at the time. And in fact, nobody even saw it, so there was no possibility of offense given, not even "There was a guy there who was acting oddly." (As far as I understand from this thread, that is.)
My argument was that entering into someone else's sacred space specifically for the purpose of screwing around with said sacred space was bad. At least down in the States, where I took high school civics, we can't regulate the soul, so you could walk into a church and hate it as much as you want as long as you didn't interfere with services or break any laws. Regulating speech is limited, and while threats qualify, phrasing your threats in mystical terms of the lord striking you down or demons infesting your soul puts it at arm's reach. If the guy had just announced that he'd placed a curse, it'd be no different from any other religious nutjob preaching their own brand of hellfire. This one, though, went into the church to do it. In my mind, that makes a difference, even if the presence in the church came at a different time from the announcement of ill intent.
I wanted it to be its own crime, but a) harassment seems to fit on everything except causing offense at the time, and b) nobody except me seems to think it works.
If the "no offense caused at time" part of harassment were considered to be met in this case, does anybody know what the penalty for something like this would be? I'm assuming it's on the order of a restraining order and a fine. As much as I want to regulate everyone's religions with my nefarious plans, I wasn't assuming anyone would be doing jail time over interreligious dickery.
Well sure, if you worship modern medicine.
This less about worshipping medicine and more about blindly and arrogantly attacking innocent people.
That is rather weak. Personally, the first analogy that came to my mind was walking into a kosher deli and dropping a wad of lard on the counter.
- John Stuart Mill
To be fair, it's the demon doing the actual attacking, so the worst you could charge the summoner with is aiding and abetting.
Protip: Yeah, it doesn't work how you think it does. Also, Europe isn't a country.
That whole "Rawr, all of Europe has horrible laws, that's why Neil Gaiman lives in America!" thing is especially funny, and I think I've seen it several times over the last few days on these boards?
It's more like you walked in and the guy pork was tasty
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Not in the slightest.
Don't worry man, I trust you and your 100% true arguements in favor of how Black People are trying to oppress the Poor White Man. Fucking savages, why can't those backwards bunch of motherfuckers learn how to be enlightened. Whatever though, as a Evil Hypocritical Liberal I realize I'm not as Racially Enlightened as you, Mr. Deep South Is Far More Racially Progressive Guy And Man We Should Just Let Them N**gers Fight It Out, Don't Get Involved Okay?
It's just staggering, the level of internal hypocrisy I have. I mean, I thought reasonably limiting hate speech was a good idea, but I realized we should be far more like the Racial Disneyland South, with their Awesome "Call Minorities Anything You Want, It's Your Right To Openly Hate Others In A Way That Intimidates Your Targets!" Policy! Look how well it works for them! There is simply no racial segregation in the U.S., besides the North because us Dirty Liberal Closet Racists aren't allowed to openly terrorize blacks for being black like in Alabama!
The situation is more sacred than that
More like giving your child the mix while you are away and telling you what he did. The helplessness of the people seems to be going over heads here. Even though they wouldn't believe it, they were basically unrightfully one upped by some dick head in his quest for prominence, who arrogantly disrespected a major part of their lives
1. Interesting, but some immediate problems I see:
2. Did Mr. Demon Raiser interfere with any services or break any laws (in the sense that you meant above)?
3. So what exactly constitutes an announcement of ill intent?
Is this illegal?
Obviously you can't join the EU with something as barbaric as the death penalty still on the books (whoops, I guess I forgot to put my American nationalist blinders on this morning, can't imagine what happened). EU does have requirements of its member states with regards to human rights, though I was wrong in assuming earlier in this thread that freedom of speech was one of those rights; article 10 is fucking toothless. It seems to state that everyone has the right to free expression except if there's a law against it. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
I mean, if you think that the British law against insulting people isn't a horrible law, that's fine, we disagree, how about presenting some arguments on your behalf instead of threadshitting uselessly?
P.S. Neil Gaiman is awesome but unless there's some illuminating anecdote about him running into speech law issues I could give a shit why he lives wherever he lives.
If you didn't write anything inane about Europe as a whole, or Neil Gaiman (and yes, I'm not sure why he was important here either), you don't really have any reason to get all worked up about those things. If you did, well, sorry. Maybe that was 'threadshitting', but then you wrote something that was just too dumb to pass over.
And I'm amused that once more I'm told not to read the letter of the law, but to trust in the discretion of the constables and barristers. It's rare that I'm glad, much less proud, to be an American... I should be basking in this. Maybe go out and get a hotdog, oppress some native peoples, start a war, or something.
I fail to see how Europe isn't great on free speech, though - but that wasn't your comment, I think, so let's not argue over that either. Maybe I live in a bizzaro Europe where I can say and write pretty much anything I want and never worry about getting into trouble for it - hell, I think we could be stricter here. I don't really think we need to allow nazism, for example. They had their shot, it didn't work out. But we do, and that's okay. Gotta stand up for what you don't like so they'll stand up for what you like, and all that. I've always seen America as trailing behind a lot of European countries in that regard (which is probably my inane assumption). Go figure.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.