🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37kw2.687$PV4....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> > As a "Christian" you should be able to appreciate the advantages of not
> > running and hiding since your very religion has throughout history only 
> > come about from people not giving into threats and fighting back.
> > 
> > If all our ancestors had given into the higher powers when threatened 
> > with torture and death for questioning myth and legend and daring to 
> > believe in *one* God, Christianity would be a page in the history books.
> 
> You act as though it was me doing all those things!  

How did I do that? I was trying to provide an example of fighting against 
oppression that you could relate to.

> > I said you cannot use mere semantic analysis to judge the threat. An 
> > opinion can be threatening. Facts in conjunction with opinions can be 
> > threatening. Basically any sentence can be a threat. Breaking it down 
> > into sections does not help one way or another in determining the threat.
> 
> Opinions may seem threatening, but that doesn't make them threats.
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they are entitled to
> broadcast their opinions publicly.

But if their "opinion" *is* threatening, then action has to be taken. 

> > Yes intent does go a long way to determining punishment. Lack of intent 
> > does not mean that a crime has not been committed, it merely alters the
> > perspective from which the crime is prosecuted and the level of 
> > punishment applicable.
> 
> In some cases (manslaughter as opposed to murder), yes.  

And the opposite. A simple assault charge can be "upgraded" to attempted 
murder should intent to kill be proven. The original assault charge does 
not require intent, just an assault.

> Lack of intent
> can get someone off the hook in others.  (eg, I didn't mean to lie,
> it's just that my memory was foggy at the time.)

But normally the process of proving the lack of intent is harrowing 
enough for the person to not make the same "mistake" again. 

> > Personally I do not consider any attempt to curb terrorist activity
> > excessive. 
> 
> Me neither, but the point of the discussion (which you seemed to have
> missed or else you wouldn't have written such a statement) 

I was reasoning my disagreement that the fine was excessive. 

> is whether
> it was terrorist activity or not.

Terrorism is that art of inducing terror in an individual or group. I was 
not talking Middle Eastern terrorism, mere terrorism in the fuller sense 
of the word. 

> > But look what else you believe to be fact when it is definitely fiction.
> 
> You got me there.

Remember AIDS.

> > Because next time they lose freedom rather than just a bit of money. Had
> > they been given a slap on the wrist do you think they would have even
> > bothered about it? No. They would have thought that if the punishment 
> > were so slight, why stop.
> 
> Because as you said, the punishment would be worse next time around.
> Many people when let go with a warning, for anything, usually call
> it quits right there.

But a group capable of the original crime are unlikely to give up after a 
"warning". 

> > > > Forced attrition != genuine sorrow.
> > > 
> > > Yes, although most people usually cannot tell the difference.
> > 
> > The victim can and that is what matters.
> 
> No, only the "apologiser" knows for sure.

Yes, as I said, the victim. 

> > It is impossible to compare a book that has had no updates in 2000 years 
> > to laws which have been updated in the last few months/years.
> 
> The laws in the Bible must reflect on pretty much *any* society, which
> works in this case since God isn't concerned with modern things in our
> society (like copyright + trademark law, etc.)  The laws in the Bible
> are guidlines that when followed will keep you out of Hell.  The laws
> in our society are guidlines for keeping out jail (or paying loads of
> money).  Now you can see why/how the laws in the Bible do not require
> updating and thus cannot be considered outdated.

The bible does not account for the changing role of women in society. It 
denounces murder in one breath and advocates the removal of members of 
society deemed abhorrent to God - e.g. Homosexuals. Society has moved 
beyond the prejudices of 2000 years ago. The bible has not.

BTW, isn't masturbation banned under Catholic religion. Another area 
where the bible governs and act once deemed abhorrent and now accepted by 
society and even encouraged. 

> > > > but as we recently discussed your source of inspiration is rapidly
> > > > outdating. 
> > > 
> > > I don't see an "IMHO" here either :P  
> > 
> > I consider it fact for reasons I have given in previous discussions :P
> 
> So you see why what I consider fact doesn't get stamped with an "IMHO".

Difference is, I back my "perceptions" of fact with reasons not just 
expect them to be taken at face value.

> > People have more respect for one who stands up for themselves. You are 
> > doing so here. The situation may be a little more dangerous when dealing 
> > with a terrorist, but the principle is the same.
> 
> Would you want respect when you're dead or less respect while alive?
> Note that respect can be achieved by other means.

You are assuming an unsuccessful result from fighting back. 

> > Were you ever bullied/knew someone who was at school? If so, what was the
> > outcome?
> 
> I stood up for myself and *I* was punished for it.  Thank you for
> mentioning this as it does show everyone (including myself) the
> psychological reasons why I would not want to stand up for myself
> in that situation.  

But did it end the original problem? Was the rest of your time not vastly 
improved by removing the "threat"? Would you have preferred to not have 
been punished and spent the rest of the time being bullied?

> > > B) agree to stop doing whatever's pissing them off + getting to live
> > > 
> > > I would choose B.  Maybe some people prefer death, but that's their
> > > decision.
> > 
> > Survive != live.
> 
> So going through the rest of your life worrying about someone coming back
> at you for revenge is really living?

You are constantly assuming an unsuccessful result from fighting the 
threat. 

Besides, even giving in will not change the fact that you will remain 
under threat unless you keep to your path chosen by the "bully". The 
threat will always be there unless you fight it. 

You may spend the rest of your life regretting giving in and losing your 
personal freedom and wondering if things may have been different had you 
stood up to the threat. Would this be happiness?

> > Fight != death.
> 
> Yes, but if you really thought there was a threat then of course fighting
> it could very well mean your death.

As could not fighting it. 

> > Imagine you meet a girl fall in love etc. The father threatens to kill 
> > you unless you stop seeing her. Would you rather spend the rest of your 
> > life without her, or stand up for yourself?
> 
> There are more choices then the ones you are displaying here.  I could
> always see her in secret if I felt she was the right one for me and just
> wait for her old man to die.

So the Doctors could pretend to stop giving abortions and do it in 
secret? 

Since you missed the point of my example let's try another one.

Say you are married and for whatever reason you have an affair. Just a 
one off drunken episode at the office Xmas party. You have not told your 
wife, but people at the office know. A promotion opportunity comes up. It 
means not only a better job but twice your salary, a company car and all 
the trimmings. A colleague is competing for the job (choice is really 
only you or he) and threatens to tell your wife about your little 
escapade unless you back down.

What do you do?

1) Do you give into the threat? - Result, your marriage is unaffected, 
you do not get the better job, and you have the new threat of every time 
this guy wants a favour, he can threaten you into submission yet again.

2) Call his bluff. Do nothing. Result - nothing happens, or he tells your 
wife and your marriage falls apart. This may also look bad to the company 
since you will not be performing at your best so he gets the job.

3) Fight the threat. Bite the bullet and tell your wife. Since it comes 
from you it is not as bad as being found out, so although things will be 
rocky for a while, you will likely get through it. Result - no more 
threat, you probably get the job and you get the added advantage of 
clearing things with your wife. 

No doubt you want another choice, but this should prove sufficient to 
make the point. 

And before you quote your adultery law, assume for the sake of argument 
that it happens. 

> > So you run and hide from threats but when pissed off by punishment you 
> > develop a spine?
> 
> It depends on the seriousness of the threat and the seriousness of the 
> punishment.  The doctors have shown that they 'developed a spine' when
> they got pissed, it's not unreasonable to assume that the webmasters
> would either.

Yes but for the Doctors, the problem has at worst receded, at best been 
removed. For the "web masters", they have a huge reminder of their error 
to deal with and know that future action will result in far worse 
consequences. 

> > > Is emailing the sites nicely as I have said before risky???
> > 
> > Actually it would probably help prove the threat should the site refuse 
> > to remove the information. Besides, one should not be forced to email 
> > polite messages to terrorists.
> 
> Terrorists?  No.  These people?  Maybe.  Force is not really an issue
> either as I said before it's what I would *choose* to do.

A choice made under duress is hardly a choice you have freely made. 

> And it doesn't matter if the threat was received, it does matter if it was
> their intent to do so in the first place.  Jenn said "That [judgement]
> PROVED it was their intent to threaten".  I disagree that that was proven,
> but even if the prosecutors were *trying* to prove it, then how can you
> say it's not the intent that matters and it's the "victim's" perception
> that does?

We have discussed the point of intent in depth elsewhere in this message. 

> > Are facts and opinions not formed from words? Of course they are. As are 
> > threats. 
> 
> Yes, but facts and opinions are legal to state and intentional threats
> are not.

Facts and opinions which together form a threatening statement is still a 
threat.

> > > Okay, I would have felt threatened but that doesn't mean everyone would
> > > have and it is hard for me to have any empathy for them when they didn't
> > > act like they felt threatened.
> > 
> > Why was that so hard for you to admit? Why when I asked for confirmation 
> > of a remark that you would have seen a threat did you fight? Yet now you 
> > admit what you seemed to have said days ago. 
> 
> See above - it probably had something to do with me being punished for
> what I thought was standing up for myself, etc.

So you have spent ages standing up for yourself and wrongly so. It is 
saddening that you would not have similar vigour in a real situation.

> > NO. I would say "facts and opinions ***could*** "intermingle to form a 
> > threat".  It is not an intrinsic requirement of a threat. 
> 
> But you failed to deliver any examples of this.  (Except for that one
> about a week ago which you admitted was not a good example.)

We have discussed sentence construction and contextual meaning. There is 
no point continuing.

> > > Not by what *you* consider to be a death threat.
> > 
> > Meaning?
> 
> Meaning "Harassment yes, threat no."

That doesn't answer it! Forget it.

> What I'm really going to have to do is look back into the part that
> says "Threatening is illegal" to prove that what they did was legal.

If well paid attorneys could not manage it, what makes you so confident? 
;)

> I can offer multiple cases of racism that were let off the hook
> because they were just expressing their opinions, but I don't know if
> that would be acceptable to you.

OK, offer away.

-- 
Mark