🚀 go-pugleaf

Note: The anti-abortion site does plan to come back, see
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32028,00.html for
full story.  Told ya :P

This is in reference to <MPG.112c00dd8...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> 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.

Hmm...  How 'bout the Revolutionary War then?  The Declaration of
Independence and all that?

> > > 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. 

So you still think it's a matter of whether the "victim" felt
threatened.

> > > 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.

Isn't that what I just said?

> > 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. 

The burden of proof belongs to the prosecutors here.  The defendant
does not need to prove his innocence (or lack of intent).

> > 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. 

*Intentionally*!  Just like murdering, lying, stealing, etc. are only
prosecuted *as such* when the intent was there.

> > > 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". 

It has not been said that they were capable of the crime.  They weren't
prosecuted for bombing the labs, and they shouldn't be punished as such.

> > > > > 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. 

Well, in this case, then yes "apologiser == perceieved victim".  I was
really speaking more on a global scale, (remember the Clinton case?)
where the apologiser and the victim are separate people.

> > > 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.

You may very well call it a prejudice.  Bestiality is still a crime
here, isn't that the same prejudice?  How far do you think we really
have come?

> 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. 

Actually, that's one of the things that Jesus announced was okay.
Before that, the Jews did have it banned.

I still maintain that the Bible is not outdated as it does not
require updating.

> > > > > 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.

So did I.  You say the Bible outdated, I say it isn't - we are both backing
our perceptions with actual facts, and yet mine requires an IMHO for some 
reason?

> > > 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. 

Just as you are assuming a successful one.

> > > 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?

The outcome was that I was banned from the school for the rest of the
year.  So I guess it did kind of remove the "threat".  But had I known
what the outcome would've been, then yes, I would have preferred to
spend 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. 

Actually this implied a successful one - that's why the "terrorists"
would come back for revenge.

> 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. 

Other people on the list would've fought the "threat" - so I would
simply not be threatened by them until the point where they get sued
and lost, then not have anything to worry about for the rest of my
life.  They wouldn't be mad at me, since I was not the one that sued
them.  And if they didn't come back (you seem to think they wouldn't)
then what have I to worry about now?  That I didn't get a few million
dollars?  I'm a doctor in this scenario, so I wouldn't really need the 
financial support.

> 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?

See above.

> > > 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. 

Yes, I would choose 3.  Even before I was done reading the available
choices, I already made up my mind.  (In fact, I probably would tell
her before all this came up.)  Yeah, this is fighting the threat,
but my life is not in question here.  I will not *die* if something
goes wrong.

> > > > 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. 

Choices are made all the time under distress - a sinking ship, a
company about to go bankrupt, etc.

> > 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. 

> > > > 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.

I don't know what I would *really* do as I am not inc the situation.
I don't know what you would do either.  Have you ever been in a
life-or-death situation such as this one?

> > 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.

Just the fact that racist sites like www.kkk.com are even up
should be proof enough for you.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|