It is natural for me to have sex with a 2 year old

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by W

You missed the fact that this author actually agrees with us and disagrees with you.

Who the author agrees with is not the issue.

'The U.S. is heading back down the path of "thought crime," starting with bans against "simulated" child porn that are now going before the Supreme Court. The scope of the law is very limited, but its advocates admit that they hope banning simulated images of child sex keeps people from thinking about it. (For the rest of this column, try not to think about pink elephants.)'

Chinese citizens are frequently locked up for holding views that oppose the government.

Also
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/dan/eddd070700.htm

[W]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Who the author agrees with is not the issue.

'The U.S. is heading back down the path of "thought crime," starting with bans against "simulated" child porn that are now going before the Supreme Court. The scope of the law is very limited, but its advocates admit that they hope banning simulated images of child sex keeps people from thinking about it. (For the rest of this column, try not to think about pink elephants.)'

Chinese citizens are frequently locked up for holding views that oppose the government.

Also
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/dan/eddd070700.htm

Did you know that the SCOTUS have ruled on this case? Know which way it ruled?

[Deciduous]

Well since having sex with children wasn't really a topic I had any interest in until the start of these threads, no.
I hate to think that criminals in the US are having happy thoughts :|

The Chinese thing is still true though, and the Moe, Larry and Curly situation is interesting.

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Chinese citizens are frequently locked up for holding views that oppose the government.

I thought they were locked up for voicing views which oppose the government.

[JammyJim]

i cannot believe this has got to two pages and i didnt notice it.....

i must be getting old

or going blind....

[Nodrog]

dont close it JJ I want to hear Bunga defend China's censorship policy.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

dont close it JJ I want to here Bunga defend China's censorship policy.

I think he's misunderstanding 'thought crime'.

[Bunga]

I'm not defending it. I'm just saying theres a difference between "not having freedom of speech" and "going to jail for having Bad(TM) thoughts".

[Nodrog]

I dont think anyone was seriously suggesting the chinese government were using mindreading devices on a national scale.

[Bunga]

When did we instigate anti-pedantry rules here?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Bunga

When did we instigate anti-pedantry rules here?

When I stopped being a mod

[edit]

Although the pedantic thing to do would be to point out the definition of Thought Crime.

[Bunga]

Hmm. I thought they had actually done something right aroun here for once and then find they messed it up. Just my luck, eh?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Chinese citizens are frequently locked up for holding views that oppose the government.

As Bunga noted, the actual law in China is probably a public order & national security related one, not to merely holding opinions, or even discussing these matters in private. The criminal codes in China were revised in 1997 to eliminate some of the "counter-revolutionary" laws (they're redefined as state security now), but there is still considerable legal framework against those who allegedly conspire to end national security.

In short, even where people are locked up for opposing the government, they are actually imprisoned for their actions (e.g. disseminating anti-government material) not their thoughts.

But I'm no expert on that, so feel free to correct.

When I said "We don't" I wasn't referring to what totalitarian states, or those of totalitarian mindset do. If your argument is that they follow a similar legal logic to yours in totalitarian dictatorships then I'll let you win that particular point.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

In short, even where people are locked up for opposing the government, they are actually imprisoned for their actions (e.g. disseminating anti-government material) not their thoughts.

This seems like a purely linguistic debate. Noone can currently be locked up for their 'thoughts', because its impossible to know what someones thoughts are other than through their actions. Whether you want to say "they were locked up for their thoughts" or "locked up for their actions expressing those thoughts" appears to be a completely arbitrary semantic choice, although I suppose the second is slightly more accurate.

[JonnyBGood]

This has been a bad thread. You are all bad people. This is a terrible topic. There are now seventy four replies. Why?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This seems like a purely linguistic debate.

The difference is that (on some level) you do not directly control your thoughts.

You do control the method of expressing them. More practically, in China you can hold such thoughts, and even express them (albeit on a low level, or in private). If you start up a newspaper saying the CPC should be overthrown, you are probably likely to be arrested on dodgy "national security" charges. But the crime would be undermining national security, not holding the opinion in the first place.

These comments refer only to China - in Owell's 1984 it is pretty a thought crime thing. In other stages of Chinese history (or Cambodia, or perhaps Russia too) you could have been arrested even for merely expressing such opinions in private - in which case your response is correct.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I think he's trolling.

Spamming.

Trolling is supposed to warrant some kind of response, as opposed to simply detailing how much of a complete twat the poster is.