Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Thoughts?
How many people must be offended before we make it a crime?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Offending people is not a crime.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
How about sacrilegious and blasphemous acts that offends one's religion?
Tolerance is what most religions preach so I'd think that most wouldn't take it to seriously if they were poked fun at every now and then. I do understand that there are some that do not tolerate any type of sarcasm and that could bring on troubles for those who might offend them.
I love PnT in the BS episode on Sensitivity training, [look for it on ytbe], in which they proclaim, rightly so, that people "DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED".
I've read (I'm sorry I don't know where) that, statistically speaking, if a minority composes more than 1/2π of a population (1/2π ~ 16%), its influence has a statistically significant control over the population. So, my simple answer to your question is 16% of the population.
In terms of threshold criteria for legislatures to codify an act as a crime, I think that the number/proportion of people offended is only one criteria that legislatures consider when drafting, debating, and voting on crime laws.
Biologically speaking, some fundamental perceptions (ie, at the cellular level) involves Duration and Intensity. With one kind of visual neuron, for example, its Output = Duration × Intensity, where (I think) the intensity is log of the light's brightness. Thus, the outputs are the same for 1 ms of 100 intensity light, 2 ms of 10 intensity light, or 3 ms of 1 intensity light. (But don't quote me on this.)
So now, I'm talking about: Number offended by act, Duration/consequences of act, Intensity of act (perhaps its log).
The Duration of an act can be as short as a split second (flipping someone the bird), to several seconds (jaywalking), or seemingly forever (murder).
The Intensity might be simplified to applying it to a threshold: either a person is offended or not offended. But Intensity can also include something that I'll call the Scope of the Victims: the offense can victimize one person (eg, threatening your mother-in-law), a demographic group (eg, a hate crime), or an entire nation as a whole (eg, espionage).
An act also involves something I'll call the Nature of the Victim. For example is the crime against: a person (eg, assault), property (eg, theft), justice (eg, withholding evidence), morality (grave desecration), the government (eg, treason), money (currency counterfeiting), nature (eg, torching a forest), etc.
In terms of threshold criteria for legislatures to codify an act as a crime, I think that the number/proportion of people offended is only one criteria that legislatures consider when drafting, debating, and voting on crime laws.
Biologically speaking, some fundamental perceptions (ie, at the cellular level) involves Duration and Intensity. With one kind of visual neuron, for example, its Output = Duration × Intensity, where (I think) the intensity is log of the light's brightness. Thus, the outputs are the same for 1 ms of 100 intensity light, 2 ms of 10 intensity light, or 3 ms of 1 intensity light. (But don't quote me on this.)
So now, I'm talking about: Number offended by act, Duration/consequences of act, Intensity of act (perhaps its log).
The Duration of an act can be as short as a split second (flipping someone the bird), to several seconds (jaywalking), or seemingly forever (murder).
The Intensity might be simplified to applying it to a threshold: either a person is offended or not offended. But Intensity can also include something that I'll call the Scope of the Victims: the offense can victimize one person (eg, threatening your mother-in-law), a demographic group (eg, a hate crime), or an entire nation as a whole (eg, espionage).
An act also involves something I'll call the Nature of the Victim. For example is the crime against: a person (eg, assault), property (eg, theft), justice (eg, withholding evidence), morality (grave desecration), the government (eg, treason), money (currency counterfeiting), nature (eg, torching a forest), etc.
What if I find your very religion sacrilegious and blasphemous towards the religion I believe in?
Especially so.
Litigation is surely the first overt medium that hands-out the consequences of emerging new forms of prudishness (that is, we will exclude terror / intimidation efforts that operate somewhat covertly). Once notice is taken of how the lawyers are profiting from the latest trend in moral "awareness" or self-righteous indignation, then some organizations may install penalties to increase their revenues (like a professional sports player being fined for his/her remarks, etc.) -- or they do this from sheer fear of becoming the target of such litigation themselves. After these initial stages become familiar staple, and are supplemented by lobbyists and regularly visible cliques of crusaders and wailings from victims of the newly discerned incivilities of society, the nomothetical consideration of whether or not a new correctitude stance should be enforced by local or national law may become less outlandish, more feasible.
How about the verbal and emotional abuse that people who claim to be religious perpetrate against those who are not religious, whereby those who claim to be religious get to get away with it on account that they are "just practicing their religion"?
"How many people must be offended before we make it a crime?"
Until we all grow up and don't get offended any more. Than this will be a moot and silly question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If your child calls you an ugly green troll, do you get offended? :bugeye:
If someone else's child calls you a cracker, spic, wop, chink, kike, etc. are you going to be offended. . . or are bemused with their ignorance?
My point is, the root of taking offense is in the person who is taking offense, not in the one who is doing the offending. You are far more likely to be offended by someone who has dropped out of high school than one who has obtained their PhD. At the same time, one who is a high school drop out is far more likely to be offended than one who has a PhD.
Taking offense, and being offended is more about enlightenment, and intelligence, it has more to do with politeness and sensitivity than anything else. Are you going to punish a child or a teenager for their ignorance? Do you plan on a massive campaign of class war-fare on the scale that no one has ever seen before? Would you like to perpetrate this assault primarily on those in the ghetto and in trailer parks who, don't have enough to worry about. . . that you have to add to it because the ignorant have tissue paper thin egos and are little more than intellectual, emotional and spiritual children with the sex drive of animals?
Or is this about the truth? Since about 1994. . that was the pivotal year. Information became available then. That's when the prophets said it would be, and the paradigm break down would begin. They claimed people would want to make speaking the truth illegal then. Is it that you want people to shut up? Would you like to make speaking the truth a crime. . . . because it offends you? Is that what this is all about? The reality you have been taught is agreeing with the reality you are seeing around you every day. . . and that offends the hell out of you?
You want the truth?
You can't handle the truth.
Sorry. We live in a free society. Some of us will fight like hell to keep it that way. So offend me, please. I look forward to it. If I am no longer being offended. . . there is something very wrong and sick in our world. (Although, I have to admit, it is harder and harder to do.) Mostly I am just bemused at the complete and utter cluelessness of some.
Until we all grow up and don't get offended any more. Than this will be a moot and silly question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If your child calls you an ugly green troll, do you get offended? :bugeye:
If someone else's child calls you a cracker, spic, wop, chink, kike, etc. are you going to be offended. . . or are bemused with their ignorance?
My point is, the root of taking offense is in the person who is taking offense, not in the one who is doing the offending. You are far more likely to be offended by someone who has dropped out of high school than one who has obtained their PhD. At the same time, one who is a high school drop out is far more likely to be offended than one who has a PhD.
Taking offense, and being offended is more about enlightenment, and intelligence, it has more to do with politeness and sensitivity than anything else. Are you going to punish a child or a teenager for their ignorance? Do you plan on a massive campaign of class war-fare on the scale that no one has ever seen before? Would you like to perpetrate this assault primarily on those in the ghetto and in trailer parks who, don't have enough to worry about. . . that you have to add to it because the ignorant have tissue paper thin egos and are little more than intellectual, emotional and spiritual children with the sex drive of animals?
Or is this about the truth? Since about 1994. . that was the pivotal year. Information became available then. That's when the prophets said it would be, and the paradigm break down would begin. They claimed people would want to make speaking the truth illegal then. Is it that you want people to shut up? Would you like to make speaking the truth a crime. . . . because it offends you? Is that what this is all about? The reality you have been taught is agreeing with the reality you are seeing around you every day. . . and that offends the hell out of you?
You want the truth?
You can't handle the truth.
Sorry. We live in a free society. Some of us will fight like hell to keep it that way. So offend me, please. I look forward to it. If I am no longer being offended. . . there is something very wrong and sick in our world.
(Although, I have to admit, it is harder and harder to do.) Mostly I am just bemused at the complete and utter cluelessness of some.If someone's being physically assaulted, that's a crime.
People ought to be safe in their persons and effects, whether criminals like that or not, and that society needs to enforce.
If someone is not violating anyone's personhood or rights in their behavior; doing something that harms no one but that a large majority just find objectionable...that individual ought to be left alone.
Harmless behavior you find offensive, for whatever reason you find it offensive, is still not your business.
People ought to be safe in their persons and effects, whether criminals like that or not, and that society needs to enforce.
If someone is not violating anyone's personhood or rights in their behavior; doing something that harms no one but that a large majority just find objectionable...that individual ought to be left alone.
Harmless behavior you find offensive, for whatever reason you find it offensive, is still not your business.
Freedom of speech and expression should be allowed unless it is slanderous, in which case it is more than offensive it is misleading.
Muslims do not allow this freedom of speech or expression, and it is diametrically opposed to western religions.
If we start making it a crime to offend people then we would be as bad as the Muslims.
They say:
Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)
Make war on the infidels living in your neighboorhood (9:123)
When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam. (5:33)
The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
(22:19)
Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels (8:60)
so there are already places in the world where offending people is a crime, and it would be a shame if it were allowed to become a crime here.
If a Muslim says they are being misinterpreted by quotes from above being taken out of context just draw a picture of Allah and give it to them, unless you are in fear of Jihad.
So we can see where offending people has its place.
Could not making offending people drain peoples rights in other ways, and not just freedom of speech/expression.
Imagine there was a large all white/black/other convention going on and everyone in attendance was a racist. Then imagine someone not from their race wandered in and started shaking hands and flirting with the ladies.
Would the majority not be offended? Would the majority have the right to turn that person into a criminal because of their own racism?
There needs to be a lot more to make a law than offensiveness in any country I would be proud to live in.
I took the OP to mean: How many people must consider something to be a crime before our society/legislature would make it a crime?
Hmm...Concrete examples...
I can't buy liquor on a Sunday.
I think this is ought to be unconstitutional, as it honors the holy day of a religion...and it's not my religion...so why am I prevented, by law, from being able to buy myself hard liquor on their holy day?
I am not determined to be able to buy liquor anyway, so I'm not putting up a fuss, and if hard liquor is that important to you...stock on Saturday?
But...it's the principle of the matter I find annoying.
Drug laws and prostitution? Victimless crimes.
I personally have a problem with them being classed as crimes...and not treated as public health problems. The harm-reduction model , I believe, would be both more effective in reducing damage...and cheaper.
what about indecency laws?
Apart from offending people what possible reason could there be to make it a sex crime to walk around naked?
Venereal disease. It's unsanitary. Otherwise I don't have a problem with it.
