New Zealand police respond to 'active shooter' situation in Christchurch

[Boyle5150]

10 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Boyle wrote the anti bible.

You’re in it, btw. Keyser Nabal. 

[Boyle5150]

3 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Yeah, WWII and the Holocaust would have happened without Mein Kampf. Hitler didn't need it to get his views out there.  The book was a flop when it released. 

Curious what was on their belt buckles 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Trust me, I get what you're saying, I just don't think it's particularly relevant in the big picture. Whatever was "intended" it's not what it's been used for over the centuries. 

 

Also, wtf does Hot Topic have to do with this?  

Intent is a requirement of incitement. You can’t accidentally incite people to violence.

 

Hot Topic, the store for edgy teens who want to ban all religious texts. It is just a dumb joke.

 

29 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

In fact, name a single piece of literature that is responsible (yes, I mean responsible) for more deaths than the Bible or the Koran... I’ll be right here waiting for you.  

Again, I can’t speak on the topic of the Koran because I’m only mildly familiar with what it says and it’s origins, but the Bible does not call on it’s readers to commit acts of violence nor did those who put the book together. It describes people committing acts of violence. People have used religion and religious texts in their incitement though, including the Bible.

 

The Mein Kampf point is interesting because it, to my knowledge, doesn’t explicitly call for the violence that came later but did provide the “intellectual” underpinnings of his later calls to violence against his various enemy groups. But I have very limited knowledge of the content of the book so it may indeed include specific calls to violence by the author to the reader.

[Boyle5150]

Gott Mit Uns 

[Anathema-]

The bible doesn't incite violence, come on. It's used as a justification of violence but that's due to it's credibility and ubiquity in our lives more than what it says.

[Scott]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

 

SCOTUS has a pretty good way of determining it. It isn’t particularly broad.

I'd rather trust our fellow citizens to hear, and then disregard, violent rhetoric rather than trust governmental bodies to censor speech whenever they feel there may be potential for imminent lawless action.

 

Can't you imagine liberal media censoring Trump speeches that focus on immigration due to their possibility to incite violence? How would the Right respond? With logic and a level head? No, they'd certainly make some weird retaliatory censorship against liberals, and we'd ultimately descend even farther into chaos. I think we should always err on the side of more freedom, not less.

[Scott]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

but the Bible does not call on it’s readers to commit acts of violence nor did those who put the book together. It describes people committing acts of violence.

You're right. There's a difference between indirect inspiration and direct incitement.

 

Curious - should I be allowed to own The Unabomber's Manifesto or The Monkey Wrench Gang?

 

I'd have to comb through them to see if their authors directly tell their readers to commit crimes; but the basis and justification for crime is out in the open.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'd rather trust our fellow citizens to hear, and then disregard, violent rhetoric rather than trust governmental bodies to censor speech whenever they feel there may be potential for imminent lawless action.

 

Can't you imagine liberal media censoring Trump speeches that focus on immigration due to their possibility to incite violence? How would the Right respond? With logic and a level head? No, they'd certainly make some weird retaliatory censorship against liberals, and we'd ultimately descend even farther into chaos. I think we should always err on the side of more freedom, not less.

Incitement of violence isn’t a possibility, it is a specific offense that one commits they moment they encourage the imminent lawless action. It actually doesn’t matter whether or not anybody ends up heeding the call.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

You're right. There's a difference between indirect inspiration and direct incitement.

 

Curious - should I be allowed to own The Unabomber's Manifesto or The Monkey Wrench Gang?

 

I'd have to comb through them to see if their authors directly tell their readers to commit crimes; but the basis and justification for crime is out in the open.

 

I’m not familiar with the content of either so I couldn’t offer any meaningful input. But my position is and continues to be about the issue of incitement, and vague philosophies granting justification of potential future acts of violence is not incitement. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Commanding that the punishment for being gay is death isn't really a "vague philosophy." 

[mclumber1]

22 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Intent is a requirement of incitement. You can’t accidentally incite people to violence.

  

 

If intent is a requirement for incitement, how on Earth can you justify locking someone up for years just for possession of, or reading of this manifesto? 

[Scott]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Incitement of violence isn’t a possibility, it is a specific offense that one commits they moment they encourage the imminent lawless action. It actually doesn’t matter whether or not anybody ends up heeding the call.

 

From a purely outcome-based perspective, I think it's as easy to become radicalized or inspired to violence by indirect messages as it is by direct messages.

 

I don't need to be told "go do this crime" in order to hear the underlying message and decide to act on it.

 

And if that's our goal - to prevent and reduce violence - we ought to start censoring those indirect messages as well. And then where do we stop? It's a gateway to broad censorship.

 

I know that's not how the SCOTUS decision defines it, but the moment we start cracking down on this stuff is the moment we suddenly hear a rallying cry to start cracking down on less direct messaging. And if we allow that, then, as they say, the horse is out of the barn.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The practically blind worship that liberals give to "freedom of speech" borders on the pathologically degenerate.

[Scott]

5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The practically blind worship that liberals give to "freedom of speech" borders on the pathologically degenerate.

How much censorship would you prefer? What's the sweet spot?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

How much censorship would you prefer? What's the sweet spot?

Much like pornography, I'll know it when I see it, but quite honestly probably a HELLUVA LOT more than practically everyone on this board will be willing to accept.

 

In other words, maybe just a little short of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

 

Edit: Oooooohhhh - I know how much I'd prefer or what's my sweet spot: the level present in current-age People's Republic of China!  Yeah, that's perfect!

[Guest]

 

11 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

If intent is a requirement for incitement, how on Earth can you justify locking someone up for years just for possession of, or reading of this manifesto? 

 

The purpouse is to stop the distribution of materials that incite violence. Those may be poor tools for that purpouse.

 

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

From a purely outcome-based perspective, I think it's as easy to become radicalized or inspired to violence by indirect messages as it is by direct messages.

 

I don't need to be told "go do this crime" in order to hear the underlying message and decide to act on it.

 

And if that's our goal - to prevent and reduce violence - we ought to start censoring those indirect messages as well. And then where do we stop? It's a gateway to broad censorship.

 

I know that's not how the SCOTUS decision defines it, but the moment we start cracking down on this stuff is the moment we suddenly hear a rallying cry to start cracking down on less direct messaging. And if we allow that, then, as they say, the horse is out of the barn.

 

Because we can’t hold somebody accountable just for having bad thoughts. The actionable nature of the explicit call to violence makes it different than something else that directly or indirectly provides justification for potential future acts of violence.

 

We have solid and narrow standards for these things, no need to worry about that slippery slope.

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

We have solid and narrow standards for these things, no need to worry about that slippery slope.

 

I'm not ready to lock up Hannity or Alex Jones, or their supporters for watching their shows, simply because people like Cesar Sayok have cited them as inspirations (or likewise) for their lawlessness.  Likewise, I wouldn't ban Rage Against the Machine music because it might inspire radicals. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Because we can’t hold somebody accountable just for having bad thoughts.

Give us time to work on that!

[Scott]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

 

The purpouse is to stop the distribution of materials that incite violence. Those may be poor tools for that purpouse.

 

 

Because we can’t hold somebody accountable just for having bad thoughts. The actionable nature of the explicit call to violence makes it different than something else that directly or indirectly provides justification for potential future acts of violence.

 

We have solid and narrow standards for these things, no need to worry about that slippery slope.

I wonder, of all the mass murders and violent attacks in the last 5 years, how many were motivated by direct calls to violence versus indirect calls. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm not ready to lock up Hannity or Alex Jones, or their supporters for watching their shows, simply because people like Cesar Sayok have cited them as inspirations (or likewise) for their lawlessness.  Likewise, I wouldn't ban Rage Against the Machine music because it might inspire radicals. 

RATM should be banned/summarily executed because they suck.

[Bacon]

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I'm not ready to lock up Hannity or Alex Jones, or their supporters for watching their shows, simply because people like Cesar Sayok have cited them as inspirations (or likewise) for their lawlessness.  Likewise, I wouldn't ban Rage Against the Machine music because it might inspire radicals. 

...taking inspiration from somebody does not mean that person incited the violence. Go back and look at the link I gave earlier to the Wikipedia entry describing legal incitement in the US.

[Keyser_Soze]

53 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said:

You’re in it, btw. Keyser Nabal. 

 

Isn't that the guy from Destiny 2?

[mclumber1]

I'm thankful that the Supreme Court has a narrow view on the freedom of speech and the press this particular subject.  We don't need to be any more Orwellian than we already are.  I'm actually disappointed in most of the liberals on this board for taking such a backwards stance on this particular subject.   

 

Edited for clarity

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

21 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I'm actually disappointed in most of the liberals on this board for taking such a backwards stance on this particular subject.

<--- not a bloody ineffectual "liberal"

[Jason]

Religion of peace:

 

Quote

 

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.

 

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

 

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

 

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

 

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

 

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

 

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

 

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.

 

 

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

[mclumber1]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

<--- not a bloody ineffectual "liberal"

 

I wasn't talking about fascists.  I was talking about the limp wristed liberals on this board. 

[TheGreatGamble]

10 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

 

The purpouse is to stop the distribution of materials that incite violence. Those may be poor tools for that purpouse.

 

 

Because we can’t hold somebody accountable just for having bad thoughts. The actionable nature of the explicit call to violence makes it different than something else that directly or indirectly provides justification for potential future acts of violence.

 

We have solid and narrow standards for these things, no need to worry about that slippery slope.

We can’t hold someone accountable for bad thoughts, but we sure can hold them accountable for reading the wrong thing!

 

There is no justification, period. 14 years in jail for reading a book. It’s insanity.

 

its hilarious how you defend the bible though.

 

And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them” "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

 

there are a hundred  other instances too.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

We can’t hold someone accountable for bad thoughts, but we sure can hold them accountable for reading the wrong thing!

 

There is no justification, period. 14 years in jail for reading a book. It’s insanity.

 

its hilarious how you defend the bible though.

 

And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them” "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

 

there are a hundred  other instances too.

 

 

 

 

 

Any time somebody ends a sentence with “period.”, you know they are right  As I noted in the post you quoted, the purpose is to stop the distribution of materials that incite violence and these laws may be poor tools to do so.

 

I’m not defending the Bible, it needs no defense. It is what it is. Your quote makes my point thoug. It records the violent history of a nation including times when God was invoked to incite violence against other nations.

 

But that is not incitement by the book itself. Who is the book telling it’s readers to harm? Who did the council of Nicea and Constantinople incite violence against when they created the Bible in the 300s?

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

Any time somebody ends a sentence with “period.”, you know they are right  As I noted in the post you quoted, the purpose is to stop the distribution of materials that incite violence and these laws may be poor tools to do so.

 

I’m not defending the Bible, it needs no defense. It is what it is. Your quote makes my point thoug. It records the violent history of a nation including times when God was invoked to incite violence against other nations.

 

But that is not incitement by the book itself. Who is the book telling it’s readers to harm? Who did the council of Nicea and Constantinople incite violence against when they created the Bible in the 300s?

Ffs, you are really asking what violence the bible incited? For real? The thousand years of Christian violence against muslims and gays isn’t directly related to the bible?

 

you are either a bible apologist, or just refuse to admit you are wrong, but either way you are wrong. The bible calls for murder of gays, the passage I quoted above was gods commandment to destroy the Amelekites. There are a bunch of different passages specifically calling for murder.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Ffs, you are really asking what violence the bible incited? For real? The thousand years of Christian violence against muslims and gays isn’t directly related to the bible?

 

you are either a bible apologist, or just refuse to admit you are wrong, but either way you are wrong. The bible calls for murder of gays, the passage I quoted above was gods commandment to destroy the Amelekites. There are a bunch of different passages specifically calling for murder.

 

Once again, read the link I posted earlier to the imminent lawless action standard. Incitement is an intentional act. People have used the Bible to justify there own incitement of violence, or to justify their individual violent acts. The Bible doesn’t direct it’s readers to commit violent acts though, so it matter of factory does not incite violence.

 

I think your confusion here lies in your misunderstanding of what the Bible is. None of the writings included in it were written at the time it was compiled, the closest section being 200 years old at the point it was put together and many others significantly older.

 

Very simple wuestion to prove the incitement claim: Which violent acts were the Bishops at Nicea and Constantinople inciting by including a history of ancient Israel and it’s legal system?

[Nokra]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

 

 The Bible doesn’t direct it’s readers to commit violent acts though, so it matter of factory does not incite violence.

Wat? Are you by chance restricting this discussion to a children's Bible? 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Nokra said:

Wat? Are you by chance restricting this discussion to a children's Bible? 

No, I just know what incitement actually means.

 

You’re in Germany, correct? If you went to a museum there and saw an exhibit on Germany during WW2 and it had a section about the final solution, is the exhibit inciting violence?

 

The OT, and the first 5 books of the NT are history books. The rest of the NT are letters between pastors, or from pastors to churches. 

 

When the Bible was compiled in the 300s, which violence acts did it incite? Who was a reader of the book supposed to commit a violent act against?

[Nokra]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

No, I just know what incitement actually means.

 

You’re in Germany, correct? If you went to a museum there and saw an exhibit on Germany during WW2 and it had a section about the final solution, is the exhibit inciting violence?

 

The OT, and the first 5 books of the NT are history books. The rest of the NT are letters between pastors, or from pastors to churches. 

 

When the Bible was compiled in the 300s, which violence acts did it incite? Who was a reader of the book supposed to commit a violent act against?

I'm aware of what incitement means as well, as defined by your previous link. I would agree that by this definition, the Bible probably shouldn't be considered to be inciting violence because it most likely doesn't meet the requirement of imminence. 

 

I was more poking fun at you for your phrasing, saying that the Bible "doesn't direct its readers to commit violent acts", because it very clearly does. Repeatedly.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Nokra said:

I'm aware of what incitement means as well, as defined by your previous link. I would agree that by this definition, the Bible probably shouldn't be considered to be inciting violence because it most likely doesn't meet the requirement of imminence. 

 

I was more poking fun at you for your phrasing, saying that the Bible "doesn't direct its readers to commit violent acts", because it very clearly does. Repeatedly.  

 

I will ask again, when the Bible was compiled in the 300s which acts of violence did it incite? I think it is clear why you and others won’t answer this question  

 

Recording the history of previous incitements to violence is not incitement. It can be the basis or justification for later incitement (which is certainly the case with Christians and the Bible).

[Nokra]

23 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

I will ask again, when the Bible was compiled in the 300s which acts of violence did it incite? I think it is clear why you and others won’t answer this question  

 

Recording the history of previous incitements to violence is not incitement. It can be the basis or justification for later incitement (which is certainly the case with Christians and the Bible).

I'm not answering the question because it's irrelevant to what I was saying. You seem to have overlooked where I said that I agree with you that it wasn't inciting violence.  

 

Or are you using the words "direct to commit" as a synonym for "incite"? Because I was not, and this might be the source of the misunderstanding.  

 

I was saying that the Bible very clearly does direct/command/prescribe people to commit violent acts, but I was agreeing with you that these commands do not meet the legal definition of incitement. Therefore, I was not saying that they incited violence. 

 

If you were using "direct to commit" as a synonym for "incite" then of course me taking issue with your word choice would suggest to you that I think that the Bible does incite violence. But I was not using them as synonyms:  "incite" has a legal definition (which you provided) whereas we had not defined "direct to commit" that I had seen in the thread, so I thought you were using it in the sense of "direct/command/prescribe".

 

Are we more or less on the same page now?