This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

AnderTao's Profile

AnderTao's Avatar Joined almost 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by AnderTao

More Discussions by AnderTao

Latest Comments by AnderTao

Go to: IN FULL: Atheist in memory lapse and slavery shock

AnderTao's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by AnderTao

You didn’t used to hear the ‘Christian Country…” bit as much, it usually stopped after the ‘trust in God’ statement. But after David Cameron sanctioned it with his ‘UK is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say it’ speech, late last year, the full statement has returned. You can just imagine the various, ‘Association of Christian [some trade or profession] having committee meetings and resolving to follow the PMs advice and encourage it’s members to declare UK Christianity whenever the opportunity arose.

That is just speculation by the way I do not have evidence it happened, but I have certainly heard an increase in the bleating of the full mantra. Annoyingly, people met the RDFRS survey with snorts along the lines of, “why would anyone want to challenge how people refer to themselves, if that is not militant and fundamentalist what is? I wonder if they felt the (tax payer funded) David Cameron was being militant and fundamentalist when encouraging prosthelytizing supposed UK Christianity.

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:01:11 UTC | #923877

Go to: IN FULL: Atheist in memory lapse and slavery shock

AnderTao's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by AnderTao

Never liked surveys whenever I see a clip board coming towards me I put my head down and look at my watch, last time it happened I was leaving a public toilet with a woman, clip board in hand, stationed outside. I shudder to think what she was going to ask.

This one has converted me to their usefulness. I work in a job where the rigorous application of truth is supposed to be central and some of the people in it are very powerful because the decisions they make can radically alter lives.

But when logic runs up against a dead end I am pig sick of hearing all too frequently, “well we will just have to put our trust in God, still being a Christian country”. Now I can quote some figures which will stifle my urge at such times to slump into maniacal laughter.

I sometimes have trouble trusting people I know exist never mind the ones I don’t believe do.

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:59:47 UTC | #923792

Go to: Church 'does not own marriage'

AnderTao's Avatar Jump to comment 130 by AnderTao

“I can't believe I'm having this discussion.....on a site devoted to rational thinking !

The minute you have legislation that determines that the thought behind a crime is itself criminal, then it is really only a very short step to seperating out that component and prosecuting people for the 'hate' alone. After has aready set the legal precedent that the hate is a seperable part of a crime. Duh !”

Others who are interested can decide if it is rational for someone who has been told several times that hate is NOT a constituent part of the crime to continually argue on the false premise that it is. (In your example of assault the persons motive, what we have been colloquially calling hate, plays no part in whether or not the accused committed the constituent parts of the offence of assault) It is clear from other posts that someone acknowledges the practical importance of the distinction between the constituent parts of a crime and issues relating to other parts of the criminal process.

I have explained what hate crimes are and why in my view they are not thoughtcrime.If anyone wishes to check my propositions – a rational person might – then the entry on Hate Crime on Wikipedia is probably sufficient for the purpose, it also has a section on the debate over whether hate crime is thoughtcrime. I would recommend some of the works referenced in the notes to this section but I would miss the one referring to the work of David Ike who it would appear also equates hate crime with thoughtcrime – just a suggestion.

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:26:32 UTC | #923396

Go to: Church 'does not own marriage'

AnderTao's Avatar Jump to comment 128 by AnderTao

"I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. Every single thing covered by 'hate crime' legislation was already a crime before the word 'hate' was added. If one assaulted someone, the crime was the assault itself. Why should the fact that a person 'hates' someone they are assaulting make it more of a crime than if they don't....when the actual crime is the assault ?"

It doesn't it makes it an explicit aggravating factor to be taken into account in sentencing, aggravating factors (including the persons motivations) have always been taken into account for all crimes. It was just that the predominantly white male, middle class, middle aged judiciary needed a nudge before they recognized that being assaulted just because you were gay, disabled, or from a particular racial group was an aggravating factor and ought to be discouraged through sentencing policy.

Crime is crime. Breaking into someone's house is illegal.....whether I love the owner to bits or hate his guts. To add the word 'hate' to it is every sense of the word.

Not in the sense of thought crime, nor is hate crime, in your words, ".... the very definition of thought crime...."

because unlike thought crime, the thought alone is not sufficient there must be the accompanying act.

You are making the same error as Janet Daly when she opposed legislation by saying;

“In effect, it creates a category of thought crime which is a breach of the fundamental principle of human liberty. In a democracy, you should be free to hate anyone or anything you want – providing that you do not act on that hatred.”

What you both fail to acknowledge is that for hate crime legislation to kick in the person MUST first have acted on that hatred.

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 04:58:36 UTC | #923364

Go to: Church 'does not own marriage'

AnderTao's Avatar Jump to comment 123 by AnderTao

“(punishing people just for thinking certain things, regardless of whether they act on them), “

Has it in a nutshell . ‘Hate crimes’ are not equivalent to Orwell’s thought crimes.

In law you are allowed to hate as much as you like as long as you do not commit (or attempt to commit the prohibited act (actus reus) accompanied by the requisite state of mind (mens rea). And ‘hate crimes’ in this respect are no different from any other crime, all of which require an accompanying state of mind. But you can think about a crime as much as you like it will only be criminal when you act or attempt to act upon it.( Leaving aside the minority of less serious offences, which does not include ‘hate crimes’, that are of strict liability and therefore can be committed without any required state of mind)

“So the argument that marriage should be legally defined as people might have done fifty years ago essentially boils down to a mean-spirited and homophobic desire to turn the clock back. It is a position that would implicitly deny culturally positive terms to gay people because... what? because homophobic straight people don't want to share? Or because homophobic straight people place the artificial necromantic revivification of the lexicography of the 1950s as a higher priority than enshrining equality of treatment in the language of the law?”

Says it all for me.

Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:52:13 UTC | #923327

More Comments by AnderTao