New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Baldanders]

So yes, both mass murder and sexual abuse of children are “atrocities,” but they are qualitatively different.

And I wonder about the implications of your last point as well. I think I get what you’re trying to say. But upon reflection, I would argue that a society where a billion people watched simulated child porn is far worse off than a society where one of those billion was murdered.

I understand your point as well. Obviously we differ in our moral codes. The regulation of the consumption of fictional media, sparked by the desire to suppress "immoral" thoughts, falls into the area of criminalizing thoughtcrime (in Orwell's definition/coining of the word) for me. The justification seems to be certain thoughts or feelings are, in and of themselves, evil acts. I only assign moral value to actions which occur externally from the mind. An absurdist, but true, example would be courts declaring sex offenders can't possess completely legal (for the rest of us) materials such a video of young girls cheerleading or a swimsuit catalog with sub-18-year olds inside, because they will have evil thoughts about the girls within.

Yes, I know. Really the crime that the courts are trying to stop is "vile thoughts while masturbating." I don't see how this affects anyone else.

I am familiar with the idea that evil thoughts lead to evil actions. Buddhism makes it fairly clear in two parts of the eight-fold path--"right thought/right action." But I don't see where legislation to produce right thought which leads to right action has any logical end. Also, people have had no problem thinking bad thoughts which lead to evil actions without media to spur them on since the beginning of history.

But works made by monsters to showcase their cruelty featuring real-life victims are ipso facto evil actions. Even if the direct victims are dead. (As others have stated, their living loved ones can be victimized as well.) I'm not saying any material along these lines should automatically banned for ownership by the public, but they are some of the few bits of 'speech' for which I see a solid rational justification for banning.

A related point: the point of terrorism is to create a reaction by government in response to the horror of the public to the terrorist act. It looks like this guy would be justified in feeling he accomplished his goal at the moment. What fictionalized account of the video could do more damage to gun rights, and civil rights in general, than what is actually in the video?

[nalesq]

I understand your point as well. Obviously we differ in our moral codes. The regulation of the consumption of fictional media, sparked by the desire to suppress "immoral" thoughts, falls into the area of criminalizing thoughtcrime (in Orwell's definition/coining of the word) for me. The justification seems to be certain thoughts or feelings are, in and of themselves, evil acts. I only assign moral value to actions which occur externally from the mind. An absurdist, but true, example would be courts declaring sex offenders can't possess completely legal (for the rest of us) materials such a video of young girls cheerleading or a swimsuit catalog with sub-18-year olds inside, because they will have evil thoughts about the girls within.

Yes, I know. Really the crime that the courts are trying to stop is "vile thoughts while masturbating." I don't see how this affects anyone else.

I am familiar with the idea that evil thoughts lead to evil actions. Buddhism makes it fairly clear in two parts of the eight-fold path--"right thought/right action." But I don't see where legislation to produce right thought which leads to right action has any logical end. Also, people have had no problem thinking bad thoughts which lead to evil actions without media to spur them on since the beginning of history.

But works made by monsters to showcase their cruelty featuring real-life victims are ipso facto evil actions. Even if the direct victims are dead. (As others have stated, their living loved ones can be victimized as well.) I'm not saying any material along these lines should automatically banned for ownership by the public, but they are some of the few bits of 'speech' for which I see a solid rational justification for banning.

A related point: the point of terrorism is to create a reaction by government in response to the horror of the public to the terrorist act. It looks like this guy would be justified in feeling he accomplished his goal at the moment. What fictionalized account of the video could do more damage to gun rights, and civil rights in general, than what is actually in the video?

Let me say here, too, that while I do think there are whole other categories of moral failures that may well be almost entirely internal (e.g., cowardice), that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily practical or wise to try to somehow regulate it, especially using the power of the government. Even certain kinds external, harmful acts that are also obviously immoral, such as adultery, are not necessarily things that prudently fall under the jurisdiction of the state.

Getting back to the issue of whether the murderer’s video should be banned, I don’t think it should. Maybe it should be hard to come by (e.g., by major private entities like Google or Facebook simply refusing to make it easily available), but I don’t think it should be illegal. I understand not wanting to glorify this shithead or encourage other shitheads. I also understand wanting to respect the dead and their families, and not cause them unnecessary pain.

But I agree with others in this thread that by going down the road of the government trying to ban all record of the evil this shithead has done is a slippery slope to a future where the powers that be begin routinely deleting horrors of the past to lull the people of the present into forgetting the propensity of evil in humankind, making them unprepared for the future horrors.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Baldanders]

Let me say here, too, that while I do think there are whole other categories of moral failures that may well be almost entirely internal (e.g., cowardice), that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily practical or wise to try to somehow regulate it, especially using the power of the government. Even certain kinds external, harmful acts that are also obviously immoral, such as adultery, are not necessarily things that prudently fall under the jurisdiction of the state.

Getting back to the issue of whether the murderer’s video should be banned, I don’t think it should. Maybe it should be hard to come by (e.g., by major private entities like Google or Facebook simply refusing to make it easily available), but I don’t think it should be illegal. I understand not wanting to glorify this shithead or encourage other shitheads. I also understand wanting to respect the dead and their families, and not cause them unnecessary pain.

But I agree with others in this thread that by going down the road of the government trying to ban all record of the evil this shithead has done is a slippery slope to a future where the powers that be begin routinely deleting horrors of the past to lull the people of the present into forgetting the propensity of evil in humankind, making them unprepared for the future horrors.

My, so much rational, calm discussion. One might develop the delusion this forum is populated by real adults--at least part time.

BTW, I would never support ANY ban of footage of an atrocity filmed by a third party--or the victims! My opinion is very narrowly limited to crimes filmed by the perp. I understand why many don't trust government to stay within that small box.

My comment above reminded me of the movie "Stange Days." And I just realized the VR, fully surround-sound version of this horror is waiting for us soon, with complete inevitability.

[HCM]

I understand your point as well. Obviously we differ in our moral codes. The regulation of the consumption of fictional media, sparked by the desire to suppress "immoral" thoughts, falls into the area of criminalizing thoughtcrime (in Orwell's definition/coining of the word) for me. The justification seems to be certain thoughts or feelings are, in and of themselves, evil acts. I only assign moral value to actions which occur externally from the mind. An absurdist, but true, example would be courts declaring sex offenders can't possess completely legal (for the rest of us) materials such a video of young girls cheerleading or a swimsuit catalog with sub-18-year olds inside, because they will have evil thoughts about the girls within.

Yes, I know. Really the crime that the courts are trying to stop is "vile thoughts while masturbating." I don't see how this affects anyone else.

I am familiar with the idea that evil thoughts lead to evil actions. Buddhism makes it fairly clear in two parts of the eight-fold path--"right thought/right action." But I don't see where legislation to produce right thought which leads to right action has any logical end. Also, people have had no problem thinking bad thoughts which lead to evil actions without media to spur them on since the beginning of history.

But works made by monsters to showcase their cruelty featuring real-life victims are ipso facto evil actions. Even if the direct victims are dead. (As others have stated, their living loved ones can be victimized as well.) I'm not saying any material along these lines should automatically banned for ownership by the public, but they are some of the few bits of 'speech' for which I see a solid rational justification for banning.

A related point: the point of terrorism is to create a reaction by government in response to the horror of the public to the terrorist act. It looks like this guy would be justified in feeling he accomplished his goal at the moment. What fictionalized account of the video could do more damage to gun rights, and civil rights in general, than what is actually in the video?

Terrorism is intended to coerce or create a reaction from a government OR a population. Either way this suspect has succeeded to some degree.

Speaking of history, we live in a bubble of safety and security unprecedented in human history. The truth is events like this are the historical norm, not the exception.

Historically, the only novelty in this event is technology enabling one man to do what used to take a group acting in concert.

[0ddl0t]

The prime minister just announced a ban on semiautos and the liberal US media is swooning.

[HCM]

The prime minister just announced a ban on semiautos and the liberal US media is swooning.

[TGS]

@HCM,

It was really 36 minutes till they had armed police on scene?

Do you have any specifics on the response?

[HCM]

@HCM,

It was really 36 minutes till they had armed police on scene?

Do you have any specifics on the response?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-t...es-11552720064

[Casual Friday]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-t...es-11552720064

I live in the middle of nowhere and 36 minutes is about our average response time. In a city that is quite unacceptable.

[TGS]

I live in the middle of nowhere and 36 minutes is about our average response time. In a city that is quite unacceptable.

Well, the devil is in the details.

He was "active" for 36 minutes. He also left the first site before police arrived, drove across town to another site...….so all that drive time he was still "active".

Quite a bit different than police taking 36 minutes to get to the scene.