Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I used to vote Republican and now I changed to voting Democrat.

Although some people might argue that voting Democrat is the same as hitting rock bottom...

 d-usa wrote:
I used to vote Republican and now I changed to voting Democrat.

Although some people might argue that voting Democrat is the same as hitting rock bottom...

Not exactly rock bottom. Pick up that rock and you're bound to see LaRouche scurrying away.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I think both sides of the abortion debate are pro-choice. They just disagree on when the choice occurs/should occur.

Well, you do have some nutters going "No, never, not even for the life of the mother!", but they a rightly called nutters by most people.

Indeed. I think Abortions can sometimes be medically necessary, and I think that is the only acceptable time to have one.

The abortion debate is entirely about the timing. 43 states already have laws that prohibit abortions on viable fetuses unless the health if the mother is threatened. Those laws are supported by SCOTUS. Pretty much every Western country with legal abortion puts limits on late term abortions.

Fetuses change over time. A week old microscopic clump of cells =/= a 36 week old baby in the womb. It's when people want to declare two dissimilar things to be the same based only on personal opinion, whether it's based on theology or morals or politics or whatever, that the craziness comes into the debate.

The laws already have it right, eggs aren't people and babies shouldn't be killed except to save the life of another. People need to accept the existing compromise that is based on proven medical science and not push for absolutist all or nothing positions.

Jerram wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.

You appear to be ignorant of the concept of command responsibility. You most certainly can be court martialed for the actions of troops under your command per the Medina standard.

Prestor Jon wrote:
[No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.

There are at least 2 states in the US where parents can be criminally charged due to their children's school truancy. Here is a case in North Carolina.

Neither example proves the point you are trying to make, in the case the Medina standard is named for he was charged because he did not take action after the fact, (in other words he became an accomplice after the fact). Similarly the NC mother isn't being charged simply because her daughter missed school but because, as is clear from the article you linked she was an active accomplice in the truancy.

So as Prestor John said "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad" There's an incredibly high standard before you get there and its not simply your troops misbehaved (although that is sometimes enough to get you relieved of command)

1.) "Saying there is an incredibly high standard" is moving the goalposts. I have disproved the point that he made. What he said was "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad". This is factually inaccurate. You can indeed in the US be charged under the UCMJ for crimes committed by those under your command.

2.) Similarly, the specifics in that truancy case aren't really relevant to the principle that disproves what he was saying. It was just a handy example. I'm sure I can find more examples but it's not really needed. What Prestor John said was "Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children". I have shown that this is also factually incorrect (or, if you prefer, answered the question given); in at least 2 state there are truancy laws that mandate that children must attend school by law, that by not doing so they are violating the criminal code, and it is the parents that are prosecuted. Also, where in the article does it say she was an accomplice in her truancy - did you read the same article I did?

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
.

The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.

ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world

people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.

how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.

People change all the time for lots of different reasons without ever having to hit "rock bottom." I know people that switched from never wanting to be married to getting married, from not wanting kids to having kids, from being Christian to becoming atheist, converting to a different religion just to get married, switching political parties, economic beliefs and policy positions, from being against gun ownership to being an avid shooter, from believing motorcycles are dangerous death traps to being enthusiastic riders etc.

People aren't hard wired carbon copies of their parents. When my parents were in elementary school the schools were segregated, now they're not and my son has multiple minority teachers and school faculty.

Parenting is important in developing children into well adjusted adults but it doesn't trap people into narrow viewpoints they're unable to change without undergoing traumatic catalysts.

you should write a paper on those anecdotes, I'm sure it will make every parenting magazine

who's this guy who never wanted to be married and choose to be married? I bet he just work up one day and said "today's the day, let's get married to someone" he just woke up single and alone, then ran out and met the girl he wanted to marry, he went from being single to married in a matter of hours. did it all on his own, no prompting from anyone.

I never said they were carbon copies, read what I wrote, all those changes had someone prompting the change, ie a catalyst.

Now for some facts, as we see the first 5 years lay down the foundation for behavior. This is where the parents have the most impact on the children's life and affects the rest of their lives.

http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/child_development.html
"In the first five years of life, your child’s brain develops more and faster than at any other time in his life. The early experiences your child has – the things he sees, hears, touches, smells and tastes – stimulate his brain, creating millions of connections. This is when foundations for learning, health and behaviour throughout life are laid down."

Parents are likewise financially responsible (in the civil suit sense) for things done by their minor children. Your kid coats someone's car in spray paint? You're paying for that, Mom and Dad, as well as any punitive fines levied by a court for the charge of vandalism.

When we talk about actions undertaken by demagogues, there are already a number of laws that apply to such. Perhaps the most often quoted is "incitement to riot". If I jump up on top of a car in front of a crowd of people and, through rhetoric (truthful or not) get them to burn down a police station and crucify the mayor, I am legally responsible for inciting a riot. I am also an accessory to murder, vandalism, destruction of property, and a list of other crimes, even if I did not personally engage in any of them myself.

Tying this back into our shooter, here's the mayor of Colorado Springs talking about this guy, following police investigation and court appearances:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/planned-parenthood-standoff-appears-domestic-terrorism-colorado-springs/story?id=35471366

more importantly, and the reason we are here, the 3 victims.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-killed-colorado-shooting-veteran-served-iraq-35484044

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
.

The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.

ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world

people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.

how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.

People change all the time for lots of different reasons without ever having to hit "rock bottom." I know people that switched from never wanting to be married to getting married, from not wanting kids to having kids, from being Christian to becoming atheist, converting to a different religion just to get married, switching political parties, economic beliefs and policy positions, from being against gun ownership to being an avid shooter, from believing motorcycles are dangerous death traps to being enthusiastic riders etc.

People aren't hard wired carbon copies of their parents. When my parents were in elementary school the schools were segregated, now they're not and my son has multiple minority teachers and school faculty.

Parenting is important in developing children into well adjusted adults but it doesn't trap people into narrow viewpoints they're unable to change without undergoing traumatic catalysts.

you should write a paper on those anecdotes, I'm sure it will make every parenting magazine

who's this guy who never wanted to be married and choose to be married? I bet he just work up one day and said "today's the day, let's get married to someone" he just woke up single and alone, then ran out and met the girl he wanted to marry, he went from being single to married in a matter of hours. did it all on his own, no prompting from anyone.

I never said they were carbon copies, read what I wrote, all those changes had someone prompting the change, ie a catalyst.

Now for some facts, as we see the first 5 years lay down the foundation for behavior. This is where the parents have the most impact on the children's life and affects the rest of their lives.

http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/child_development.html
"In the first five years of life, your child’s brain develops more and faster than at any other time in his life. The early experiences your child has – the things he sees, hears, touches, smells and tastes – stimulate his brain, creating millions of connections. This is when foundations for learning, health and behaviour throughout life are laid down."

You don't need a traumatic or dramatic catalyst to change. People change behaviors and opinions all the time for various reasons. Your supposition that people most often must hit " rock bottom" to effect changes is false.

The information you posted regarding the developmental importance of the first five years of a person's life does nothing to contradict or dispute what I wrote. I've raised and coached and interacted with many five year old and younger children. The lessons they learn at that age are important, I never said they weren't. Nothing learned during those initial five years precludes or prohibits people from changing and evolving over time. People make all kinds of changes in their opinions and behaviors for a plethora of reasons throughout their lives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Parents are likewise financially responsible (in the civil suit sense) for things done by their minor children. Your kid coats someone's car in spray paint? You're paying for that, Mom and Dad, as well as any punitive fines levied by a court for the charge of vandalism.

When we talk about actions undertaken by demagogues, there are already a number of laws that apply to such. Perhaps the most often quoted is "incitement to riot". If I jump up on top of a car in front of a crowd of people and, through rhetoric (truthful or not) get them to burn down a police station and crucify the mayor, I am legally responsible for inciting a riot. I am also an accessory to murder, vandalism, destruction of property, and a list of other crimes, even if I did not personally engage in any of them myself.

Tying this back into our shooter, here's the mayor of Colorado Springs talking about this guy, following police investigation and court appearances:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/planned-parenthood-standoff-appears-domestic-terrorism-colorado-springs/story?id=35471366

Inciting a riot is a participatory act and participating in riots has always been a punishable offense. Participating in a riot by extolling other participants to riot does not exert forcible control over the actions of others. There are no magic words that anyone can say to compel people to riot against their will. Encouraging people to start rioting and to continue rioting is only effective with a group of people that has already collectively decided that rioting is an acceptable act. Rhetoric =/= mass hypnosis. Nobody has a silvered tongue so talented as to be able to convince a random assortment of strangers to suddenly commit criminal acts based solely on the convincing nature of his/her oratory.

 Ouze wrote:

Jerram wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.

You appear to be ignorant of the concept of command responsibility. You most certainly can be court martialed for the actions of troops under your command per the Medina standard.

Prestor Jon wrote:
[No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.

There are at least 2 states in the US where parents can be criminally charged due to their children's school truancy. Here is a case in North Carolina.

Neither example proves the point you are trying to make, in the case the Medina standard is named for he was charged because he did not take action after the fact, (in other words he became an accomplice after the fact). Similarly the NC mother isn't being charged simply because her daughter missed school but because, as is clear from the article you linked she was an active accomplice in the truancy.

So as Prestor John said "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad" There's an incredibly high standard before you get there and its not simply your troops misbehaved (although that is sometimes enough to get you relieved of command)

1.) "Saying there is an incredibly high standard" is moving the goalposts. I have disproved the point that he made. What he said was "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad". This is factually inaccurate. You can indeed in the US be charged under the UCMJ for crimes committed by those under your command.

2.) Similarly, the specifics in that truancy case aren't really relevant to the principle that disproves what he was saying. It was just a handy example. I'm sure I can find more examples but it's not really needed. What Prestor John said was "Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children". I have shown that this is also factually incorrect (or, if you prefer, answered the question given); in at least 2 state there are truancy laws that mandate that children must attend school by law, that by not doing so they are violating the criminal code, and it is the parents that are prosecuted. Also, where in the article does it say she was an accomplice in her truancy - did you read the same article I did?

1) No that is factually true the officer does not face court martial JUST[i] because somebody under his command did something bad, he could face court martial due to his own action or inaction, not JUST because of his troops actions.


2) You mean where based on her own words she knew about it ahead of time and condoned it ? So once again based on action or inaction taken by the parent with regard to the minor. I not only read the article I comprehended the article.

Yeah, I'm going to just feel like I'm right and drop it. What you're saying is in the article really isn't there, and the other thing is pure, 100% goalpost moving. I've satisfied both of the questions raised as they were written. That thing you said about how Medina was charged because of something he did after the fact (this becoming an accomplice, as you say) is simply 100% not true, at all. Among the other charges he faced were 22 counts of Murder, but at no point was he accused of personally carrying out those 22 murders - he was being held responsible for the murders committed by the men under his command that he did not stop. Not after the fact, during the action.

The idea that a commanding officer can be held criminally responsible for the crimes of their subordinates isn't a novel argument. It goes back to WW2. I'm not sure why we're even arguing about it because you even tacitly admitted as such when you initially said "there is an incredibly high standard". So, I'm satisfied I'm right. Also, this has become super off-topic so you should probably PM me about it if you want to continue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The NYT has a good piece up with some background on the shooter.

Suffice it to say, he did in fact target Planned Parenthood, thus ending one of the more bizarre arguments that this thread offered.

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.

I've got two adult sons. They are 11 months different in age. One has made 'good' choices in life for the most part and is doing well as a productive member of society. One has made 'very bad' choices that eventually got him some time in a Fed pen. Trust me when I say I feel ZERO responsibility for his actions. Even raised decently kids grow up and make their own choices. Holding parents 'responsible but not liable' for actions (not thoughts) of adults seems very silly to me. Unless the parents are in some way enabling poor behavior (which I have seen) I just don't get how the parents can be 'responsible but not liable' for actions of an adult.

Presumably you tried your best to provide a good home environment, moral instruction, and so on, for both children.

Why did you do that if you think that adults make their own choices?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The relevance of this line of discussion is that the shooter is presumed to have a variety of influences that motivated his conduct, what these might be, and whether for example if racism was one of them, the promotion of racism by other people could be considered to have contributed to the shooter's crimes.

 Ouze wrote:
The NYT has a good piece up with some background on the shooter.

Suffice it to say, he did in fact target Planned Parenthood, thus ending one of the more bizarre arguments that this thread offered.

But can we really be sure that he was targetting PP? I mean, might he have just been shooting people nearby and happened to have ended up in PP? I don't know about you, but being a long-term abortion opponent; condoning people that attack abortion clinics, and saying "no more baby parts" to the police just isn't enough evidence that he was specifically targeting an abortion provider.

We just need to wait and find out.

Relapse wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Is discussing the merits and morals of Christians considered on-topic in a thread about a nutjob who shot some people?

It seems to have gone in that direction.

The guy also identified as a woman. Does this mean transsexuals and transvestites need to be discussed as menaces here? Never mind, I was see it was a clerical error on a voter registration or some such.

Well I for one now will be much more leery of large bearded women carrying rifles.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.

I've got two adult sons. They are 11 months different in age. One has made 'good' choices in life for the most part and is doing well as a productive member of society. One has made 'very bad' choices that eventually got him some time in a Fed pen. Trust me when I say I feel ZERO responsibility for his actions. Even raised decently kids grow up and make their own choices. Holding parents 'responsible but not liable' for actions (not thoughts) of adults seems very silly to me. Unless the parents are in some way enabling poor behavior (which I have seen) I just don't get how the parents can be 'responsible but not liable' for actions of an adult.

Presumably you tried your best to provide a good home environment, moral instruction, and so on, for both children.

Why did you do that if you think that adults make their own choices?
.

Likely because of hubris. We as parents feel we can pass on the tools necessary for the kids to base their decisions on when they are adults. But in the end, we do so knowing the kid, once an adult is going to make the (or in some cases not make) decisions on their own, regardless of what we did or did not do to them/for them/around them.

Do you not think adults make their own choices and are responsible for them?

I think that even in cases where they have a choice free from direct coercion, adults are heavily influenced in their decisions by many factors including upbringing, social pressure, religion and other ideas of right and wrong, as well as their own in-born drives. Therefore, no decision is taken in a vacuum and responsibility may be born by other people who helped to create the various influences on the individual's decision.

For example, I think that if a holy leader promotes the idea of violent struggle against infidels, he bears some responsibility for members of his religion engaging in violent struggle against infidels. The same thing applies in many walks of life ranging from trivial to vitally important, and encompasses positive as well as negative influences.

This is the whole basis for laws and rules like Gloryifing Terrorism, or Bring The Game into Disrepute, the Hippocratic Oath, and so on.

So in your case I would say that you have tried to promote positive values in your children, and this worked in one case but not in the other. You can take some credit, for the success of the good son, and regret the failings of the bad one while perhaps wondering what more you could have done.

Another article in the Post ref background:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/before-colorado-shooting-a-long-history-of-violence-against-women/2015/12/01/7f494c86-987b-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that even in cases where they have a choice free from direct coercion, adults are heavily influenced in their decisions by many factors including upbringing, social pressure, religion and other ideas of right and wrong, as well as their own in-born drives. Therefore, no decision is taken in a vacuum and responsibility may be born by other people who helped to create the various influences on the individual's decision.

For example, I think that if a holy leader promotes the idea of violent struggle against infidels, he bears some responsibility for members of his religion engaging in violent struggle against infidels. The same thing applies in many walks of life ranging from trivial to vitally important, and encompasses positive as well as negative influences.

This is the whole basis for laws and rules like Gloryifing Terrorism, or Bring The Game into Disrepute, the Hippocratic Oath, and so on.

So in your case I would say that you have tried to promote positive values in your children, and this worked in one case but not in the other. You can take some credit, for the success of the good son, and regret the failings of the bad one while perhaps wondering what more you could have done.

I totally agree, it's the lament of all parents of kids who make mistakes. "where did I go wrong?"

I can honestly say I don't have that lament. Son1 made his choices. Not me. Nothing I did/did not do makes me feel even a tiny bit responsible for his actions.

Inciting a riot is a participatory act and participating in riots has always been a punishable offense. Participating in a riot by extolling other participants to riot does not exert forcible control over the actions of others. There are no magic words that anyone can say to compel people to riot against their will. Encouraging people to start rioting and to continue rioting is only effective with a group of people that has already collectively decided that rioting is an acceptable act. Rhetoric =/= mass hypnosis. Nobody has a silvered tongue so talented as to be able to convince a random assortment of strangers to suddenly commit criminal acts based solely on the convincing nature of his/her oratory.

Not a single word of that matters in the charge of incitement to riot. I do not need to personally participate in the riot to be charged with that crime, or be attached as an accessory to crimes committed during it (though the burden of proof is on the state to prove that I specifically incited those criminal actions).

"Incitement to" and "Conspiracy to" charges are used to nab people they otherwise cannot place at the scene of a committed crime. It is why these crimes exist, and is how people still go down for murder charges after using hitmen to actually pull the trigger. These crimes are basically intended to nab people who convince other people to do crimes for them.

 Psienesis wrote:

Inciting a riot is a participatory act and participating in riots has always been a punishable offense. Participating in a riot by extolling other participants to riot does not exert forcible control over the actions of others. There are no magic words that anyone can say to compel people to riot against their will. Encouraging people to start rioting and to continue rioting is only effective with a group of people that has already collectively decided that rioting is an acceptable act. Rhetoric =/= mass hypnosis. Nobody has a silvered tongue so talented as to be able to convince a random assortment of strangers to suddenly commit criminal acts based solely on the convincing nature of his/her oratory.

Not a single word of that matters in the charge of incitement to riot. I do not need to personally participate in the riot to be charged with that crime, or be attached as an accessory to crimes committed during it (though the burden of proof is on the state to prove that I specifically incited those criminal actions).

"Incitement to" and "Conspiracy to" charges are used to nab people they otherwise cannot place at the scene of a committed crime. It is why these crimes exist, and is how people still go down for murder charges after using hitmen to actually pull the trigger. These crimes are basically intended to nab people who convince other people to do crimes for them.

No, there has to be direct linkage between the speaker and the rioters for the charge to be warranted. If you're speaking directly to people committing a crime and extolling them to commit that crime you're an accessory and can be charged with incitement. Same way that somebody that only drives the getaway car can be charged with the bank robbery even though that person only drove a car and driving isn't illegal. You lose your free speech protection when your speech is participatory in a crime. Conspiracy also only applies to participants, if a person help somebody plan a crime that is a form of assistance and makes them a participant in that crime and any other crimes that are spawned from that original crime.

In this case, there hasn't been anything released by the authorities that shows that the gunman was connected to any larger group, Christian, Pro Life or other. Without evidence of a direct connection there isn't any grounds to charge anyone else with incitement, conspiracy, etc.

Relapse wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.

I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.

When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.

I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.

By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.

So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.

If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.

Yeah, because kids are never dicks when it comes to pointing out and obsessing over the differences of their peers.

I am sure there are a few things left out of lonestarr777's story, but that doesn't change the outcome of his younger experience. He was outed as a non-believer in high school and was harassed as a result.

I wonder why you question him, though.

Perhaps it has something to do with lonestarr777's lack of faith and your perception of his trustworthiness?

I find it odd that an idle sentence in a class led to him having psycological evaluations. That's quite a leap in my world, if not yours. What he believes or not has nothing to do with it.

You have been sheltered then. My own wife went through that kind of thing as a child for not believing in the right church. Some people, sometimes even people in power, simply won't accept that others don't believe in Jesus the same way they do. This can often lead to the person in power assuming there must be something wrong in the wrong-thinking unbeliever. It's even easier when the mob agrees with the person in power.

But you'd be wrong in assuming that is even close to common.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you'd be wrong in assuming that is even close to common.

It is pretty common if you are the minority I'm afraid. Living in the far east, people would simply be unable to conceive the concept that I did not believe in any supernatural powers or spirits. Had I been subject to their powers (and local), I am sure that I would have had to spend large amounts of my time being prodded by various people to determine what was wrong with me...

USA isn't the Far East.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
USA isn't the Far East.

It isn't?!? :O

I was using a personal example to illustrate a point; it is not just christian majorities that can have serious impacts on those of other and no faiths, nor is it confined to a single culture or geographic location. People will treat others differently for having alternative beliefs; the more prevelant the presiding belief in that place, the more likely it is that people who do not share it will get some form of grief. And the less likely it is a member of that homogeneous majority will see the inequality.

I had a guy who I was friends with at the gym and after he asked which church I was a member of and I told him I didn't belong to a church he stopped talking to me.

 Ahtman wrote:
I had a guy who I was friends with at the gym and after he asked which church I was a member of and I told him I didn't belong to a church he stopped talking to me.

I hate to tell you, but thats not why he quit talking to you. We told you before about maintaining personal space boundaries, but you just don't listen...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Inciting a riot is a participatory act and participating in riots has always been a punishable offense. Participating in a riot by extolling other participants to riot does not exert forcible control over the actions of others. There are no magic words that anyone can say to compel people to riot against their will. Encouraging people to start rioting and to continue rioting is only effective with a group of people that has already collectively decided that rioting is an acceptable act. Rhetoric =/= mass hypnosis. Nobody has a silvered tongue so talented as to be able to convince a random assortment of strangers to suddenly commit criminal acts based solely on the convincing nature of his/her oratory.

Not a single word of that matters in the charge of incitement to riot. I do not need to personally participate in the riot to be charged with that crime, or be attached as an accessory to crimes committed during it (though the burden of proof is on the state to prove that I specifically incited those criminal actions).

"Incitement to" and "Conspiracy to" charges are used to nab people they otherwise cannot place at the scene of a committed crime. It is why these crimes exist, and is how people still go down for murder charges after using hitmen to actually pull the trigger. These crimes are basically intended to nab people who convince other people to do crimes for them.

No, there has to be direct linkage between the speaker and the rioters for the charge to be warranted. If you're speaking directly to people committing a crime and extolling them to commit that crime you're an accessory and can be charged with incitement. Same way that somebody that only drives the getaway car can be charged with the bank robbery even though that person only drove a car and driving isn't illegal. You lose your free speech protection when your speech is participatory in a crime. Conspiracy also only applies to participants, if a person help somebody plan a crime that is a form of assistance and makes them a participant in that crime and any other crimes that are spawned from that original crime.

In this case, there hasn't been anything released by the authorities that shows that the gunman was connected to any larger group, Christian, Pro Life or other. Without evidence of a direct connection there isn't any grounds to charge anyone else with incitement, conspiracy, etc.

No, not really. And in the case of our Colorado shooter, we have definite linkage, out of his own mouth. The guy is quoting things that were brought up in the fraudulent videos. There's the guy on Facebook, Fuerstein, with nearly 2 million followers, who is calling for people to assassinate abortion providers. We have a Presidential nominee who is saying that she saw things in those videos that were not found therein to stoke the anti-abortion debate. Then you've got a guy who's reading and watching all this, with a history of action against Planned Parenthood specifically, and women in general. The hell do you think this guy is going to do?

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you'd be wrong in assuming that is even close to common.

Among vocal atheists, Wiccans and Satanists, it seems pretty common. For those of us who keep our heads down? Not as much.

For Christians, I bet it almost never happens. Except to Mormons. (I know 2 Mormons who went through that kind of harassment, including the teacher isolating them from playing with other kids in public school because they weren't "true" Christians.)

It should be pointed out that, some debate notwithstanding, the planet *is* spherical, and thus everywhere is "far east" from the relative vantage point of somewhere else.