Well folks, there ya go. If you are planning anything important, keep it off the interwebs. Or at least use encryption.

Ugh, thought crimes. Makes me sick. But it's utterly predictable. Power corrupts, and we are letting the fear mongers have as much power as they want.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pothead pundit, free speech, anarchy in the uk, thought crime, hypocrasy' to 'pothead pundit, free speech, anarchy in the uk, thought crime, hypocrisy' - edited by gwiz665

Sadly, thought crimes are here to stay.

I wished America had such polite cops.

American Cops would have manhandled you, put you in cuffs and stuffed you in the police car with in 2 minutes.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Thought crimes, coming to a dictatorship near you!

Oh, don't worry, only the proletariat will be charged with anything. This is all just to keep them afraid anyhow. Shhhh, don't tell.

Thought crimes, coming to a dictatorship near you!

"Thought crimes" that should set of alarm bells of any thinking person.

America is no longer a democracy or a free republic, it is a dictatorship, ruled be fear, fearmongerers people who think that someone who doesn't think like they do is a criminal.

Thinking differently is not a crime!

"because there's no question there are terrorists on U.S. soil looking for opportunities to kill americans"

'We don't punish people for thoughts..' " but the Supreme Court has ruled you wrong on [thought crime]"

Ugh O'reilly is the worst kind of person! >_<.! <>

Hi @BicycleRepairMan! Since we’re discussing the 10 commandments, I thought I’d do us a favor and actually post them here for us to look at so it’s easier to discuss. Note that there are two versions, the ones from Exodus and the ones from Deuteronomy, so I’ve posted both versions (as printed on Wikipedia):

Exodus

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Deuteronomy

6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
7 you shall have no other gods before me.
8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,
10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.
15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.
16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
17 You shall not murder.
18 Neither shall you commit adultery.
19 Neither shall you steal.
20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.
21 Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

I do not see anywhere in either version of the Ten Commandments any “command” about not thinking about or interpreting these commandments. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so. My original point stands—that’s not what they actually say. There is no need to excuse or explain away the original text, because there’s nothing explicitly written there that supports your interpretation.

That being said, to some extent Hitchens’ interpretation of the Ten Commandments as including thought crimes matches that of the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Ten Commandments. However, you yourself pointed out that most Christians—including Catholics—don’t interpret it that way personally. And that’s the weakness with Hitchens’ argument. He’s not arguing against religion here, he’s arguing against one particular interpretation of a particular religious ruleset (the Ten Commandments) of a particular religious sect (orthodox Catholicism). His interpretation, it turns out, is not even held by the majority of the worshipers of that particular religion (Christianity as a whole). Which begs the question of why he’s even going off about it (the thought crime thing) in the first place? His claim is that the Ten Commandments are a terrible place to get your morality from, yet his argument is actually not against the Commandments themselves but against the unthinking interpretation of some religious adherents. I don't find that to be a very rational or convincing argument against the Commandments themselves.

I'd love to hear about an example of, or perhaps the direction to look towards, 'an absolute right or wrong answer to a moral question.'

Furthermore, is the ten commandment example a liar's paradox?

And an aside, if it is not supposed to address every single instance, should not the same attitude be applied to the other commandments? I interpret that this sense of relativity or subjectivity is one of the cornerstones of Hitchen's issues with religiously founded morality, especially when there are zealots who do take them absolutely.

>> ^SDGundamX:
It sounds like Hitchens and Sam Harris disagree about morality. Hitchens seems to be suggesting that morality is relative, whereas Harris seems to think that morality is absolute--that, in his words, "there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind." I would be interested in seeing them debate the issue.
My own idea is that it probably falls in the middle somewhere... that there are certain general moral principles or guidelines that are absolutes but that these principles manifest themselves quite differently in different cultures. I think as a species we are approaching agreement on these general principles (in the form of codifying human rights). I don't know if science can help us find these (Harris' talks are always vague on the details), but I agree with Hitchens that they should come from rational thought.
However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say (though fundamentalists often interpret the Bible that way). Usually when there is a law--any law, religious or secular--it exists for a reason. And I think it is pretty easy to understand the reasons why a society would have laws (or commandments in this case) forbidding people from murdering each other. He's right, it doesn't deal with the particular cases. But as a general moral rule it's not supposed to address every single instance.
If I understand his argument correctly, he's offended that a deity is telling him what to do because he assumes that deity is not respecting his right to think for himself. A different perspective would be that said deity (or human author as the case may be) was providing a hint at how to live a happier and more peaceful life. Killing people, sleeping with their wives, etc. is not usually the way to achieve that. The thought-crime stuff that Hitchens talks about is only one interpretation (primarily Catholic) of the commandments, but there others as well--for example,that the act of "coveting" means actively planning to take what someone else has (wife, goods, or otherwise). In that interpretation being envious isn't a sin, but plotting how to trick someone out of their property (scamming them) would be.

It sounds like Hitchens and Sam Harris disagree about morality. Hitchens seems to be suggesting that morality is relative, whereas Harris seems to think that morality is absolute--that, in his words, "there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind." I would be interested in seeing them debate the issue.

My own idea is that it probably falls in the middle somewhere... that there are certain general moral principles or guidelines that are absolutes but that these principles manifest themselves quite differently in different cultures. I think as a species we are approaching agreement on these general principles (in the form of codifying human rights). I don't know if science can help us find these (Harris' talks are always vague on the details), but I agree with Hitchens that they should come from rational thought.

However, I disagree with Hitchens about the ten commandments (or any laws for that matter) somehow being anathema to rational thought. If one of the ten commandments was, say, "don't ever think about why we have these commandments" or "don't ever try to interpret these commandments, just follow them to the letter" then I'd have to agree with him. But that's not what they say (though fundamentalists often interpret the Bible that way). Usually when there is a law--any law, religious or secular--it exists for a reason. And I think it is pretty easy to understand the reasons why a society would have laws (or commandments in this case) forbidding people from murdering each other. He's right, it doesn't deal with the particular cases. But as a general moral rule it's not supposed to address every single instance.

If I understand his argument correctly, he's offended that a deity is telling him what to do because he assumes that deity is not respecting his right to think for himself. A different perspective would be that said deity (or human author as the case may be) was providing a hint at how to live a happier and more peaceful life. Killing people, sleeping with their wives, etc. is not usually the way to achieve that. The thought-crime stuff that Hitchens talks about is only one interpretation (primarily Catholic) of the commandments, but there others as well--for example,that the act of "coveting" means actively planning to take what someone else has (wife, goods, or otherwise). In that interpretation being envious isn't a sin, but plotting how to trick someone out of their property (scamming them) would be.

>> ^Yogi:

I read somewhere that the state took them away and put them in foster care. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that sort of thing because it's kind of like punishing thought crimes. There's arguments back and forth for it, I'm not gonna say it's wrong but I'm not believing that the state having that kind of power is necessarily something to cheer.


The children were taken away over concerns of domestic violence. Not surprisingly, there are many things mess up in that household.

I read somewhere that the state took them away and put them in foster care. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that sort of thing because it's kind of like punishing thought crimes. There's arguments back and forth for it, I'm not gonna say it's wrong but I'm not believing that the state having that kind of power is necessarily something to cheer.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I fail to see what's funny about murder, thefts and destruction of property. Illegal immigration IS a big problem here in Arizona, and abolutely nothing about this commercial is terrible. The only thing about this commercial that should make you say "WTF" is the lack of manpower we have assigned to the border and the non-existence of a real fence.


I thought crime in Arizona has been going down. Some people make it sound like the illegal immigrants are destroying the place and they're cowering in their homes. The mindless Zombie Illegals feasting off rich pure American blood.

Wearing the American flag is insulting to the flag and the U.S.A., just like allowing it to be on the gound, flying it at night without lighting, flying a non-weatherized flag in storms, or flying any other flag higher or in front of the American flag on U.S. territory, or displaying it upside down except in cases of emergency as a signal for help.
From http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagcode.htm
d.The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.
j.No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.

Forget intent, that's thought crime. This was disrespectful on ANY day, the only issue I have is they limited their rules to May 5th. Schools should teach students to be proper, respectful citizens, they did when I was in school, it was called Civics.

>> ^reiwan:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^reiwan:
>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.

You could apply this argument to ANYTHING.
Yes, i pulled the guy over because one of his tires was bald. Yes i shot him when he put his hand in his pocket - he could have had a grenade in there. No one would be saying anything if he'd turned out to be an undiscovered serial killer.
If i should have a dog, is his life REALLY forfeit if for any reason whatsoever authorities should suspect that i am a drug dealer? They break my door down and as a precaution kill something... REALLY?
How about using your argument back on you:
If the police broke in and the dog killed a policeman, nobody would be saying anything if the policeman had been a burglar.

Do most people who have bald tires have weapons or are associated with having weapons? Your argument is illogical. As is your second one. There is a certain threat when dealing with people who choose to participate in illegal activities, anything from drug dealing to you name it. When you do this, you're forcing "the man" to come to the situation at a certain level.
I'm not saying what happened was right or wrong. I'm mainly trying to make the point that everyone is basing their opinion on a short video and a blurb of text about what happened. There is a lot more to the situation that you don't know than just those two things. And instead of being an armchair critic, why dont you try to think about the situation as a whole, rather than whats placed in front of you.


The argument IS MEANT to be illogical because i believe YOUR argument to be illogical. I'm glad you've seen the point, though i'm not sure you realised it was the point.

The second argument isn't illogical.

And one more time, your argument straight back at you - we are BOTH armchair critics in this situation. You're an armchair critic RE: the video, you're an armchair critic RE: me. Neither of us know the whole story, we are left with our gut reactions.

If you believe that authorities should be allowed to kill or destroy things we own based on a hunch, a tip, or "intelligence" - see weapons of mass destruction - all of which as we can see can turn out to be wrong, more fool you.

I would rather a hundred drug dealers get away than one incident like this occur. In fact, i'd rather let people use the drugs they want to use, allow them to live their lives as they see fit. We can deal with the crimes as they occur, not invent new crimes (drug taking) to prevent the possibility of further ones (theft to fund drug taking). That's a thought crime.