Albert Cipriani

Right. And the rabbit’s foot found on the witch is all the external evidence we need to support the conclusion that she perpetrated the birth of the stillborn during the last full moon.

Fess up you guys and come clean. Stop trying to wiggle out of the fact that we punish people for their thoughts today as the Church punished them for their thoughts yesterday.

The only difference between the Inquisition and our judicial system is one of degree, not kind. That is, we practice the benign neglect punishment of incarceration in dens of inequity rather than the more direct and active punishment of torture chambers to rehabilitate the criminal MIND. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

John A. Broussard

Aw, c'mon. Please give me one, single example where someone is today being punished by our judicial system for a "thought." Don't bring in actions, speech, rolling of eyes, desecration of the flag, or any of those other matters. Stick to "thought." Got it? THOUGHT!!

Albert Cipriani

Has the memory hole grown so large that you can't remember just 50 years ago: "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?" That doesn't qualify because it isn't today? Or does that not qualify cuz being a member constitutes an action and is thus, somehow not persecution of one's ideological thoughts?

Be that as it may, the KKK has a hell of a time getting parade permits because of its beliefs. One of Clinton's cronies served a couple of years in prison for contempt of court, the single thought she was punished for was the withholding information. Reporters routinely suffer the same fate for witholding the thought of their source's names. Many potential terrorists are presently being confined and interrogated on the basis of their ideological persuasions.

Aw c'mon yourself. You know I'm right. Why not admit the obvious? -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Awmte

The only difference in evidentiary consideration between a rabbit's foot and a complete DNA match is one of degree, not kind. Both still constitute external evidence, though the evaluators of the evidence may not be equally well informed.

Awmte

Is this purely because of its beliefs, or the consequences of its actions based on those beliefs? Their past record is external evidence.
Withholding evidence is a prosecutable criminal action, not a thought. Refusing to cooperate is manifestly an act, or would you consider, for example, Gandhi's non-cooperation (non-violent) protests as just a thought?
If so, his thoughts seem particularly efficacious - they resulted in the independence of India.

John A. Broussard

Amazing!!! Being a member of the communist party is a thought?
Being a member of the KKK is a thought?
Withholding information is a thought?

Being a member of the communist party is an action.
Being a member of the KKK is an action.
Witholding information is an action.

A person may be tried and convicted for any of those actions, even though they may never have commited them. That undoubtedly happens, but THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CONVICTED FOR HAVING A THOUGHT.

Surely you know what is meant by a "thought."

Awmte

I believe this position to be immensely ill-conceived. I don’t think we have a workable definition for crimethink a la 1984 yet, and I don’t think we ever will. I can’t even imagine how we could begin to prosecute someone based purely on their thoughts, without corroborating external evidence.
Brief digression: Bertrand Russell claimed that just as we could only know the true thoughts of someone based on the consequences of their actions, so too could we only know our thoughts based on our actions. That is, our own minds are opaque to us…
I believe this claim has some merit to it, given the vast number of unfulfilled people...

John A. Broussard

I can see why Albert Cipriani gave up on this thread.