Homophobic Bigot Loses Case.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-56089759
...bet she wished she'd kept her trap shut.

[pixie374]

Yes, Trevor. You lot are hard work! You keep changing the goalposts. We are talking about sane adults responding to words, with violence. Which is their own free choice.
Violence and threats can force anyone's behaviour. And obviously, people who are extra vulnerable, have mental health issues... might respond differently.
The point is (hopefully for the last time), no sane adult will read something, anywhere, or be told to- and commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't. Why are you so soft with criminals?

[Togo]

// Legally sane adults are responsible for their own actions.
Words from one person, can't cause violence from another.
It's hardly complicated.//

I know. They don't think like that in the US apparently.

[naomi24]

Pixie, words can influence people to commit violent acts. It’s nonsense to say they can’t. They can - and often do.

[TrevorThePug]

"no sane adult will read something, anywhere, or be told to- and commit a crime they otherwise wouldn't."

Implying that all such criminals are mentally ill suggests diminished responsibility? Anyway, what has this got to do with the bible bashing homophobic compo chasing actor?!

[pixie374]

Apparently not, Togo. Even though it is the legal meaning of the word "sane"!
Go on, naomi, do you have some links?

[pixie374]

It doesn't suggest that at all, trevor. It says "unless" you are legally insane, you are responsible for yourself.
And, not a lot really, not sure how it moved on from there. If it was my fault- sorry.

[Mamyalynne]

Seyi Omooba may be better suited to a different profession or at the very least be scrupulous about researching roles offered in the future.

[Maydup]

She will need to find something she is better suited to now, as she's very unlikely to be offered acting roles. Her agents dropped her too, because she wouldnt take their advice, she tried to sue them also.

[ToraToraTora]

sounds like a right wrongun.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // Yes, obviously, Andy. That's why I took out the threatening situations. //

Apologies - unusually for me, I have not read all the thread in detail before posting, so I am in error.

// We are referring to words on a post, supposedly making others violent. //

I think it's a nice idea that everyone, external threats notwithstanding, makes informed rational choices that govern their behaviour, but we know that this is simply not the case.

For that to operate successfully, we would need to assume that every single adult starts from exactly the same level of rationality, with the ability to distinguish right and wrong, and to understand that what they hear, see, or read does not automatically translate into tacit instructions to do harm to other people.

Sadly, rationality is not universal, and neither is the ability to make correct rational informed choices about input, and how to react to it.

[pixie374]

No problem, andy- and no. We are only assuming legally sane people, none of which will respond to words with violence- unless they are a criminal. In any case, it's their fault and decision.

[Zacs-Master]

Pixie , in my David Koresh post I wasn’t referring to him exactly, I was more referring to the people he coerced into believing that death was their next best move in life. Do you believe that every one of his 76 followers who died made a same decision that he was right?

[Zacs-Master]

Sane decision

[pixie374]

Clearly, every sane one of them did. They willingly chose to believe him. I don't know who the 76 were made up from. Whether there were other issues that meant they weren't responsible for their own actions. But everyone else made a choice. No matter what, you can't claim he brainwashed them into doing something they really didn't want to.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // We are only assuming legally sane people, none of which will respond to words with violence- unless they are a criminal. In any case, it's their fault and decision. //

That appears to say that if people are legally sane - and again that definition has no one-size-fits-all definition, then they are somehow immune from the influence to commit harm delivered from an outside source.

I think that is a seriously tenuous position, once again relying on a set of rules which cannot be applied to people en masse because individual quirks of personality can mean that the most rational and 'sane' people can have a corner of their mind that is open to persuasion towards negative behaviour.

[pixie374]

And if they do, andy- it's their own responsibility and decision.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // No matter what, you can't claim he brainwashed them into doing something they really didn't want to. //

I'd draw the line at the notion of 'brainwashing', but I think, rather than trying to persuade people into doing something they didn't want to do, he took the far easier and more successful route of persuading them that it was absolutely something they did want to do.

You would struggle to make someone do something that they regard as fundamentally wrong, but if you adjust the boundaries of what that person thinks is right and wrong, then you can persuade them to do just about anything.

[pixie374]

It is a one size fits all definition. Either you undertake what you are doing, or you don't. Legally.

[pixie374]

You can persuade anyone to do anything, potentially. The point is, whose fault that is. And usually (ignoring special needs), its the person who does the action. Not whatever they read, whoever they spoke to.

[Zacs-Master]

‘ you can't claim he brainwashed them into doing something they really didn't want to’

Why not?