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]

Not everyone who commits a crime is legally mentally ill. Very few are. For the rest, it is choice. Again, you haven't addressed why crime is so uneven between the sexes. In fact, the same as any other religion... why are you finding that irrelevant, considering the huge disparity?

[naomi24]

Come back when you can tell me why Buddhists and Hindus and Jews and Christians aren’t committing similar atrocities in similar numbers.

[pixie374]

No, naomi. I asked you why you weren't concerned that 98.5% of violent crime is committed by males. But you prefer to focus on religion instead? You asked for common sense- have a go.

[jim360]

It still seems like you are arguing against a position that was never even raised. Nobody here, as far as I can see, is arguing that anybody who was persuaded, coerced, threatened, conned -- or whatever other word you wish to use -- into committing a crime is therefore not responsible for their actions. Of course they are. This is simply not in dispute. Criminally, and morally, and by every other standard -- such criminals are responsible, whatever the crime. We aren't talking about mental capacity, either (or even mental illness, which is separate) -- I think I did mention that as an example, but in retrospect it's a distraction and I shouldn't have brought it up.

The question of appropriate sentencing aside, then, it's not clear that there is anybody here who is advocating for the position that you seem to be arguing against. Criminals are responsible, solely responsible, for their actions.

But, by the same token, it stands to reason that anybody who participated in the same crime indirectly -- by encouragement, perhaps, maybe spontaneously, maybe insidiously over a longer period of time -- those people are *also* responsible. Not *instead*, but *as well*. In the simplest scenario imaginable, if I handed somebody a gun and told them to shoot somebody, and they then did, it is manifestly obvious that I'm an accessory to that murder. In a more complicated scenario, if I spent months attempting to manipulate someone into hating another person, perhaps by lying about the soon-to-be victim's nature and/or by trying to muddy the waters of morality, and then waited for events to take their natural course -- would I then be completely innocent of any wrongdoing? Is this seriously the argument you are making here? And if not, then what view exactly do you think you are arguing against?

[jim360]

As a separate, but clearly related, question, is it possible to commit the crime of fraud, and if not why not?

[pixie374]

Yes Jim. Spend months trying to convince me to commit a crime. When I do it, you'll have a point.

[naomi24]

Because men are more likely to commit violent crime.

Now your turn. Why aren’t Buddhists and Hindus and Jews and Christians committing similar atrocities in similar numbers as Muslims are?

[jim360]

That's not how arguments work. The mere fact that you personally can't be coerced by me into committing a crime doesn't mean much at all when there are billions of people on the planet.

[pixie374]

And that is the answer, naomi- in all cultures and religions. Sort that out, before you start worrying about books.

[pixie374]

Jim, it isn't personal. Any sane person won't do it.

[pixie374]

Unless they want to...!

[naomi24]

That isn’t the answer, pixie. That goes nowhere near answering my question ... but you know that. Try again.

[pixie374]

Be as patronising as you like, naomi. It's the first and most important answer.

[jim360]

It feels another example of selection bias, then -- of course you can prove your claim to be correct in all circumstances if you exclude all the times it's incorrect.

[pixie374]

Makes no sense, Jim. You can't make someone do something against their will. Short of violence, and other crimes. When is it not correct?

[jim360]

Like I said earlier, it seems that you are still arguing against something that I *specifically said* wasn't in dispute.

A criminal is guilty of the crimes they commit. A person is responsible for their actions. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this point.

People who try to persuade others to commit crimes are also guilty, and must also be held morally culpable, for trying to increase the amount of crime in the world. It matters not whose fault it is that they are successful. The attempt itself is the crime.

[naomi24]

No answer. I rest my case.

Night all.

[pixie374]

Ha! At least you have a sense of humour. Night x

[pixie374]

Sorry Jim, only just realised you are saying the same thing again.
Sane adults are responsible for their own behaviour and actions. It is literally the definition of it.
Trying to persuade someone to commit a crime,currently stands as incitement. Even though- we know- you literally cannot make someone commit a crime against their will. Even under hypnosis!
This is getting very boring.

[sanmac]

I have noticed, pixie 374, that every time you realize that you have lost a point of discussion you end your post with an "x".