Proselytizing: sometimes morally unsound?

Originally posted by FMF
No I don't think so. I was thinking more in terms of deceitful behaviour caused by interest in other women.

I think any wife would be unhappy if she found out that her husband is fantasising about other women, because it is sinful. Jesus says if you look and lust you have committed adultery in your heart.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think any wife would be unhappy if she found out that her husband is fantasising about other women, because it is sinful. Jesus says if you look and lust you have committed adultery in your heart.

Well I don't believe in "sin" and I don't believe in thoughcrimes. I think adultery is almost always morally unsound, but - as you know, because you questioned me about all this before - I don't agree with what [you believe] Jesus said about thoughts without action equalling adultery.

Do you have any thoughts on the OP?

Originally posted by FMF
Only if it affects one's behaviour, including one's honesty, towards one's spouse. I would say "fantasizing about a woman other than your wife" is a symptom that all is not well with one's emotional and spiritual life, and that - without tackling that - there is a danger of there being actions involving damage to, or deceit of, one's partner in the future, which to my way of thinking would be morally unsound.

Its not very clear from your post what you believe is morally unsound. Are you saying that only the consequent actions would be morally unsound? Or are you morally unsound before those actions when there is only a danger or carrying out such actions and you choose not to tackle that?

I for one, do believe that thought crimes exist and the law in most countries does to.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not very clear from your post what you believe is morally unsound. Are you saying that only the consequent actions would be morally unsound? Or are you morally unsound before those actions when there is only a danger or carrying out such actions and you choose not to tackle that?

I think I was pretty clear actually. Take RJHinds for example: I don't think him having his ridiculous torturer god ideology is morally unsound, in fact I think its risible and basically harmless.

Nor do I really think him telling me about how he thinks I will be tortured for whatever reason is morally unsound.

But if he were to try to manipulate or scare children or maybe vulnerable adults (as defined in the OP) with threats of ghastly never ending punishments or accusing them of being possessed by "Satan" or demons etc., I think that would arguably be morally unsound.

On a slightly different note, as I have said to sonship on several occasions, his definition of "ultimate morality" and "perfect justice" leaves him without a moral compass (in my view, at least) and so, being morally hamstrung in this way, he might engage in morally unsound behaviour as a result, but I don't see him espousing the ideology, in and of itself, as being immoral behaviour.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I for one, do believe that thought crimes exist and the law in most countries does to.

Mention some and we'll see if I have overlooked something in making my sweeping statement.

Originally posted by FMF
I think I was pretty clear actually.

Except you apparently didn't check what post I was asking about.

Originally posted by FMF
Mention some and we'll see if I have overlooked something in making my sweeping statement.

Attempted murder.
It is the motivation and intention that matter, not the actions.

I would go as far as to say that all bad intentions are as bad as the actions they intend, the only reason why typically do not punish them is that we cannot easily determine someones intentions or read their thoughts ie thought crimes are rarely punished, not because they are not wrong, but because we cannot prove they were commited.

Another case I came across was mentioned by Robbie, where a pedophile was in trouble for going to place with children and looking at them. Now I am not sure that that warranted charging him with anything, but it is clear that the law thought it did.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except you apparently didn't check what post I was asking about.

True.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Attempted murder.
It is the motivation and intention that matter, not the actions.

Can there be "attempted murder" without any actions?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would go as far as to say that all bad intentions are as bad as the actions they intend, the only reason why typically do not punish them is that we cannot easily determine someones intentions or read their thoughts

When you say "intentions", do you mean a plan or some kind of preparation to actually do something "bad"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Another case I came across was mentioned by Robbie, where a pedophile was in trouble for going to place with children and looking at them. Now I am not sure that that warranted charging him with anything, but it is clear that the law thought it did.

Are you talking about a known or convicted pedophile who contravenes legal restrictions that have been placed on him regarding his proximity to places with children?

Originally posted by FMF
Can there be "attempted murder" without any actions?

Is attempted murder defined by its actions? Or by its intentions?
The only reason attempted murder is normally not charged when there are no actions is because actions are the only way we have for determining intent.
If lie detectors were reliable then I think a charge of attempted murder could be brought even without actions. But lie detectors are not reliable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is attempted murder defined by its actions? Or by its intentions?

To "attempt" to do something is surely, by definition, an action (or actions), is it not?

A man puts cyanide pills in his wife's coffee. She doesn't drink it, but does discover that he did so.
It is attempted murder, only if his intent was to kill her.
If he put it in by mistake, thinking it was artificial sweetener - then not attempted murder.
If he put it in thinking it would merely make here sick - then not attempted murder.
The charge is based on the intent not the actions.

Originally posted by FMF
To "attempt" to do something is surely, by definition, an action (or actions), is it not?

Yes. do you have a point, or are you merely trying to play FMJs silly endless questions game?