[extropy-chat] GWOT: Out of focus

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Major <extropy at audry2.com> wrote:
> Russell Evermore <nanowave at shaw.ca> quotes Ray
> Pierce:
> > Can Wahhabism, which seeks either the conversion
> or death of all other
> > Muslim sects, plus all Christians, Jews, Hindus,
> Buddhists,
> > secularists and pagans, be considered acceptable
> in our modern and
> > pluralistic world?
> 
> Wahhabism is acceptable. We may not agree with it,
> but there is no
> belief which is not acceptable in a pluralistic
> world.
> 
> The *actions* of Wahhabites may or may not
> acceptable. If they stand
> on a mountain and tell us we should convert or
> commit suicide then
> they are doomed to fail but perfectly acceptable. If
> they start
> blowing up buildings that is unacceptable.

Ah, but what is the boundary between speech and action
in this context?  For instance, what if the member of
[sect] X were to claim that the anti-[sect] Y were a
child pornographer, and that X has personally
witnessed Y molest many children in the course of
making videos of children being raped, tortured, and
graphically murdered, and that X's [sect] friends A,
B, and C have also borne witness?  And when A, B, and
C, after consulting with X, echo X's claims about Y?

That's all speech, but the speech alone has a
detrimental effect on Y.  Now, consider if the claims
were completely made up.  And what happens if word
spreads that those who oppose [sect] will receive
similar treatment?  Rule by fear only needs a few
examples, so a substantial but far from majority
[sect] would have enough resources to execute this
policy.

Also consider what happens when justifying these
claims leads X and company to kidnap children and
produce the videos, afterwards disposing of all
evidence that countered their claims?  ("Yes, officer,
I saw where he buried the bodies.  I didn't touch them
because I knew you'd want to see them for yourself as
evidence.  You want proof that I didn't do it?  Look
here, at this hair sample that got buried with the
body in a way that might have been planted but it's
still the best evidence you've got.  I'm sure you'll
find it's his DNA and not mine.")  The speech, in this
case, is a direct cause of unallowable action.