It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should someone be arrested for their beliefs?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Ghost147

IF those beliefs are harmful to other's, not self defensive but actually directly harmful to other's then emphatically yes.
A good example would be Human Sacrifice cult's such as the offering of the beating human heart to the sun God and Head Hunting tribes and tribal cannibal's whom are all believers in what they do, they should of course be arrested OR shot on sight.


Are you arresting them for believing those things or for acting on them though?




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The day we start to jail people for what they believe is a dark, dark day in history no matter what we're talking about.

Imagine being accused of holding a certain belief, a thought crime essentially, and having to try to prove you don't think that way.

Welcome to the world of the kafkatrap, only it's the actual legal system engaging in it, they can ruin your life and send you to some prison or gulag for failing to extricate yourself from it.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

ok - so now we know why the multiple threads about sueing and criminilizing climate change deniers

wattsupwiththat.com...



SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 20, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker announced today that they had filed separate lawsuits on behalf of their respective cities against the five largest investor-owned producers of fossil fuels in the world. The lawsuits ask the courts to hold these companies responsible for the costs of sea walls and other infrastructure necessary to protect San Francisco and Oakland from ongoing and future consequences of climate change and sea level rise caused by the companies’ production of massive amounts of fossil fuels. The defendant companies — Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell — have known for decades that fossil fuel-driven global warming and accelerated sea level rise posed a catastrophic risk to human beings and to public and private property, especially in coastal cities like San Francisco and Oakland, who have the largest shoreline investments on San Francisco Bay.


The one who started those threads are probably here to "mould" public oppinion by providing a "framework" for new information.

I know its totally irresponsible and the companies would never never do it in a million years but I wish to god that the 5 companies would cease to provide any fossil fuels whatsoever to the two cities participating in this frivilous lawsuit.



new topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join