The human capability for abstract thought, that is to think and to imagine things that they have never seen and that may not even exist yet or ever, is one of our race's most potent qualities. Human ingenuity and inventiveness has brought great progress to our civilization yet these qualities are also arguably responsible for much of our own suffering as well.

This does raise a question that I want to raise here for discussion, is there such a thing, or can there be such a thing as a dangerous idea? In other words is it possible for an idea to be inherently dangerous or are all ideas neutral and its just how people act on them that can be dangerous?

Absolutely, I can name three right off the bat: guns, bombs, and staplers. All can be very dangerous in both theory and practice.

Generally, no. One could argue that obsession over a single idea could be dangerous, as is the case with extremists, terrorists, and self-stylized martyrs, but obsession is the point that a idea starts to manifest in unhealthy ways.

Good question. I'm tempted to call something like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" a dangerous idea. That statement and much of the contents of the Malleus Maleficarum did lead to a great deal of pointless legally sanctioned murder and torture. Of course these days not very many people would take any of that seriously and would see it for the lunacy that it was. I would say bad ideas can be dangerous when someone is ignorant enough to put them into action, but I doubt any idea could, all by itself, cause harm.

Ideas certainly can be dangerous, although more in their application than inception. Once transmitted, an idea can cause enormous harm. Even if only the person who came up with the idea acts upon it or allows it to influence their way of thinking, it can be dangerous.

The real question: is it more dangerous to allow transmission of ideas for intelligent discussion and testing (and risk dangerous ideas taking hold and spreading) or to forbid the transmission of ideas. I'd say the latter: without the transmission of ideas, no human endeavour would be possible. Those throughout history who have suppressed ideas have usually done so from bad motives.

No there isn't.

Its how the interact with the Status Quo of the time. Not necessarily how people act on them. What surrounds them, and how they then interact with them.
Lets say you have the idea of adding a Rhino... yeah... just add a Rhino. If you're in a zoo, it's a good idea. If you're in an antique China museum... dreadful.

Communism wasn't a dangerous idea... unless your holding it up right next to Capitalism, and you fear losing it (and that humans are programmed to be selfish)

Yes. I disagree with using a term like evil, but there are associated risks with implementing any idea.

Of course there are dangerous ideas. The idea that vaccines cause autism is a dangerous idea. So is the idea of driving without a seatbelt.

Danyal:
Great example of very dangerous ideas;

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.349062-Women-Liberation

Fascism, Breivikism, religion... all very dangerous.

The most dangerous entities in the 20th century were governments that suppressed religion. Name the USSR, PRC, and Khmer Rouge. I'd include the norks but they basically created their own god-emperor so they don't count.

Irrational thought and irrational thought dressed up as rational thought tend to be quite dangerous in general, though one would need to specify what one meant by dangerous before a serious reply could be contemplated.

Seekster:
The human capability for abstract thought, that is to think and to imagine things that they have never seen and that may not even exist yet or ever, is one of our race's most potent qualities. Human ingenuity and inventiveness has brought great progress to our civilization yet these qualities are also arguably responsible for much of our own suffering as well.

This does raise a question that I want to raise here for discussion, is there such a thing, or can there be such a thing as a dangerous idea? In other words is it possible for an idea to be inherently dangerous or are all ideas neutral and its just how people act on them that can be dangerous?

I think you premise is a little off. Something can be inherently neutral, and yet dangerous.

A chainsaw is a neutral item, probably even a positive item, but it is most certainly dangerous.

To directly answer you question, "if we eliminate all the ________ people our world would be better".

Well...if certain ideas are dangerous, than a strong argument can be made that the state should be restricting them.

Best not to admit that ideas are dangerous, perhaps.

ravenshrike:
The most dangerous entities in the 20th century were governments that suppressed religion. Name the USSR, PRC, and Khmer Rouge. I'd include the norks but they basically created their own god-emperor so they don't count.

Someone's been reading Christian propaganda again... All those countries, all communist countries, are strongly religious and allow religion to be practised. China even has it's own official catholic church for instance. Mao himself practised the China religion. Pol Pot was a Buddhist. Stalin was a zealous Christian who even studied to become a priest.

What they did however was curb the political power that priests held. As a consequence they had no crap like the Westboro Baptist Church being douchebags towards everyone, claiming special privileges nobody else gets and screaming persecution if someone even mentions treating them like everyone else.

Seekster:

This does raise a question that I want to raise here for discussion, is there such a thing, or can there be such a thing as a dangerous idea? In other words is it possible for an idea to be inherently dangerous or are all ideas neutral and its just how people act on them that can be dangerous?

How do you think ideas can't be dangerous?

Danger is the potential to cause harm. And sure as hell an awful lot of ideas have a lot of potential for causing harm.

Put it this way. Would you say putting a hand grenade within easy reach of toddlers in a nursery school is neutral / not dangerous, because it only becomes dangerous when one of the toddlers decides to play with it and pulls the pin out?

Ok then but is it the idea itself that is dangerous or does the danger come rather for attempting to implement or follow along with an idea?

Seekster:
Ok then but is it the idea itself that is dangerous or does the danger come rather for attempting to implement or follow along with an idea?

No, the idea itself is dangerous. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion, and the motion of the mind sets the body to action.

An idea is just an idea, and it can't be wrong. After all, if it was, we'd have such a thing as thought crime.
However, some ideas, usually bad ones, can lead to some very dangerous things if they are executed.

one word: propaganda.

possibly the most dangerous people in human history used just their mouths as their weapon of choice.

if you want another left field approach i can give you two ideas that i know for a fact have led to people's deaths and near deaths from my own life: one is "that's me retired. might as well die" (or there abouts) and the other is "i absolutely don't want to do this and its stressing me out that i socially have to" which directly led to a stroke.

Blablahb:

ravenshrike:
The most dangerous entities in the 20th century were governments that suppressed religion. Name the USSR, PRC, and Khmer Rouge. I'd include the norks but they basically created their own god-emperor so they don't count.

Someone's been reading Christian propaganda again... All those countries, all communist countries, are strongly religious and allow religion to be practised. China even has it's own official catholic church for instance. Mao himself practised the China religion. Pol Pot was a Buddhist. Stalin was a zealous Christian who even studied to become a priest.

What they did however was curb the political power that priests held. As a consequence they had no crap like the Westboro Baptist Church being douchebags towards everyone, claiming special privileges nobody else gets and screaming persecution if someone even mentions treating them like everyone else.

And no thread would be complete with the utterly WRONG natterings of Blablahb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1917%E2%80%931921)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1921%E2%80%931928)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1958%E2%80%931964)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1970s%E2%80%931990)

While modern day china certainly does not attempt to eradicate religion, in order to be a member of the communist party you must renounce religion, and they certainly attempted to eradicate it during the Cultural Revolution.

As for the Khmer Rouge well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Religious_communities

ravenshrike:

Blablahb:

ravenshrike:
The most dangerous entities in the 20th century were governments that suppressed religion. Name the USSR, PRC, and Khmer Rouge. I'd include the norks but they basically created their own god-emperor so they don't count.

Someone's been reading Christian propaganda again... All those countries, all communist countries, are strongly religious and allow religion to be practised. China even has it's own official catholic church for instance. Mao himself practised the China religion. Pol Pot was a Buddhist. Stalin was a zealous Christian who even studied to become a priest.

What they did however was curb the political power that priests held. As a consequence they had no crap like the Westboro Baptist Church being douchebags towards everyone, claiming special privileges nobody else gets and screaming persecution if someone even mentions treating them like everyone else.

And no thread would be complete with the utterly WRONG natterings of Blablahb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1917%E2%80%931921)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1921%E2%80%931928)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1958%E2%80%931964)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1970s%E2%80%931990)

While modern day china certainly does not attempt to eradicate religion, in order to be a member of the communist party you must renounce religion, and they certainly attempted to eradicate it during the Cultural Revolution.

As for the Khmer Rouge well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Religious_communities

it kinda helps that the 3 main religions in China aren't actually counted as "religions" but rather philosophies/ethics/history/social studies/"how to live your life" or whatever the hell you want to call it (the term most often used in the west is "religious philosophies")

the modern Chinese "communist" party fully endorses Confuciusim & Taoism for example and they are taught in state schools. members of the party seek and have probably always sought to live and rule by traditional Chinese tenants they just don't think of these things as "religion".

It depends on what you mean by "dangerous". There are any number of ideas that can be used to excuse or rationalize immoral or destructive behavior. However, I reject that any idea can in and of iteslf cause immoral or destructive behavior. One might believe that left-handed peope are the scourge of the Earth, hated by a right-handed God. But that doesn't mean you'll do anything about it. OTOH, I believe that Aishwarya Rai is the apotheosis of womanly beauty and for her to be with any man other than myself represents gross misjudgement on her part, or possibly some kind of insecurity leading to reduced expectations of what kind of man she deserves. That doesn't mean I'm going to hang out in the bushes outside her home with a bouquet of roses and a tub of vaseline any time soon.

Sleekit:

ravenshrike:

Blablahb:
Someone's been reading Christian propaganda again... All those countries, all communist countries, are strongly religious and allow religion to be practised. China even has it's own official catholic church for instance. Mao himself practised the China religion. Pol Pot was a Buddhist. Stalin was a zealous Christian who even studied to become a priest.

What they did however was curb the political power that priests held. As a consequence they had no crap like the Westboro Baptist Church being douchebags towards everyone, claiming special privileges nobody else gets and screaming persecution if someone even mentions treating them like everyone else.

And no thread would be complete with the utterly WRONG natterings of Blablahb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1917%E2%80%931921)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1921%E2%80%931928)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1958%E2%80%931964)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1970s%E2%80%931990)

While modern day china certainly does not attempt to eradicate religion, in order to be a member of the communist party you must renounce religion, and they certainly attempted to eradicate it during the Cultural Revolution.

As for the Khmer Rouge well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Religious_communities

it kinda helps that the 3 main religions in China aren't actually counted as "religions" but rather philosophies/ethics/history/social studies/"how to live your life" or whatever the hell you want to call it (the term most often used in the west is "religious philosophies")

the modern Chinese "communist" party fully endorses Confuciusim & Taoism for example and they are taught in state schools. members of the party seek and have probably always sought to live and rule by traditional Chinese tenants they just don't think of these things as "religion".

Ancestor veneration coupled to an ethical system does not a religion make.

ravenshrike:

Sleekit:

ravenshrike:
And no thread would be complete with the utterly WRONG natterings of Blablahb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1917%E2%80%931921)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1921%E2%80%931928)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1958%E2%80%931964)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1970s%E2%80%931990)

While modern day china certainly does not attempt to eradicate religion, in order to be a member of the communist party you must renounce religion, and they certainly attempted to eradicate it during the Cultural Revolution.

As for the Khmer Rouge well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia#Religious_communities

it kinda helps that the 3 main religions in China aren't actually counted as "religions" but rather philosophies/ethics/history/social studies/"how to live your life" or whatever the hell you want to call it (the term most often used in the west is "religious philosophies")

the modern Chinese "communist" party fully endorses Confuciusim & Taoism for example and they are taught in state schools. members of the party seek and have probably always sought to live and rule by traditional Chinese tenants they just don't think of these things as "religion".

Ancestor veneration coupled to an ethical system does not a religion make.

What makes a religion in your view then?

Seekster:
Ok then but is it the idea itself that is dangerous or does the danger come rather for attempting to implement or follow along with an idea?

Ideas themselves are dangerous.

As said, danger is potential risk of harm. Ideas, by their nature, may be put into effect. Where harm may originate from carrying out an idea means the idea itself has some degree of danger. Less danger than the idea being carried out, but some nonetheless.

Of course, in theory, just about everything on the planet is dangerous to some degree, although infintesimally so.

ravenshrike:
Ancestor veneration coupled to an ethical system does not a religion make.

you missed one of the three entirely.

somehow i think its maybe not a coincidence the one you missed is possibly the most deeply spiritual one of the three...

Chinese folk religion = ancestor veneration (and ghosts, sprits, heaven, hells, "shit your gran says" etc)
Confucius = ethical system (mostly, but also features talk of heaven and suchlike)
Taoism = ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

on a personal note i happen to read and enjoy Taoism quite a lot and if pushed into a corner will name it as my "religion" of choice.

Depends on how you look at it.

An idea is ultimately neutral on its own. As with so many other things, its only within a particular context that one can call it good or bad.

For example, I freely classify the concepts that separate extremist Islamic terrorist groups from their more reasonable counterparts as dangerous ideas. Not necessarily because there is something inherently wrong about their mode of thought, but because of the widespread and decidedly negative affects that came with the propagation and adherence to those ideas.

I can make similar comparisons for the Nazi's Aryan ideal, the near fanatical nationalism of European nations up until the past century, and the idea of linking Africans to the descendants of the biblical Cain

Mens hearts are filled with bad things all the time. That is a fact 99.9% of the time an average person would not act on them. But a truely evil idea is when you do nothing and plant a evil idea into someone who is easily manipulated into doing something wrong. For instance telling an acholic that its ok to drink and drive. To convince a pedophile its ok to hangout in a playground. Even though u are not doing anything bad yourself your intent is to make someone else do something for no other reason to see if can in the first place.
Thats just my opinion.

I don't know about "ideas" having inherent harm, but there are certainly harmful ideologies.

Off the top of my head, "Martyrdom is rewarded in the afterlife" seems like a fairly disastrous thing to hold as true.

Oh there most certainly are dangerous ideas. Most ideas are dangerous if driven to the extreme. Ideas have vast influences on people and societies. The better question is, should we ban ideas because they are considered dangerous? Who should decide which ideas to ban?

ravenshrike:

Danyal:
Great example of very dangerous ideas;

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.349062-Women-Liberation

Fascism, Breivikism, religion... all very dangerous.

The most dangerous entities in the 20th century were governments that suppressed religion. Name the USSR, PRC, and Khmer Rouge. I'd include the norks but they basically created their own god-emperor so they don't count.

Although many of the worst nations before the 20th century were those that believed in ONE religion. For much of it's history, the vatican was one of the leading military powers of Europe.

Also, how much those nations suppressed religion wasn't 100% total. Stalin reformed the Russian Orthadox Church as a way to get support for World War 2 (which included some "edits" to show how it is God's will for the workers to live in communist glory, which wasn't hard considering the passages in the bible on "the meek shall inherent the Earth").