Is Hexing/Cursing Minors Ever Okay?

[UniversalCommons]

Intent can be public. I am the high poobah of some group of people. I say this person is x, they have done x, and they are the spawn of x, they deserve x. The intent becomes public and it attracts other people to act on it.

[Neanderthaland]

Obviously there is no possibility that it would actually impact the minors in any way. Aside from - maybe - placebo effect if they were aware of it.

But ignore for the moment the effect it might have on them, and look inward: What are you doing? You're spending a lot of time and effort, and (if OP is to be believed) possibly even sacrificing an innocent animal, in the hope that this will make someone else's life worse. This is not healthy and normal. It's really not.

[The Blaatschapen]

Does intent count or just action?

Generally in law we don't have the concept of thoughtcrimes, partially because people think and wish bad shit to happen to people all the time, and we'd all be in prison if it was a crime. Sure, in law we have the concept of mens rea, but there always needs to be some accompanying act coupled with it: simply wishing harm on someone isn't enough. Sure, if that wish is expressed then it can in some circumstances be actionable under law—such as death threats for instance—but that expression is itself the accompanying act. Mens rea alone isn't enough.

Is wishing that someone steps on a brick of lego bad?

[The New California Republic]

Generally in law we don't have the concept of thoughtcrimes, partially because people think and wish bad shit to happen to people all the time, and we'd all be in prison if it was a crime. Sure, in law we have the concept of mens rea, but there always needs to be some accompanying act coupled with it: simply wishing harm on someone isn't enough. Sure, if that wish is expressed then it can in some circumstances be actionable under law—such as death threats for instance—but that expression is itself the accompanying act. Mens rea alone isn't enough.

Is wishing that someone steps on a brick of lego bad?

Schadenfreude yes, bad maybe, illegal no.

[Ethel mermania]

Does intent count or just action?

Generally in law we don't have the concept of thoughtcrimes, partially because people think and wish bad shit to happen to people all the time, and we'd all be in prison if it was a crime. Sure, in law we have the concept of mens rea, but there always needs to be some accompanying act coupled with it: simply wishing harm on someone isn't enough. Sure, if that wish is expressed then it can in some circumstances be actionable under law—such as death threats for instance—but that expression is itself the accompanying act. Mens rea alone isn't enough.

I guess I am looking at it from an catholic Ethical range. In the sense of the George carlin bit "six sins in copping one feel". Is it a showing of evil inside you if you wish someone dead even though you have no intent on acting on it?

[The New California Republic]

Generally in law we don't have the concept of thoughtcrimes, partially because people think and wish bad shit to happen to people all the time, and we'd all be in prison if it was a crime. Sure, in law we have the concept of mens rea, but there always needs to be some accompanying act coupled with it: simply wishing harm on someone isn't enough. Sure, if that wish is expressed then it can in some circumstances be actionable under law—such as death threats for instance—but that expression is itself the accompanying act. Mens rea alone isn't enough.

I guess I am looking at it from an catholic Ethical range. In the sense of the George carlin bit "six sins in copping one feel". Is it a showing of evil inside you if you wish someone dead even though you have no intent on acting on it?

I often struggle to see the supposed ethical issues of simply thinking something when there is no corresponding act. Fantasies are an intrinsic part of the human psyche, often they creep into our thoughts seemingly from nowhere; and if they are not acted upon or an intent to act upon them (some fantasies for that matter just absolutely can't be acted upon because they are quite literally impossible to ever achieve) then I don't see an ethical issue.

[Kalaron-A]

Some of us here aren't completely oblivious to the fact that something called the left hand path, and similar things, exist, so I've come to ask a question.

is hexing minors ever okay? I'm not sure how to feel about it, tbh. Minors are obviously capable of unforgiving crimes so in those circumstances it's understandable, but what about outside of those? and even then isn't it questionable?

disclaimer: It doesn't matter whether you think it's real or not, so keep the insults t9 others' religions out kindly. please. i do not want moderators having to come to this thread

As a Left Handed man, I've never noticed a path specifically for me and my ilk. Is it paved or nah?

[Ethel mermania]

I guess I am looking at it from an catholic Ethical range. In the sense of the George carlin bit "six sins in copping one feel". Is it a showing of evil inside you if you wish someone dead even though you have no intent on acting on it?

I often struggle to see the supposed ethical issues of simply thinking something when there is no corresponding act. Fantasies are an intrinsic part of the human psyche, often they creep into our thoughts seemingly from nowhere; and if they are not acted upon or an intent to act upon them (some fantasies for that matter just absolutely can't be acted upon because they are quite literally impossible to ever achieve) then I don't see an ethical issue.

Fair.

There are people out there whom if they died tomorrow, both personally known and famous figures, it would bring a smile to my face. And your saying there is no evil my intent?

[Adamede]

If the caster believes that hexes are real, then I’d argue tos gone beyond “wishing”, but instead them actively trying to harm a child. Just poorly.

If it doesn't do anything then is it really "actively trying to harm a child"? It'd be as absurd as saying that "I wish an asteroid would land on that person's head" is "actively" "trying" to harm them. See what I mean? It doesn't satisfy the definitions of what we would usually consider to be active or trying.

In intent I’d say it is. In actuality no. I’m not advocating that we arrest people for thoughts, just making a statement on the morals of it.

And I’d say you’re example isn’t a perfect one to one, as most peole don’t think they can call down an asteroid to crush someone.

[The New California Republic]

I often struggle to see the supposed ethical issues of simply thinking something when there is no corresponding act. Fantasies are an intrinsic part of the human psyche, often they creep into our thoughts seemingly from nowhere; and if they are not acted upon or an intent to act upon them (some fantasies for that matter just absolutely can't be acted upon because they are quite literally impossible to ever achieve) then I don't see an ethical issue.

Fair.

There are people out there whom if they died tomorrow, both personally known and famous figures, it would bring a smile to my face. And your saying there is no evil my intent?

I'd say it isn't. Indicative of a callous attitude perhaps, but not evil.

[Adamede]

Really now, does that nanny state want to regulate perfectly healthy magical interactions? What's next, wand licenses?

I mean doesn’t it seem kinda weird to you that what is essentially the wizard equivalent of a gun (when used with the right spells) is standard school equipment for learning wizards?

[The New California Republic]

If it doesn't do anything then is it really "actively trying to harm a child"? It'd be as absurd as saying that "I wish an asteroid would land on that person's head" is "actively" "trying" to harm them. See what I mean? It doesn't satisfy the definitions of what we would usually consider to be active or trying.

In internet I’d say it is. In actuality no.

And I’d say you’re example isn’t a perfect one to one, as most peole don’t think they can call down an asteroid to crush someone.

Even if I thought that I could call down asteroids there is still no real "active" or "trying" occurring here.

[Golgorna]

if a chinese man was allowed to hex my mom when she was a kid visiting china, it's okay to do it to every little kid.

[Adamede]

In internet I’d say it is. In actuality no.

And I’d say you’re example isn’t a perfect one to one, as most peole don’t think they can call down an asteroid to crush someone.

Even if I thought that I could call down asteroids there is still no real "active" or "trying" occurring here.

In actuality there isn’t, but as far as this hypothalamus delusional you is concerned you’re actively trying to kill someone. Just badly.

[The New California Republic]

Even if I thought that I could call down asteroids there is still no real "active" or "trying" occurring here.

In actuality there isn’t, but as far as this hypothalamus delusional you is concerned you’re actively trying to kill someone. Just badly.

But again my point stands: there is no real "active" or "trying" happening as there is no real cause and there is no real effect at play.

[Adamede]

In actuality there isn’t, but as far as this hypothalamus delusional you is concerned you’re actively trying to kill someone. Just badly.

But again my point stands: there is no real "active" or "trying" happening as there is no real cause and there is no real effect at play.

Well here’s another hypothetical. Say that you’re someone who believes that something mundane like fluorine or something else is poisonous in the most minute of amounts. Now you have someone that you want to kill, so you decide to “poison” their water with said mundane substance.

Of course it does nothing, but can you truly be said to not be “active” or “trying”?

It’s not a perfect comparison but many modern forms of “hexing” involves some form of ritual on the part of the caster.

[The New California Republic]

But again my point stands: there is no real "active" or "trying" happening as there is no real cause and there is no real effect at play.

Well here’s another hypothetical. Say that you’re someone who believes that something mundane like fluorine or something else is poisonous in the most minute of amounts. Now you have someone that you want to kill, so you decide to “poison” their water with said mundane substance.

Of course it does nothing, but can you truly be said to not be “active” or “trying”?

It’s not a perfect comparison but many modern forms of “hexing” involves some form of ritual on the part of the caster.

Still not "active" or "trying", for the same reasons.

[The Blaatschapen]

I often struggle to see the supposed ethical issues of simply thinking something when there is no corresponding act. Fantasies are an intrinsic part of the human psyche, often they creep into our thoughts seemingly from nowhere; and if they are not acted upon or an intent to act upon them (some fantasies for that matter just absolutely can't be acted upon because they are quite literally impossible to ever achieve) then I don't see an ethical issue.

Fair.

There are people out there whom if they died tomorrow, both personally known and famous figures, it would bring a smile to my face. And your saying there is no evil my intent?

Good thing I am neither famous, nor personally known

[Ethel mermania]

In actuality there isn’t, but as far as this hypothalamus delusional you is concerned you’re actively trying to kill someone. Just badly.

But again my point stands: there is no real "active" or "trying" happening as there is no real cause and there is no real effect at play.

There is only one sin in one feel.

[Eahland]

Since that isn't what this thread is talking about it is totally irrelevant...

It’s a play on words, a joke. Quips like that are found on nearly every NSG thread.

It's not even a play on words. It's the same literal meaning of the same word. The only difference between "cursing a child" and "cursing out a child" is that the latter carries the implicit recognition that your curses don't actually do anything beyond making the kid feel bad in an ordinary language-based way.

In actuality there isn’t, but as far as this hypothalamus delusional you is concerned you’re actively trying to kill someone. Just badly.

But again my point stands: there is no real "active" or "trying" happening as there is no real cause and there is no real effect at play.

So imagine that you believe that, by pushing hard enough on the eastern face of a cliff, you can slow the rotation of the Earth. You're tired of morning coming so early every day, so you go out and find an eastern-facing cliff and start pushing as hard as you can. Would you say that you're not actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth?

(Note that there is no mechanism by which this can actually work, no matter how hard you push. Action-reaction means that you're pushing the ground at your feet the other direction with the exact same force you're pushing the cliff.)

If this is actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth, does it make a difference if your effort is only mental?

[Ethel mermania]

Fair.

There are people out there whom if they died tomorrow, both personally known and famous figures, it would bring a smile to my face. And your saying there is no evil my intent?

Good thing I am neither famous, nor personally known

I had falafel for lunch, just sayin.

[The New California Republic]

But again my point stands: there is no real "active" or "trying" happening as there is no real cause and there is no real effect at play.

So imagine that you believe that, by pushing hard enough on the eastern face of a cliff, you can slow the rotation of the Earth. You're tired of morning coming so early every day, so you go out and find an eastern-facing cliff and start pushing as hard as you can. Would you say that you're not actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth?

(Note that there is no mechanism by which this can actually work, no matter how hard you push. Action-reaction means that you're pushing the ground at your feet the other direction with the exact same force you're pushing the cliff.)

If this is actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth, does it make a difference if your effort is only mental?

The "actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth" is a fiction. The reality is that it's just a man pushing on a rockface, the delusion doesn't change what is happening. Activity exists in the scenario, but not the activity that the person thinks is happening.

[Eahland]

So imagine that you believe that, by pushing hard enough on the eastern face of a cliff, you can slow the rotation of the Earth. You're tired of morning coming so early every day, so you go out and find an eastern-facing cliff and start pushing as hard as you can. Would you say that you're not actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth?

(Note that there is no mechanism by which this can actually work, no matter how hard you push. Action-reaction means that you're pushing the ground at your feet the other direction with the exact same force you're pushing the cliff.)

If this is actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth, does it make a difference if your effort is only mental?

The "actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth" is a fiction. The reality is that it's just a man pushing on a rockface, the delusion doesn't change what is happening. Activity exists in the scenario, but not the activity that the person thinks is happening.

He's still expending physical effort in an attempt to achieve that end. Does the fact that he's not succeeding - and in fact cannot succeed - mean that he isn't trying?

If you attempt to pick up a weight, and it's beyond your capacity to lift, does the fact that you failed mean you didn't try to do it?

It's not just do or do not. There is such a thing as trying.

[The New California Republic]

The "actively trying to slow the rotation of the Earth" is a fiction. The reality is that it's just a man pushing on a rockface, the delusion doesn't change what is happening. Activity exists in the scenario, but not the activity that the person thinks is happening.

He's still expending physical effort in an attempt to achieve that end. Does the fact that he's not succeeding - and in fact cannot succeed - mean that he isn't trying?

If you attempt to pick up a weight, and it's beyond your capacity to lift, does the fact that you failed mean you didn't try to do it?

It's not just do or do not. There is such a thing as trying.

Again he is certainly trying to do something, but the delusion is so at odds with reality that it effectively nullifies the action from the perspective of any reasonable person observing it, as it has no possible effects. The same goes with putting a hex/curse on someone. It's an ineffectual action of no value, it's neither positive nor negative because it has no effects.

[Neanderthaland]

I feel the need to point out again that OP mentioned these curses may involve self-harm, or animal sacrifice, or is otherwise "quite draining or expensive or costly to do." So as much as I enjoy a philosophical discussion of whether merely wishing harm constitutes wickedness, that's not quite what we're dealing with here. Actual harm is being done in the futile pursuit of a greater harm.


This being the case, the main victim in all of this (aside from the animal) is you. The person performing the curse. That was probably always going to be the case anyway, since obsessing over vengeance fantasies is not a path to health and happiness. But this is really going the extra mile with the sort of toxic, wallowing self-pity, and anger.

You're going to end up being someone that no one wants to be around. And you're also going to be down time, money, and/or an animal.