EPTOn December 13 2010 18:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Of course we shouldnt, if we do Im giving up on this world.
Of course we shouldnt, if we do Im giving up on this world.
I was a fan of your Starcraft, now I'm a fan of you.
New Prohibitions on Muhammad Cartoons? - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
VonLego
United States519 Posts
I was a fan of your Starcraft, now I'm a fan of you. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45167 Posts
 There will always be terrorism no matter what, and there will always be angry fundamentalists who will find a reason to blow themselves up for one reason or another. You give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile. And then they'll take that mile and kill you anyway. I propose a better solution for getting rid of a large amount of the hatred and prejudice in the world: ban the practicing of organized religion  Or, at least certain ones  (Just... kidding... ?) | ||
|
quarktastic
3 Posts
On December 13 2010 20:58 amarai wrote: Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant. Those theorys are proven in the sense they explain and predict near everything in what they are supposed to ie they pass scientific rigour, supposedly there is holes in the evolution theory i dont know im not a biologist, but the big bang theory agrees with EVERYthing we have observed from satelites and telescopes in terms of background radiation, the formaition of the universe due the inflation period, the geometry of the universe as it now, the fact all galaxys are moving away from us, also the only belief in a theory you can have is that its the ultimate theory for whatever thing it explains, but the scientific stance on theorys is that there is more than likely a better theory for it which explains more, no intelligent person will say that they believe 100% the big bang theory is what happened but its so far stood up but there is always doubt Religious books on the other hand are full of contradictions and out of date teachings, the fact gods word can go out of date for me any way proves they were not the words of some omni potent being but men writing what they deemed fit. | ||
|
Hadron.
Norway104 Posts
On December 13 2010 20:56 Kimaker wrote: However, my view is just as empirically valid as yours since I do buy into the Big Bang and all that science has provided, and depending on your philosophical rebuttal, just as logically valid, and I can't "Prove" any of it no more than you can disprove. Of course we could get into a whole deal about how you can't prove a negative anyway, but, meh, that's neither here nor there. This is the problem, your view isn't empirically valid. I do not believe in God and I remain unconvinced (not a surprise I guess) but what I believe in has been proven, has logic and sense to it. Some of what I believe might be wrong but I believe in it because of the evidence. You know I can't prove a negative so the onus is upon you to actually prove God exists. On December 13 2010 20:56 Kimaker wrote: As for his actual existence, because of what I just mentioned, combined with the predictable functionality of our universe I believe that it is reasonable to think that there was a design. This is more important, why is it reasonable to think there was a design? We know how organisms slowly formed over billions of years and how our planet and life came to be. Why is it reasonable to think there was a design? From my point of view it seems reasonable to not believe in God merely because at this time there is no good proof of his existence. | ||
|
quarktastic
3 Posts
On December 13 2010 21:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'd rather not give up my freedoms just because of some stupid religious fundamentalists There will always be terrorism no matter what, and there will always be angry fundamentalists who will find a reason to blow themselves up for one reason or another. You give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile. And then they'll take that mile and kill you anyway. I propose a better solution for getting rid of a large amount of the hatred and prejudice in the world: ban the practicing of organized religion Or, at least certain ones (Just... kidding... ?) I dont think banning religion is right but i do think where it forces an effect on people in schooling etc should be gotten rid of, let people make their own minds on the issues when they are old enough to reason without biased factors forcing them, most smart people will reach the conclusion that religions arnt true from all the silly rules and contradictions in the books | ||
|
ace246
Australia360 Posts
On December 13 2010 18:11 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Long story short, my question is: Should Sweden (and other countries) prohibit any more depictions of Muhammad in the interest of public safety? Long story: From LINK: "Minutes before the detonations, Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyra received an email also addressed to police that promised retribution for Sweden sending a 500-strong military contingent to Afghanistan, and for the country's failure to condemn cartoons of the prophet Muhammad drawn by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks." In this case, a primary reasons that the suicide bomber blew himself up was because of a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks (Vilks has been assaulted by individuals who claimed to be defending the honor of Muhammad and Islam and has also been threatened with death several times. He also has a price on his head. His blog: Vilks BLOG). The other reason was because of swedish troops, via NATO, in Afghanistan. Can it be doubted that depicting Muhammad in a cartoon would be enough to justify other suicide bombers? And if so, should Sweden clamp down on any more depictions of Muhammad in the interest of public safety? The general attitude on TL seems to be: "Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are justified limitations. At the same time, prohibitions on freedom of speech can go too far." So where do Muhammad depictions fall? Over the line or acceptable? Have attitudes toward this issue (which was discussed in detail in Muhammad cartoons thread) changed as a result of the recent bombing? On the surface of it all, this topic seems thread-worthy because it is a serious matter. But no matter how righteous you think it is to think that freedom of speech is not absolute or how righteous you think it is otherwise or even if you have good reasons for one of the two arguments, the fact of the matter is that these arguments amount to nothing. Why? Because if history has taught us anything, its that arguing with matters of existentialism will amount to nothing. The science vs religion is a classic example and this issue is no different. Its just gonna be a whole lot of insults. I hope TL keeps their integrity of "constructive threads" and just close this already. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On December 13 2010 21:25 ace246 wrote: On the surface of it all, this topic seems thread-worthy because it is a serious matter. But no matter how righteous you think it is to think that freedom of speech is not absolute or how righteous you think it is otherwise or even if you have good reasons for one of the two arguments, the fact of the matter is that these arguments amount to nothing. Why? Because if history has taught us anything, its that arguing with matters of existentialism will amount to nothing. The science vs religion is a classic example and this issue is no different. Its just gonna be a whole lot of insults. Well, perhaps you are right. But that conflict is no different than this conflict: There is a group of people who, for one reason or another, make OPs about existential questions (like science v religion). There is another group of people who post comments on such threads about how pointless such threads are because they "amount to nothing". And yet, the threads continue because neither the existential question loving posters or the posting-existential-questions-is-pointless groups ever persuade one another. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45167 Posts
On December 13 2010 21:12 quarktastic wrote: I dont think banning religion is right but i do think where it forces an effect on people in schooling etc should be gotten rid of, let people make their own minds on the issues when they are old enough to reason without biased factors forcing them, most smart people will reach the conclusion that religions arnt true from all the silly rules and contradictions in the books I agree with you So does that mean parents shouldn't raise their children in a particularly-religious household, as that would create bias? I'm all for teaching kids about ALL of the different religions around the world (heck, I took a world mythology class in college and I learned about many of them, because the subject interested me), but I think that if we want students to make an objective decision when they're older, then they should be raised under a relatively secularist roof. They certainly should learn scientific facts and such over any religious faiths their parents might have, for instance. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Ban Islam IMO. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Bondator
Finland120 Posts
On December 13 2010 20:44 Aflixion wrote:Images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are banned in Islam because he is to be remembered for his deeds, not his appearance. So, people should ignore the extremists altogether and refrain from making cartoons, paintings, drawings etc. of him out of respect for the vast majority of Muslims (myself included). And every non-muslim is just supposed to know this? Actually I think majority of religions have ton of paintings, statues etc. depicting their holy whatevers. It seems reasonable to think having pictures is generally fine. Personally I'm sick of religions find all religious people quite dumb. Clearly ~100% of them are intelligent and perfectly sensible when it comes to anything else in life. But what the hell makes them throw all reason out of the window on this one aspect of life, and decide "yes there clearly is an invisible super being, eternal life, butload of horny virgins, reincarnation and/or some shit. This is a fact because it is a fact" I feel tempted to say yeah, sensor freedom of speech and ban all religions equally. But of course realistically that would not be a good thing. If I remember correctly, there was/is a group of people in Netherlands that basically wanted to legalize pedofilia. People like that are obviously sick as shit, but it's their right to promote whatever they want, freedom of speech is just that important. | ||
|
funnybananaman
United States830 Posts
No, banning the cartoons would be a horrible idea. | ||
|
Sanjuro
Indonesia252 Posts
On December 13 2010 20:24 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean people are obligated to respect your views, it means you're free to express them without prosecution from the government. If they insult someone that person needs to deal with it. They could kill the person, but thats still considered murder, and they need to deal with the consequences, because being insulted doesn't give you the right to deprive someone of their right to life. You thinking that it does makes you a terrorist. Please, screw up like that other guy and only blow yourself up. yes thats what i meant, why put yourself in that position, you are not helping by saying you need to deal with it, couse when extrimist deal with it they morph into banelings. my point of view is your religion/faith is for you and my religion/faith is for me, so i dont wave around the freedom flag and scream this is my right derp herp derp to criticize your religion. it just makes more problem instead of solving the problem, and i play terran so i prefer a gauss rifle instead of blowing my self up | ||
|
Panoptic
United Kingdom515 Posts
If death threats are a necessary course of action as mandated by the religion itself, then you have a real shitstorm on your hands, but you still shouldn't prohibit the drawings. | ||
|
Hatsu
United Kingdom474 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
I agree with that. | ||
|
Wuffey
252 Posts
| ||
|
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
| ||
|
ThE_ShiZ
United States143 Posts
And you know what is going to happen if bans are put on caricatures: NOTHING? They'll still find a reason to kill. | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19135 Posts
On December 13 2010 21:56 Holgerius wrote: ''Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.'' I agree with that. No you probably do not. You probably enjoy the respect others have for your life and goods. In exchange for that you gave up your freedom to steal, pillage, murder and rape etc and attributed that part of your personal "sovereignty" to the state to enforce. As such you give up personal liberties and freedom for a piece of security for yourself and your posessions if such things exist. Do not be too hasty with agreeing to things before having them thought all the way through and came to the conclusion that you are already doing something and most likely enjoying it . Read some of John Locke or some other philosofer on this topic if you find it interesting. | ||
| ||
