|
|
On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works.
well yes it is, no one is disputing that. and I should specify, by "in the real world" I mean sold and accepted by an overwhelming number of people. I am sure Italians generally will have a different opinion on that as France for example.
I know Austria does, we still have a law that punishes cartoons/cartoonist's work that religious people might find offensive -_-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/1389027/Jesus-the-hippy-friend-of-Hendrix-angers-Catholics.html
mindblowing really, but that's how it is.
//edit:
The marketplace of ideas. Stupid ideas die out, good ones live on.
that is the best case scenario, and rather optimistic.
I don't remember who but I know he was a biologist of some sort (not dawkins - I am kind of sure...) who said about evolution and the mechanism behind it : not the "good" things survive, but the things that survive are "good".
no one will or can guarantee that only the good ideas survive.
|
On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred.
But you're fine with religious hatred apparently.
Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both.
Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race.
|
On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race.
"Religious hatred" is a blurry concept. You can criticize religions. You cannot incite to hatred against religious people. I'm fine with that, yes.
Religion is not a biologic trait. Religions are systems of belief. Systems of belief can be criticized without criticizing the ones adhering to the systems of belief.
|
On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race.
This may be the single worst post in the entire thread. I can't even begin to describe how fallacious and irrational it is. Do you have anything other than unsubstantiated assertions to back up these bizarre claims?
Your example of calling black people lazy as somehow equivalent to criticizing the ideological content of a belief system is absurd, to put it mildly. Saying that religion is as defining and involuntary as race honestly makes me think this is a troll job. Seriously, that post made my brain hurt, please never type anything like that again.
|
On January 11 2015 08:02 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race. This may be the single worst post in the entire thread. I can't even begin to describe how fallacious and irrational it is. Do you have anything other than unsubstantiated assertions to back up these bizarre claims? Your example of calling black people lazy as somehow equivalent to criticizing the ideological content of a belief system is absurd, to put it mildly. Saying that religion is as defining and involuntary as race honestly makes me think this is a troll job. Seriously, that post made my brain hurt, please never type anything like that again.
Did you choose your religion or lack thereof?
Did you wake up today and think, "huh, I feel like being Buddhist today."? Religion is not like picking what clothes to wear a particular day. You do not get to choose what you believe. You either believe something or you don't, you don't get a say in the matter.
|
On January 11 2015 08:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 08:02 Squat wrote:On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race. This may be the single worst post in the entire thread. I can't even begin to describe how fallacious and irrational it is. Do you have anything other than unsubstantiated assertions to back up these bizarre claims? Your example of calling black people lazy as somehow equivalent to criticizing the ideological content of a belief system is absurd, to put it mildly. Saying that religion is as defining and involuntary as race honestly makes me think this is a troll job. Seriously, that post made my brain hurt, please never type anything like that again. Did you choose your religion or lack thereof? Did you wake up today and think, "huh, I feel like being Buddhist today."? Religion is not like picking what clothes to wear a particular day. You do not get to choose what you believe. You either believe something or you don't, you don't get a say in the matter.
The real christians (back in the good old days, maybe such christians don't even exist anymore) consider "faith", the spontaneous belief that you cannot control, as a very rare benediction. It's not as simple as being born and believing in something. And you certainly do get a say in the matter.
|
Canada11607 Posts
So again the discussion is getting off track on a religious tangent, so I would ask that we get back on track.
|
On January 11 2015 08:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 08:02 Squat wrote:On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race. This may be the single worst post in the entire thread. I can't even begin to describe how fallacious and irrational it is. Do you have anything other than unsubstantiated assertions to back up these bizarre claims? Your example of calling black people lazy as somehow equivalent to criticizing the ideological content of a belief system is absurd, to put it mildly. Saying that religion is as defining and involuntary as race honestly makes me think this is a troll job. Seriously, that post made my brain hurt, please never type anything like that again. Did you choose your religion or lack thereof? Did you wake up today and think, "huh, I feel like being Buddhist today."? Religion is not like picking what clothes to wear a particular day. You do not get to choose what you believe. You either believe something or you don't, you don't get a say in the matter.
Yes I did. I looked at the world, found nothing to suggest any supernatural involvement, and that was that. If jesus came down on clouds of glory tomorrow, I'd be a christian. I follow the evidence wherever it goes. I couldn't care less what someone says about sceptics or non-believers. The idea that I'd be equally offended if someone said something mean about atheists as if they spouted derogatory remarks about my race is completely inane. Beliefs change, all the time. I used to believe tons of stupid shit as a kid, now I don't.
You are right, we don't choose our beliefs, or even our thoughts or ultimately our actions, but beliefs are far more malleable than skin colour and far more elastic. People change their minds, all the time, every day. They rarely change their race. In fact, one of the best ways to make someone change their beliefs is relentless and unyielding critique from a hundred different flanks.
This is some serious straw-grabbing. If someone is so wound up in their theology of choice that any insults to their beliefs incenses them so completely that they feel compelled to respond with violence, that is their problem. People who cannot act as civilised human beings get locked up, and are subsequently excluded from the conversation. This has to be one of the least persuasive arguments I've ever seen on the internet. If anything, what you posted just made me even more convinced that the two are in no way comparable.
Edit: sorry Falling, didn't see your post before mine came up. I'll break it off here.
|
On January 11 2015 08:14 Maluk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 08:05 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 08:02 Squat wrote:On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race. This may be the single worst post in the entire thread. I can't even begin to describe how fallacious and irrational it is. Do you have anything other than unsubstantiated assertions to back up these bizarre claims? Your example of calling black people lazy as somehow equivalent to criticizing the ideological content of a belief system is absurd, to put it mildly. Saying that religion is as defining and involuntary as race honestly makes me think this is a troll job. Seriously, that post made my brain hurt, please never type anything like that again. Did you choose your religion or lack thereof? Did you wake up today and think, "huh, I feel like being Buddhist today."? Religion is not like picking what clothes to wear a particular day. You do not get to choose what you believe. You either believe something or you don't, you don't get a say in the matter. The real christians (back in the good old days, maybe such christians don't even exist anymore) consider "faith", the spontaneous belief that you cannot control, as a very rare benediction. It's not as simple as being born and believing in something. And you certainly do get a say in the matter.
I'm not saying you're born and automatically believe something. I also never said your religion couldn't change. Just that you don't have a say in it. A religion either convinces you or it doesn't. You think any of the Moors in southern Spain actually started believing in Christianity during the Reconquista? Isn't it much more likely that they just played along, but deep down, were still Muslims.
I'm saying you are either convinced by a religion, and believe it, or you aren't convinced and you don't believe it. You can't choose to believe something that doesn't convince you.
Falling, I'm really not trying to make it about religion. I'm pointing out a double standard that mocking race is somehow taboo while religion is fair game.
|
On January 11 2015 05:39 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:39 rezoacken wrote:
You can make the argument that oppression towards the removal of religious signs is as bad as oppression to impose them.
Sure you can make that argument; it's the same as the argument that says we should ban gay people because somehow them being who they are makes straight people uncomfortable. It's an argument, but it's a shitty one. Unless your meaning is the it is as bad to mandate a single symbol as it is to ban all of them; with which I agree. Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:39 rezoacken wrote:
But atheism IS different than "other" religions. For the simple reason it's not even a religion to begin with.
Islam is different from the heresies, because it is not a heresy. I mean, maybe, but that's only if it was right all along. And liberal society has, by and large, agreed to not assume anything about this, so everyone is free to seek truth as they wish. Atheism/Religion is a distinction just like Jew/Gentile, Muslim/Infidel, or whatever in/out group you like to use. It takes all diverse disbelievers in your faith and puts them in a little box. Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:54 Dazed_Spy wrote:
I would put all religion, but islam and christianity at the forefront, in the same bag. They are hateful, superstitious nonsense, and I am obligated to point out their faults. Not "even when it offends" but ESPECIALLY when it offends. When you've offended someone you've weakened their resolve in their belief, youve broken a taboo, and you've made progress.
I'm gonna ignore the ignorant part (hateful? what does Christianity hate other than selfishness and judgementalism?) and talk about offense. Because yes, criticizing a belief is often a good thing. But not all offense comes from critizing a questionable belief. Holocaust jokes don't question anything other than the humanity of Jews; is the offense they give worth a damned thing? It's not "making progress" it's just being an ass. I find it really hard to format on TL, so im just quoting the whole post, even tho im only responding to the bit addressed to me.
- Christianity in the abstract hates gays, women, and spreads hateful notions like that genocide is acceptable (the caananites). Christianity as lived is more pluralistic on those notions, and yet is still broadly homophobic, anti sexuality, teaches guilt and shame, etc.
- The context of this conversation obviously pertains exclusively towards questionable ideas, but if you want to digress, sure: Breaking a taboo (like making a holocaust joke) is still acceptable, and I dont really care if it hurts other peoples feelings. Normalizing that kind of humour is what I want, as its what I find funny, and I want a laid back society that isnt constantly concerned about every neurotic frailty in someones psyche.
- What constitutes being an 'ass' is changing, its progress if the notion of whats being an asshole moves into a more laid back, non judgmental territory. Its better for the mental health of everyone involved and its actually the area in which pluralism thrives. My Grandfather would of punched a guy in the face for a thousand things you and I shrug off, as either idiosyncratic or merely not overly formal. Thats progress. It happens in part because people shit on accepted mores and expectations for the sake of humour. On January 11 2015 05:45 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 05:10 Dazed_Spy wrote:On January 11 2015 05:08 nunez wrote:
the godless heretics suggesting that
a man can choose his religion are either
not taking man and, or religion seriously.
i agree with dr. strangelove on that. If we dont choose our religious beliefs, we dont choose any of our beliefs or actions. You've just removed moral and personal responsibility from everyone, and implicitly, devalued this entire conversation. Why should I even respond to you? I dont choose my beliefs, and I dont choose to think your a moron. Dialogue is obviously moot. i would prefer you didn't; my timeslot in the purgatory is growing with your every post by mere association. suggesting that man can swap his religion, like he swaps his trilby for a tophat whenever the occasion requires, is unacceptable. religion is between man and god exclusively. man must answer for any moral shortcomings and shallow smartassery before him, hat or no hat. Well I'm obviously ending this conversation with you, if its between you and God and theres no room for dialogue, then we cant have any discussion. The poems are a bit much, too.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.clicanoo.re/IMG/jpg/a6dd6f953345358074b049596f1b193ef9f7e518.jpg)
Rally in Nice, southern France. Tomorrow, the rally in Paris is expected to be one of the largest demonstration France has seen in ages.
|
On January 11 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 08:14 Maluk wrote:On January 11 2015 08:05 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 08:02 Squat wrote:On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either.
If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race. This may be the single worst post in the entire thread. I can't even begin to describe how fallacious and irrational it is. Do you have anything other than unsubstantiated assertions to back up these bizarre claims? Your example of calling black people lazy as somehow equivalent to criticizing the ideological content of a belief system is absurd, to put it mildly. Saying that religion is as defining and involuntary as race honestly makes me think this is a troll job. Seriously, that post made my brain hurt, please never type anything like that again. Did you choose your religion or lack thereof? Did you wake up today and think, "huh, I feel like being Buddhist today."? Religion is not like picking what clothes to wear a particular day. You do not get to choose what you believe. You either believe something or you don't, you don't get a say in the matter. The real christians (back in the good old days, maybe such christians don't even exist anymore) consider "faith", the spontaneous belief that you cannot control, as a very rare benediction. It's not as simple as being born and believing in something. And you certainly do get a say in the matter. Falling, I'm really not trying to make it about religion. I'm pointing out a double standard that mocking race is somehow taboo while religion is fair game.
There is no double standard. Religion is a system of belief and your skin color isn't. Feel free to send me a pm if you want to continue this discussion.
|
On January 11 2015 08:33 aXa wrote:Rally in Nice, southern France. Tomorrow, the rally in Paris is expected to be one of the largest demonstration France has seen in ages.
That's quite nice, a rally just by the beach. I was in the Toulouse's one and it was mad because there were actually no organisers so no coordination at all and nobody knew where we had to go. Still it was extremely peaceful.
Edit: Also it was quite nice to see people from every part of society take parts in the manifestations. One bad part is that parents were bringing their children and that's meh for them as they won't be able to forge their own believes.
|
On January 11 2015 08:41 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 08:14 Maluk wrote:On January 11 2015 08:05 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 08:02 Squat wrote:On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:
[quote]
you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race. This may be the single worst post in the entire thread. I can't even begin to describe how fallacious and irrational it is. Do you have anything other than unsubstantiated assertions to back up these bizarre claims? Your example of calling black people lazy as somehow equivalent to criticizing the ideological content of a belief system is absurd, to put it mildly. Saying that religion is as defining and involuntary as race honestly makes me think this is a troll job. Seriously, that post made my brain hurt, please never type anything like that again. Did you choose your religion or lack thereof? Did you wake up today and think, "huh, I feel like being Buddhist today."? Religion is not like picking what clothes to wear a particular day. You do not get to choose what you believe. You either believe something or you don't, you don't get a say in the matter. The real christians (back in the good old days, maybe such christians don't even exist anymore) consider "faith", the spontaneous belief that you cannot control, as a very rare benediction. It's not as simple as being born and believing in something. And you certainly do get a say in the matter. Falling, I'm really not trying to make it about religion. I'm pointing out a double standard that mocking race is somehow taboo while religion is fair game. There is no double standard. Religion is a system of belief and your skin color isn't. Feel free to send me a pm if you want to continue this discussion.
To add; religious beliefs can change based on information gained, it's not a fixed attribute of a person like race is.
|
On January 11 2015 10:12 knOxStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 08:41 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 08:19 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 08:14 Maluk wrote:On January 11 2015 08:05 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 08:02 Squat wrote:On January 11 2015 07:53 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:40 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better. There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred. But you're fine with religious hatred apparently. Religion is just as defining and intrinsic as race. You don't choose either, and many people define themselves based on both. Allowing hatred of religion is the same as allowing hatred of a race. This may be the single worst post in the entire thread. I can't even begin to describe how fallacious and irrational it is. Do you have anything other than unsubstantiated assertions to back up these bizarre claims? Your example of calling black people lazy as somehow equivalent to criticizing the ideological content of a belief system is absurd, to put it mildly. Saying that religion is as defining and involuntary as race honestly makes me think this is a troll job. Seriously, that post made my brain hurt, please never type anything like that again. Did you choose your religion or lack thereof? Did you wake up today and think, "huh, I feel like being Buddhist today."? Religion is not like picking what clothes to wear a particular day. You do not get to choose what you believe. You either believe something or you don't, you don't get a say in the matter. The real christians (back in the good old days, maybe such christians don't even exist anymore) consider "faith", the spontaneous belief that you cannot control, as a very rare benediction. It's not as simple as being born and believing in something. And you certainly do get a say in the matter. Falling, I'm really not trying to make it about religion. I'm pointing out a double standard that mocking race is somehow taboo while religion is fair game. There is no double standard. Religion is a system of belief and your skin color isn't. Feel free to send me a pm if you want to continue this discussion. To add; religious beliefs can change based on information gained, it's not a fixed attribute of a person like race is.
I agree with the general idea, but at some point, a person won't change their religion because it's too close to their personality.
|
On January 11 2015 09:26 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 08:33 aXa wrote:Rally in Nice, southern France. Tomorrow, the rally in Paris is expected to be one of the largest demonstration France has seen in ages. That's quite nice, a rally just by the beach. I was in the Toulouse's one and it was mad because there were actually no organisers so no coordination at all and nobody knew where we had to go. Still it was extremely peaceful. Edit: Also it was quite nice to see people from every part of society take parts in the manifestations. One bad part is that parents were bringing their children and that's meh for them as they won't be able to forge their own believes.
Form their own beliefs about what?
|
On January 11 2015 11:15 johnbongham wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 09:26 Acertos wrote:On January 11 2015 08:33 aXa wrote:Rally in Nice, southern France. Tomorrow, the rally in Paris is expected to be one of the largest demonstration France has seen in ages. That's quite nice, a rally just by the beach. I was in the Toulouse's one and it was mad because there were actually no organisers so no coordination at all and nobody knew where we had to go. Still it was extremely peaceful. Edit: Also it was quite nice to see people from every part of society take parts in the manifestations. One bad part is that parents were bringing their children and that's meh for them as they won't be able to forge their own believes. Form their own beliefs about what?
Yeah, I don't get it. Probably some of this new-age parenting stuff, never tell your kid anything, let him/her be free to learn or not learn.
|
This is the only response
Image removed.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 11 2015 13:12 methematics wrote:This is the only response + Show Spoiler +
Is that an image that CH published?
I definitely can't appreciate the humour.
I don't even know what to make of it.
|
On January 11 2015 14:27 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Is that an image that CH published? I definitely can't appreciate the humour. I don't even know what to make of it.
I don't think so, they have standards. this cartoon and the poster does not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
