EPTI'm not defending disrespect.
he's allowed to be disrespectful.
Err... Yes you are.
Cracker taken hostage - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Err... Yes you are. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:33 Fr33t wrote: Catholics are angry that he didn't consume the wafer. But, since he had no intention of actually consuming it, we wanted it back rather than it just be tossed aside like a regular object. Yeah, but he gave it back and they're still pissed despite their beliefs about what he has given up. I mean... what? | ||
|
Deleted User 30223
3104 Posts
on the other hand, even my catholic side agrees that this is kinda blown out of proportion. | ||
|
Ryot
Canada316 Posts
Like for example, if I get a toy-car for Christmas and I'm told to play with it but instead I sell it... Is that stealing and can the other person ask for the car back? | ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43805 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:36 L wrote: 1) He did steal. He went to recieve communion and walked away, when told to eat it he hid it in his mouth and took it out later. This shows he was clearly cognizant of how important the host was, and took it anyways. He was talked to later about it and then he decided to keep it in a ziplock for spite. The priest doesn't give you a host for you to walk around and make into a pet bread piece. He gives it to you as part of the rite of communion which you're supposed to eat. Basically, your line of reasoning says that i can go to my friend's house, have him serve me a wine and steak dinner, toss the steak on the floor and skate around on it while splashing wine on everything. Its my steak and wine. Fuck him. 2) If he's allowed to do whatever he wants, so is the religious community. Even Rekrul pointed out that double standard. The chaplain said he'd sit down and talk with him about how important the host is... clearly that's going crazy on his ass, right? I can understand if the kid was beaten up or some shit, but that didn't happen. Someone grabbed his hand. Wow. Cry more. Campus politics are FULL of stupid shit like this. To your first point about him hiding it. That simply proves he thought the easiest way to get it out was to sneak it out, even if he had the right to walk out with it. Better to try and get it out without causing a scene then start an incident over it. If I went round to a friends house and he served me an excellent dinner then I'd be within my rights to spurn it. It would be very rude of me and I wouldn't be invited around again. This is the same here. There's a difference between what a person can do with their own body and own possessions (which is anything they want to) and what a person should do to conform with social norms. He's allowed to do whatever he likes with his own body and own property, provided it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. There's no double standard here. If he gave the priest a photo of his newborn son the priest could do whatever he liked with it and I'd defend the priests right to do so (while condemning the rudeness of his action). It's the grabbing of the hand I object to because you can't simply grab someone because your religious beliefs compel you to do so. The guy here has the right to move his body freely and grabbing his hand (and therefore limiting his control over his own body) is in breach of that. I don't feel there's a double standard here. The problem is in matters of religious beliefs infringing upon personal freedom I'll end up arguing the athiests side of it because it's very rarely athiests imposing their religious beliefs on the freedom of others. However the principle stands for both sides and if an athiest imposed their religious beliefs on a Christians freedom I'd defend the Christian. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Think about it. He was able to walk on water. I think crackers have much higher buoyancy than human flesh. "I was tortured to death on that thing, you dad-damned insensitive bastards! And STOP EATING ME for me sakes!" | ||
|
Romance_us
Seychelles1806 Posts
Catholics are ridiculous for believing that a cracker is somehow the "flesh of Christ", but at the same time, all others are ridiculous for actually arguing with Catholics about something that is extremely important to them... (Yes, even if it IS a cracker) | ||
|
KwarK
United States43805 Posts
There's a difference between saying someone should be rude and someone has the right to be rude. This is what the religious side of this debate always fails to grasp. It is against the standard rules of social conduct to deliberately intend to disrespect someone else, be it calling his wife ugly, his children stupid or his beliefs retarded. However that said, a man has the right to be as disrespectful as he likes. I can disagree with an action at the same time as defending his right to do it with absolutely no contradiction. Understand now? | ||
|
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
Scoffer got off light. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43805 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:48 Funchucks wrote: What if Jesus really is made of crackers? Think about it. He was able to walk on water. I think crackers have much higher buoyancy than human flesh. "I was tortured to death on that thing, you dad-damned insensitive bastards! And STOP EATING ME for me sakes!" That water into wine thing suddenly makes more sense. Water + a load of other stuff = blood. Jesus blood = wine. He just opened a vein at the party. The water bit was just a metaphor for the natural replacement of bodily fluids. | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:43 Ryot wrote: Question about the whole "did he steal it". If you're given something by someone, and you don't use it specifically as they say, is that stealing? Like for example, if I get a toy-car for Christmas and I'm told to play with it but instead I sell it... Is that stealing and can the other person ask for the car back? There's a difference between receiving a gift and being handed something as part of a procedure. If someone hands you a pen in a store to sign a credit card receipt, that pen doesn't become your property. You are expected to use it for a mutually agreeable purpose, and then return it. If you put it in your pocket and leave, you are stealing. In the communion, you are expected to use the wafer for a mutually agreeable purpose - you don't have to return it, because it is consumed as part of the ritual. But that doesn't mean it ever became your property. The physical act of being handed something does not necessarily make it your property. In fact, it is the exception rather than the rule. There must be some specific gesture or statement of intent to make a gift of it, a mutual understanding of the transfer of property. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Your argument IS a double standard in its most base form. This isn't about personal vs. religious freedoms at all. This is about one kid entering mass to cause a shitstorm, purposefully. There is no conflict of freedoms here, unless you consider the freedom to enter places of worship and act like a complete asshole one of the fundamental rights of man. The guy here has the right to move his body freely and grabbing his hand (and therefore limiting his control over his own body) is in breach of that. What a joke. I'm allowed to steal shit and disrespect people, but goddam they have no right to a proportionate response? I suppose if i was in a lecture hall and started dancing on the podium, I wouldn't be able to be moved, because there would be a severe restriction of my right to move myself freely if security escorted me out.Reductio again. However the principle stands for both sides and if an athiest imposed their religious beliefs on a Christians freedom I'd defend the Christian. This kid was in a place of worship, participated in the mass, took the host, kept it for spite, and you're telling me that its the Christian who was imposing THEIR will on him? Wow. Apply your principle fairly, and its pretty clear who started shit. It was the kid. It was deliberate. It was intentional. It was disrespectful. He's imposing his belief that the host is worth nothing and that the ritual isn't to be respected on a congregation in church, but I guess that doesn't matter at all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43805 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:53 Rekrul wrote: As far as I know theres no law against grabbing some little shifuckers hand after he disrespects you. And "right to move freely" LOL. They should have slapped him up a bit. Scoffer got off light. Actually there is. If you phoned up the police and said "I'm in a Church and this guy had hold of me and won't let me leave because he says it'd be really disrespectful" they'd turn up on your side. Physical force against an individual is entirely illegal. You're correct in as much as the normal response is to simply struggle free or hit them but if you felt like involving the law it'd be on your side. Otherwise you could just go out and grab random girls and refuse to let go, claiming that they in some way disrespected you. | ||
|
Ryot
Canada316 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:56 Funchucks wrote: There's a difference between receiving a gift and being handed something as part of a procedure. If someone hands you a pen in a store to sign a credit card receipt, that pen doesn't become your property. You are expected to use it for a mutually agreeable purpose, and then return it. If you put it in your pocket and leave, you are stealing. In the communion, you are expected to use the wafer for a mutually agreeable purpose - you don't have to return it, because it is consumed as part of the ritual. But that doesn't mean it ever became your property. The physical act of being handed something does not necessarily make it your property. In fact, it is the exception rather than the rule. There must be some specific gesture or statement of intent to make a gift of it, a mutual understanding of the transfer of property. I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back... | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
I know the physical act of being handed something doesn't mean possession, but shouldn't consumption? I think consumption has to imply ownership because how would it be possible to get it back... If i feed you, you don't own the food i give you. You are eating my food. ... that's not a complex thing. The buffet example is perfect. Your contract is being able to eat my food, but paying for access doesn't mean the food belongs to you. | ||
|
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:58 Kwark wrote: Actually there is. If you phoned up the police and said "I'm in a Church and this guy had hold of me and won't let me leave because he says it'd be really disrespectful" they'd turn up on your side. Physical force against an individual is entirely illegal. You're correct in as much as the normal response is to simply struggle free or hit them but if you felt like involving the law it'd be on your side. Otherwise you could just go out and grab random girls and refuse to let go, claiming that they in some way disrespected you. thats how we do it in korean night clubs girl tries to leave, block her entrance with the legs, if she has gotten past that already grab her hand and pull her back down WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING i gotta go NO STAY (firmer grip, sometimes a drunken grrr... headlock) *okay  *NO REALLY I WANT YOU TO STAY LETS HAVE A DRINK *OKAY  * | ||
|
KwarK
United States43805 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:57 L wrote: So you admit you'd be spurned for acting like a complete dick, yet you say that the church was out of line. Wow. Your argument IS a double standard in its most base form. This isn't about personal vs. religious freedoms at all. This is about one kid entering mass to cause a shitstorm, purposefully. There is no conflict of freedoms here, unless you consider the freedom to enter places of worship and act like a complete asshole one of the fundamental rights of man. What a joke. I'm allowed to steal shit and disrespect people, but goddam they have no right to a proportionate response? I suppose if i was in a lecture hall and started dancing on the podium, I wouldn't be able to be moved, because there would be a severe restriction of my right to move myself freely if security escorted me out. Reductio again. This kid was in a place of worship, participated in the mass, took the host, kept it for spite, and you're telling me that its the Christian who was imposing THEIR will on him? Wow. Apply your principle fairly, and its pretty clear who started shit. It was the kid. It was deliberate. It was intentional. It was disrespectful. He's imposing his belief that the host is worth nothing and that the ritual isn't to be respected on a congregation in church, but I guess that doesn't matter at all. Actually I do. I believe I am fully within my rights to walk into a Church and say "hey guys, I don't know if no-one told you but this God guy.... not real lol". They'd equally be within their rights to call me an asshole and tell me their beliefs on my mothers chastity. And yes, when a Christian grabs him he's restraining him against his will. I don't get how you can not think that's wrong. He's not imposing shit on the congregation. They are in no way limited by his beliefs and if they are upset by them that is entirely their issue, not his. That argument that you impose your beliefs upon others simply by doing an act by yourself is the same one that they use against homosexuals. To return to my MacDonalds argument, when you eat beef you're not imposing your belief that cows aren't sacred upon the entire Hindu world. Oh, and the 'he started it' argument.... not strong. | ||
|
kiero
Canada136 Posts
On July 11 2008 12:22 Kwark wrote: The debate isn't whether he was disrespectful. He was. The argument is whether it is justified for someone in the Church to grab him and try and force him against his will to give back his wafer on the basis of religious beliefs. I'm not defending disrespect. I'm defending the right to act as you see fit, provided it doesn't directly interfere with others, without fear of violence. He was denied this. Obviously, no one would say the church was right to grab him. What exactly is there to argue about in that? At best, they can empathize with why they did it. As for the 'right to act as you see fit'... as long as it doesn't 'interfere with others', who was watching out for the church? The idea is that they all gather together in a location with other people who share their belief, to carry out whatever it is they need to do. What more can you ask for? To my knowledge, no one invited him in, and even if they did, no one invited him to keep the bread in his pocket. I noticed that a lot of people are suggesting that regardless, he was still within his 'rights' to do as he will, as he did not break any laws. That is stupid. If you visit another country, do you not follow that country's law? If you're in a new location, you respect that place's customs, law, and rituals. No one is forcing you to come against your will. If you're in a church, I suppose, you're expected to not take the bread with you, among other things. *Off Topic* And if you lose respect for someone just because he doesn't understand how a cracker is also the body of Christ and finds the idea rather funny then I think it is you who is being closed minded. I find it far easier to empathise with the idea that transubstantiation into something else is laughable than the idea that bread is in some way also flesh. Try to think more about the beliefs of others yo. I like how you try and tell us to respect the beliefs of others, but you completely trash them at the same time. | ||
| ||
