|
|
On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France.
I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France.
I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still. You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho. I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. Your missing his damn point. The point is that whats being addressed is not them, if they want to personalize it and take offense, its their psychological process at work. The actual topic FACTUALLY is not them. In either case, this is meaningless. Personal attacks (despite the whining about ad hominems) are important and valuable in many discussions. If someone is a morally duplicitous sleaze bag, it should be said.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France.
I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France.
I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still. You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho. I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way.
learn to separate content with effect. will help you out.
a statement about christ may affect christians. it is still a discussion not an attack. when some people treat a critical discussion that is not about their person as being about their person, they have some problems with discussing ideas. i don't see sanctity here, but sure, it is not a nice thing to do when the guy isn't committing some hideous act in the name of the deeply held idea.
|
On January 11 2015 04:32 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable.
I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable.
I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still. You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho. I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. learn to separate content with effect. will help you out. a statement about christ may affect christians. it is still a discussion not an attack. when some people treat a critical discussion that is not about their person as being about their person, they have some problems with discussing ideas. i don't see sanctity here, but sure, it is not a nice thing to do when the guy isn't committing some hideous act in the name of the deeply held idea.
OHHH, ok, we're not so far apart. I still say its an attack on the person, but I don't really see that that's a problem. If somebody can't handle some sharp criticism, maybe he shouldn't hang out around people who deal in those sorts of criticisms. I think its still an attack on the person, but not every attack is worth getting up in arms over. Why shouldn't you be allowed to criticize people?
|
On January 11 2015 04:30 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable.
I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable.
I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still. You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho. I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. Your missing his damn point. The point is that whats being addressed is not them, if they want to personalize it and take offense, its their psychological process at work. The actual topic FACTUALLY is not them. In either case, this is meaningless. Personal attacks (despite the whining about ad hominems) are important and valuable in many discussions. If someone is a morally duplicitous sleaze bag, it should be said.
No, that's exactly the point.
If you know something personally offends people in some group why do you have to do it?
You can't come up afterwards and say "you should not do what you did" when it's already happened and everyone knew it would happen sooner or later.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 04:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:32 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still.
You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho.
I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. learn to separate content with effect. will help you out. a statement about christ may affect christians. it is still a discussion not an attack. when some people treat a critical discussion that is not about their person as being about their person, they have some problems with discussing ideas. i don't see sanctity here, but sure, it is not a nice thing to do when the guy isn't committing some hideous act in the name of the deeply held idea. OHHH, ok, we're not so far apart. I still say its an attack on the person, but I don't really see that that's a problem. If somebody can't handle some sharp criticism, maybe he shouldn't hang out around people who deal in those sorts of criticisms. I think its still an attack on the person, but not every attack is worth getting up in arms over. Why shouldn't you be allowed to criticize people?
it's basic content vs effect i'm not sure what the argument is even about. you talk about a belief that someone holds, but this talk affects the person. you are arguing that this talk is instead about the person?
that is categorically wrong. i think your ponit is that this talk about a person's belief affects the person, but on this everyone agrees. but this is different from saying the talk is about the person.
|
On January 11 2015 04:39 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:36 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 04:32 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down.
[quote]
Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. learn to separate content with effect. will help you out. a statement about christ may affect christians. it is still a discussion not an attack. when some people treat a critical discussion that is not about their person as being about their person, they have some problems with discussing ideas. i don't see sanctity here, but sure, it is not a nice thing to do when the guy isn't committing some hideous act in the name of the deeply held idea. OHHH, ok, we're not so far apart. I still say its an attack on the person, but I don't really see that that's a problem. If somebody can't handle some sharp criticism, maybe he shouldn't hang out around people who deal in those sorts of criticisms. I think its still an attack on the person, but not every attack is worth getting up in arms over. Why shouldn't you be allowed to criticize people? it's basic content vs effect i'm not sure what the argument is even about. you talk about a belief that someone holds, but this talk affects the person. you are arguing that this talk is instead about the person? that is categorically wrong. i think your ponit is that this talk about a person's belief affects the person, but on this everyone acknowledges. but this is different from what the talk is actually about.
Not every person sees it that way. If a belief is held deeply enough, the person will see an attack on that belief as an attack on the person. I don't think it is, but other people might.
But I don't see that it being an attack on a person should matter. So what if they get offended? Who cares? Freedom of Speech is a thing, Freedom from having your feelings hurt is not.
|
On January 11 2015 04:01 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 19:58 L1ghtning wrote:On January 10 2015 15:25 Kickstart wrote:On January 10 2015 15:07 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On January 10 2015 14:54 Kickstart wrote:
One thing that does disgust me however, and this always seems to happen when this type of thing occurs, is that people begin discussing the motives, or perhaps better put, the lack of sensitivity or constraint that the publisher had in deciding to print these cartoons. To me this doesn't matter in the slightest. I am sick of listening to people say that the cartoons were needlessly offensive or that they were in poor taste. The entire point of satire is that nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond scrutiny, and everything is open to criticism. The fact that every media outlet in the world doesn't immediately reproduce the images in question seems cowardly to me. If every major publication and news outlet was to decide to show the images, it would be a sign of solidarity with those who lost their lives for simply doing their jobs; whether or not the publications find the cartoons to be offensive or not, or even funny or interesting seems secondary to me. The media has a moral obligation to stand up for the freedom of press and the freedom to express ideas, even those that some would find offensive. The fact that almost every publication that chooses not to reproduce the cartoons in question admits that they won't do so out of fear of backlash and indeed violence from the muslim community is telling. It is a sad state of affairs when the worldwide press is being stifled and are afraid of doing their jobs and reporting the news by showing people what 'all the fuss is about' because they are being intimidated by religious bullies.
I want to focus on this paragraph, more specifically the part in bold. I agree it is a sad state of affairs, but its totally understandable. If I was the head editor of a newspaper, I have to consider the ramifications of publishing the content that incited this massacre. More innocent people might be in danger if it was published elsewhere internationally. I would like to see them publish the satirical content, but not at the expense of anymore lives. Yes that is sort of my point. Most people would like to see, and in my mind deserve to see what the satirical content was. I agree that it is a tough decision to make, but the fact that so many publications will not publish the content out of fear shows that the religious bullies, and indeed the perpetrator's of this particular atrocity are, for lack of a better term, 'winning' in their purported cause to stop the publication of depictions of the prophet. If, as I suggested, every publication went ahead and published the content anyways, it would be impossible for them all to be targeted. And again, do the major media outlets not have a moral obligation to stand up to these types of threats to the free expression of ideals, I posit that those that are able are indeed obligated to do so. If I was in the same scene as these frenchmen who was killed, then I would leave, immediately. Putting my life in danger is just not worth it, not for that cause. I would not be afraid of making fun of other religious groups, politicians or feminists, but muslim fundamentalists are freaking scary. This is exactly what they want us to think, so mission accomplished I guess. But please don't tell the ppl in the media who thinks like that, that they have a obligation to publish these caricatures. They don't have a obligation to risk their lives, and this is what's at stake here. I don't think you fully grasp the severity of this situation. You can't just ignore these ppl and hope that the threat will go away. If you make fun of islam, you put your life in danger. That is a reality right now. A great part of the western freedom of speech/expression was lost in this attack. What we need to figure out is how we can regain this freedom of speech/expression that was lost. Ignoring the threat and being reckless is not the answer. I hope you will forgive me for not responding sooner, I retired to bed shortly after my post. Having skimmed through the last few pages it seems replying to this would still be appropriate so here it goes. Whether or not you personally think the ideals of free speech, free press, and freedom of ideals is worth risking your life over is not particularly relevant. In my mind these are rather noble things to risk ones life over. The easiest way to make this point I guess is to compare journalism/being an author/being a media outlet to other professions. When one decides to become a police officer they are making a commitment that if need be, they will put themselves in harms way to do their jobs, same for firefighters, military personnel, and many other high-risk professions. Journalists, media outlets, authors, and all entities of this kind make their livings off of the work that their predecessor's made in obtaining things such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of ideals. Thus, when these ideals are threatened, they should be the first ones to rally and defend them. Or, if they are too cowardly to do that, they should at the very least not show just how cowardly they are by publicly stating that they view the works in question as needlessly offensive and pointless without printing them, that is perhaps the thing that annoys me most. How dare anyone in that profession criticize the cartoons when people lost their lives over them and when they themselves are too cowardly to take a stand so they just try and tout themselves as arbiters of political correctness. But I digress. The same thing happened when a fatwa was leveled on Salman Rushdie, it was disgusting to see the number of people who came out and publicly stated that in some sick way he should have known what he was getting himself into, instead of defending his right as a novelist to write about whatever topics he deemed interesting. I have no time for people like that, they are cowards who are willing to sit in their positions which are only available to them because their earlier comrades had to spill their blood and fight for these rights and yet now they will not do their part to defend these ideals when they are under attack. Another thing you said of me is that I don't seem to understand the severity of what is going on. I don't see how you can read my post and come to that conclusion, but I will try to reiterate what I said in a moment. You go on to say that these people can not be ignored and that making fun of Islam is a dangerous thing to be doing. Both of these are true, and as I said in my first post, western civilization is at war with Islam, or a truer depiction of reality would be to say that Islam is at war with western civilization. Islamic extremists are the ones taking this to such a level, not anyone else. You say that a great part of western freedom of speech/expression was lost in these attacks, after you already stated that you personally would not risk your life for these ideals, and then accuse me of not knowing the severity of the situation. Again I don't see how you could have read the last two paragraphs of my original post and come to the conclusion that I do not know the severity of the situation. You end by saying that we can not ignore the threat and that being reckless is not the answer, whether or not you are accusing me of ignoring the threat and being reckless I do not know, perhaps you were just making a general statement; but I would point you to the ending of my original post where I describe what has happened in the past and what needs to happen now. Western civilization needs to make it completely clear that it will not sit idly by while the very ideals and freedoms it is founded upon are under attack by a segment of religious bullies and zealots.
I agree with this.
I said you didn't know the severeity of the danger, not the severity of the freedom of speech issue.
My point was that publishing these pictures would be reckless. It could get you killed, and it's not worth it, not for this cause. I don't think the right to criticize religions that you disagree with is something that is worth dying for, especially not when it comes to a religion that is being practiced by a minority in your country.
However, I think France and most likely the western world as a whole needs to do something. I don't know what, though, because it's important that muslims as a whole doesn't get targeted. The freedom of religion trumps the freedom of criticizing other religions, imo. As long as said religious person is non-violent. Also, how would you technically prevent muslims from entering western countries? It's impossible in practice.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 04:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:30 Dazed_Spy wrote:On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still.
You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho.
I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. Your missing his damn point. The point is that whats being addressed is not them, if they want to personalize it and take offense, its their psychological process at work. The actual topic FACTUALLY is not them. In either case, this is meaningless. Personal attacks (despite the whining about ad hominems) are important and valuable in many discussions. If someone is a morally duplicitous sleaze bag, it should be said. No, that's exactly the point. If you know something personally offends people in some group why do you have to do it? You can't come up afterwards and say "you should not do what you did" when it's already happened and everyone knew it would happen sooner or later.
if this is exactly the point then there is no point worth talking about. personally offending someone is not a serious challenge to free speech. you have to get the speech to be about the person.
there is also the further distinction of challenging or mocking specific religious beliefs vs attacking religious identity. i could see some point in the latter being over the line, but it is still a step away from something more intrinsic like race.
|
On January 11 2015 04:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:30 Dazed_Spy wrote:On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still.
You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho.
I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. Your missing his damn point. The point is that whats being addressed is not them, if they want to personalize it and take offense, its their psychological process at work. The actual topic FACTUALLY is not them. In either case, this is meaningless. Personal attacks (despite the whining about ad hominems) are important and valuable in many discussions. If someone is a morally duplicitous sleaze bag, it should be said. No, that's exactly the point. If you know something personally offends people in some group why do you have to do it? You can't come up afterwards and say "you should not do what you did" when it's already happened and everyone knew it would happen sooner or later.
Because it's keeping a line between what we can and can't do.
Let's say we decide to stop doing satire about islam because that might offend them.
Therefore, some Mulsims declare that eating pork is offensive, so we must stop eating pork.
Then, some muslims declare that you can't show your flag at school because it has a cross in it, and you remove yours flags pools from schools.
Then, some mulsims declare that celebrating Christmas is offensive, so we stop celebrating christmas.
... And if you continue like that, we'll have to convert to islam or die.
That's the problem here, if we don't stand up to our belief, we'll lose them, that's all. And that's why satire are extremely important.
|
On January 11 2015 04:45 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 11 2015 04:30 Dazed_Spy wrote:On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down.
[quote]
Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. Your missing his damn point. The point is that whats being addressed is not them, if they want to personalize it and take offense, its their psychological process at work. The actual topic FACTUALLY is not them. In either case, this is meaningless. Personal attacks (despite the whining about ad hominems) are important and valuable in many discussions. If someone is a morally duplicitous sleaze bag, it should be said. No, that's exactly the point. If you know something personally offends people in some group why do you have to do it? You can't come up afterwards and say "you should not do what you did" when it's already happened and everyone knew it would happen sooner or later. if this is exactly the point then there is no point worth talking about. personally offending someone is not a serious challenge to free speech. you have to get the speech to be about the person. there is also the further distinction of challenging or mocking specific religious beliefs vs attacking religious identity. i could see some point in the latter being over the line, but it is still a step away from something more intrinsic like race.
Race is just as intrinsic as religion. You have no choice about either.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that is a ridiculous position bro.
what is the semantic content of race?
|
On January 11 2015 04:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:30 Dazed_Spy wrote:On January 11 2015 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still.
You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho.
I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference. that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way. Your missing his damn point. The point is that whats being addressed is not them, if they want to personalize it and take offense, its their psychological process at work. The actual topic FACTUALLY is not them. In either case, this is meaningless. Personal attacks (despite the whining about ad hominems) are important and valuable in many discussions. If someone is a morally duplicitous sleaze bag, it should be said. No, that's exactly the point. If you know something personally offends people in some group why do you have to do it? You can't come up afterwards and say "you should not do what you did" when it's already happened and everyone knew it would happen sooner or later.
- As I've said before, there are plenty of things that morally demand you offend other people. Its not just neutral or a good idea on occasion, I am obligated to offend. A racist and a homophobe? I'm obligated to debunk his ideas, and call them moronic. To do otherwise allows him to continue to spiel his shit. 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.
- The last bit of your post is tantamount to victim blaming. No one is at fault except the terrorists for what happened. Further, the expectation is (and should be, as its factually the case) that islam and muslims can be insulted without people getting shot up every time. Yes, there are terrorists out there, and quite a lot of muslims with reprehensible (but non violent) views, but to suppose there a bunch of savages such that criticism is sure to see a violent reply, is not just flatly wrong, its more than a little racist.
|
On January 11 2015 04:36 raynpelikoneet wrote:
No, that's exactly the point.
If you know something personally offends people in some group why do you have to do it?
You can't come up afterwards and say "you should not do what you did" when it's already happened and everyone knew it would happen sooner or later.
We live in free societies though...
I bet fans of Conan are offended by Jay Leno but you wouldn't go to NBC and ask them why they have to have a TV show that offends a group of people. I bet tobacco companies are offended by cancer studies but you wouldn't displace the blame of people dying from lung cancer onto the scientists who published the link to cigarettes.
|
On January 11 2015 04:43 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 04:01 Kickstart wrote:On January 10 2015 19:58 L1ghtning wrote:On January 10 2015 15:25 Kickstart wrote:On January 10 2015 15:07 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On January 10 2015 14:54 Kickstart wrote:
One thing that does disgust me however, and this always seems to happen when this type of thing occurs, is that people begin discussing the motives, or perhaps better put, the lack of sensitivity or constraint that the publisher had in deciding to print these cartoons. To me this doesn't matter in the slightest. I am sick of listening to people say that the cartoons were needlessly offensive or that they were in poor taste. The entire point of satire is that nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond scrutiny, and everything is open to criticism. The fact that every media outlet in the world doesn't immediately reproduce the images in question seems cowardly to me. If every major publication and news outlet was to decide to show the images, it would be a sign of solidarity with those who lost their lives for simply doing their jobs; whether or not the publications find the cartoons to be offensive or not, or even funny or interesting seems secondary to me. The media has a moral obligation to stand up for the freedom of press and the freedom to express ideas, even those that some would find offensive. The fact that almost every publication that chooses not to reproduce the cartoons in question admits that they won't do so out of fear of backlash and indeed violence from the muslim community is telling. It is a sad state of affairs when the worldwide press is being stifled and are afraid of doing their jobs and reporting the news by showing people what 'all the fuss is about' because they are being intimidated by religious bullies.
I want to focus on this paragraph, more specifically the part in bold. I agree it is a sad state of affairs, but its totally understandable. If I was the head editor of a newspaper, I have to consider the ramifications of publishing the content that incited this massacre. More innocent people might be in danger if it was published elsewhere internationally. I would like to see them publish the satirical content, but not at the expense of anymore lives. Yes that is sort of my point. Most people would like to see, and in my mind deserve to see what the satirical content was. I agree that it is a tough decision to make, but the fact that so many publications will not publish the content out of fear shows that the religious bullies, and indeed the perpetrator's of this particular atrocity are, for lack of a better term, 'winning' in their purported cause to stop the publication of depictions of the prophet. If, as I suggested, every publication went ahead and published the content anyways, it would be impossible for them all to be targeted. And again, do the major media outlets not have a moral obligation to stand up to these types of threats to the free expression of ideals, I posit that those that are able are indeed obligated to do so. If I was in the same scene as these frenchmen who was killed, then I would leave, immediately. Putting my life in danger is just not worth it, not for that cause. I would not be afraid of making fun of other religious groups, politicians or feminists, but muslim fundamentalists are freaking scary. This is exactly what they want us to think, so mission accomplished I guess. But please don't tell the ppl in the media who thinks like that, that they have a obligation to publish these caricatures. They don't have a obligation to risk their lives, and this is what's at stake here. I don't think you fully grasp the severity of this situation. You can't just ignore these ppl and hope that the threat will go away. If you make fun of islam, you put your life in danger. That is a reality right now. A great part of the western freedom of speech/expression was lost in this attack. What we need to figure out is how we can regain this freedom of speech/expression that was lost. Ignoring the threat and being reckless is not the answer. I hope you will forgive me for not responding sooner, I retired to bed shortly after my post. Having skimmed through the last few pages it seems replying to this would still be appropriate so here it goes. Whether or not you personally think the ideals of free speech, free press, and freedom of ideals is worth risking your life over is not particularly relevant. In my mind these are rather noble things to risk ones life over. The easiest way to make this point I guess is to compare journalism/being an author/being a media outlet to other professions. When one decides to become a police officer they are making a commitment that if need be, they will put themselves in harms way to do their jobs, same for firefighters, military personnel, and many other high-risk professions. Journalists, media outlets, authors, and all entities of this kind make their livings off of the work that their predecessor's made in obtaining things such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of ideals. Thus, when these ideals are threatened, they should be the first ones to rally and defend them. Or, if they are too cowardly to do that, they should at the very least not show just how cowardly they are by publicly stating that they view the works in question as needlessly offensive and pointless without printing them, that is perhaps the thing that annoys me most. How dare anyone in that profession criticize the cartoons when people lost their lives over them and when they themselves are too cowardly to take a stand so they just try and tout themselves as arbiters of political correctness. But I digress. The same thing happened when a fatwa was leveled on Salman Rushdie, it was disgusting to see the number of people who came out and publicly stated that in some sick way he should have known what he was getting himself into, instead of defending his right as a novelist to write about whatever topics he deemed interesting. I have no time for people like that, they are cowards who are willing to sit in their positions which are only available to them because their earlier comrades had to spill their blood and fight for these rights and yet now they will not do their part to defend these ideals when they are under attack. Another thing you said of me is that I don't seem to understand the severity of what is going on. I don't see how you can read my post and come to that conclusion, but I will try to reiterate what I said in a moment. You go on to say that these people can not be ignored and that making fun of Islam is a dangerous thing to be doing. Both of these are true, and as I said in my first post, western civilization is at war with Islam, or a truer depiction of reality would be to say that Islam is at war with western civilization. Islamic extremists are the ones taking this to such a level, not anyone else. You say that a great part of western freedom of speech/expression was lost in these attacks, after you already stated that you personally would not risk your life for these ideals, and then accuse me of not knowing the severity of the situation. Again I don't see how you could have read the last two paragraphs of my original post and come to the conclusion that I do not know the severity of the situation. You end by saying that we can not ignore the threat and that being reckless is not the answer, whether or not you are accusing me of ignoring the threat and being reckless I do not know, perhaps you were just making a general statement; but I would point you to the ending of my original post where I describe what has happened in the past and what needs to happen now. Western civilization needs to make it completely clear that it will not sit idly by while the very ideals and freedoms it is founded upon are under attack by a segment of religious bullies and zealots. I agree with this. I said you didn't know the severeity of the danger, not the severity of the freedom of speech issue. My point was that publishing these pictures would be reckless. It could get you killed, and it's not worth it, not for this cause. I don't think the right to criticize religions that you disagree with is something that is worth dying for, especially not when it comes to a religion that is being practiced by a minority in your country. However, I think France and most likely the western world as a whole needs to do something. I don't know what, though, because it's important that muslims as a whole doesn't get targeted. The freedom of religion trumps the freedom of criticizing other religions, imo. As long as said religious person is non-violent. Also, how would you technically prevent muslims from entering western countries? It's impossible in practice.
Well I suppose that is our major disagreement. I do not find that the freedom of religion trumps the freedom of criticizing other religions as you put it. In my mind nothing is above criticism and satire and free from being made fun of when such things are warranted. Only totalitarians forbid the criticism and discussion of their beliefs, ideals, and practices. I suppose I will take this chance to make a point I've been wanting to make after having to read through the last few pages of people crying about things being offensive to others. So what if the cartoons or indeed any criticism of someones beliefs or ideals are offensive, I grant that they indeed may be, but I am still waiting for a point to be made. So what if something is offensive, so what if you do not like that someone is criticizing your beliefs, you have still yet to make a point, shouting 'I am offended' or 'You have offended 'x' people' is not an argument and not a valid point and should just be ignored. And if Islam in this case is allowed to just cry out that it is offended, then others should be able to say that they are offended that Islam permits countless atrocities. I for one am offended that Islam subjugates women, that it prescribes death as the penalty for apostasy, homosexuality, and numerous other things. I am offended that a blogger is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and 1000 lashes because he wrote something that offended some cleric. I am offended that women in many parts of the middle east have to go about their lives in fear that if their hair slips out or if their faces show they run the risk of having acid thrown in their faces. I am offended that people are being killed for voicing their opinions or for making a point. I am offended that street magicians are killed. Lots of things offend me, but don't worry, I am not going to go on a killing spree because something hurts my feelings and sensibilities. I consider myself to be a civilized person and can live with that fact that I find some things offensive without resorting to violence to try and oppose it. It is a shame that so many people are willing to just roll over and concede that society should give up its rights to criticize and discuss Islam instead of doing what is correct and saying that such violence will not be tolerated and that we will not give up these rights just because some religious bullies are upset about it.
|
If we're playing the devil's advocate, freedom of speech says that you should be allowed to say or print anything you want.
However, this is limited, in that you aren't allowed to directly attack a person with speech? Which means that you can't attack a person for the color of their skin, their religion or any attribute? Or are you allowed to attack people? Let's assume that you can't attack people, but you can attack ideas. Is religion an idea or is religion something which defines a person? Is culture something which defines a person (I really liked biff's big post about society vs culture a few pages back)?
Something I genuinely don't understand is where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and freedom of "being left alone", if that makes sense?
|
On January 11 2015 05:01 Incognoto wrote:
If we're playing the devil's advocate, freedom of speech says that you should be allowed to say or print anything you want.
However, this is limited, in that you aren't allowed to directly attack a person with speech? Which means that you can't attack a person for the color of their skin, their religion or any attribute? Or are you allowed to attack people? Let's assume that you can't attack people, but you can attack ideas. Is religion an idea or is religion something which defines a person? Is culture something which defines a person (I really liked biff's big post about society vs culture a few pages back)?
Something I genuinely don't understand is where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and freedom of "being left alone", if that makes sense?
Criticizing a group is not harassment. Don't like hearing bad stuff about your race, religion, whatever-else? Stop hanging out in social circles that say those things. They aren't doing anything wrong unless they come looking for you to harass you.
|
On January 11 2015 05:01 Incognoto wrote:
If we're playing the devil's advocate, freedom of speech says that you should be allowed to say or print anything you want.
However, this is limited, in that you aren't allowed to directly attack a person with speech? Which means that you can't attack a person for the color of their skin, their religion or any attribute? Or are you allowed to attack people? Let's assume that you can't attack people, but you can attack ideas. Is religion an idea or is religion something which defines a person? Is culture something which defines a person (I really liked biff's big post about society vs culture a few pages back)?
Something I genuinely don't understand is where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and freedom of "being left alone", if that makes sense?
That is not entirely true. You are allowed to attack people, or anything really, as long as the claims you make are factual and you can prove your assertions against them. If you make public remarks about someone that are untrue you can be sued for libel, but if what you say is true and you can prove it then you are free to say it. And religions fall into the category of ideas, which are not free from being left alone. If people want to live in an environment where they never get information that contradicts or criticizes their beliefs then they can go live in a theocratic state or in north korea.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
as i've alluded to already, it is not about choice really, it is about whether it is engaged at the level of content or as a description of someone.
religion is ultimately propositions with content. race is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
