EPTShots fired at Charlie Hebdo offices - France - Page 108
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Read this before posting. Stay civil. As the news continues to develop, please remember no NSFW images or video. Thank you. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On January 11 2015 05:13 Nyxisto wrote: This isn't primarily a legal issue. Just because you can say everything you want doesn't mean you should. You can't build a community when everybody is using their free speech for the sole purpose of polarizing society and spreading hate. This goes for either side of the spectrum. The free market can settle this though. Nobody really cares anymore that the Westboro Baptist Church hate everything and won't shut up about it. They're certainly annoying, but they don't really accomplish any hate-spreading. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5156 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 11 2015 04:23 raynpelikoneet wrote: Yes but when you intentionally do stuff that offends them it becomes your problem aswell. That's irrelevant. Like oneofthem very well said, there's a difference between the objective content of a message and how a given person feels about the said content. If a message does not target a group of people but instead an ideology such as a religion, that some people may still take offense does not change the fact that these people, and the group they belong to, were not the target of the message. If I say I hate religions, I am not saying I hate religious people. That some religious people may choose to understand my message as saying I hate them as people is their problem, because that is not what I said. Targeting religious symbols cannot be equated to targeting religious people. The two are simply not the same. This distinction is enshrined in French law. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
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. 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. 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. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On January 11 2015 05:10 Dazed_Spy wrote: 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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 05:39 Nyxisto wrote: "I only hate America, I don't hate Americans"...? Ideologies are made by what people believe and how people live their lives, it's not something you dig out of the ground. Obviously people will feel personally attacked if their ideologies are attacked. That's true for pacifism, vegetarianism, feminism, religion and everything else.And that's completely okay because what ideologies you chose to align with is an important part of your personality. You can't attack ideologies without attacking people. america is a place bro. can you read america to me? you can hate "american ___ ism" and that's ok. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 11 2015 05:39 Nyxisto wrote: "I only hate America, I don't hate Americans"...? Ideologies are made by what people believe and how people live their lives, it's not something you dig out of the ground. Obviously people will feel personally attacked if their ideologies are attacked. That's true for pacifism, vegetarianism, feminism, religion and everything else.And that's completely okay because what ideologies you chose to align with is an important part of your personality. You can't attack ideologies without attacking people. Of course you can attack ideologies without attacking people. Your example is pretty terrible because "America" is not an ideology. If you said "I hate the US' foreign policy interventionism", would you be attacking the American people? No. If you said "I hate dogmas of all forms, including religions", would you be attacking religious people? No, you would be attacking religions as dogmatic systems of belief. You're not blaming people for being religious, disputing their right to be religious or attacking them individually or collectively for having their religious beliefs, you're criticizing a system of belief for its characteristics as a system of belief. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
"I hate dogmas of all forms, including religions", would you be attacking religious people? No, Only because that's such a generalized statement that nobody would even feel attacked. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On January 11 2015 05:54 kwizach wrote: Of course you can attack ideologies without attacking people. Your example is pretty terrible because "America" is not an ideology. If you said "I hate the US' foreign policy interventionism", would you be attacking the American people? No. If you said "I hate dogmas of all forms, including religions", would you be attacking religious people? No, you would be attacking religions as dogmatic systems of belief. You're not blaming people for being religious, disputing their right to be religious or attacking them individually or collectively for having their religious beliefs, you're criticizing a system of belief for its characteristics as a system of belief. Yes, you would. Many religious people define themselves solely on their religion. An attack on their religion is an attack on them. There are Christians whose sole defining trait is their religion. An attack on Christianity is an attack on the very thing that makes them who they are. Anything negative you say about any ideology is inherently also negative about its followers. I could say Communism is evil because it undermines property rights. Likewise, I am implicitly saying that Communists are evil because they support the undermining of property rights. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 11 2015 05:59 Nyxisto wrote: I was referring to United States as a nation and the values it represents, I didn't actually think I needed to point hat out. Only because that's such a generalized statement that nobody would even feel attacked. I answered your example. That's the point, whether or not people "feel" attacked doesn't change the fact that the statement is not about them but about the ideology. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 11 2015 06:06 Millitron wrote: Yes, you would. Many religious people define themselves solely on their religion. An attack on their religion is an attack on them. There are Christians whose sole defining trait is their religion. An attack on Christianity is an attack on the very thing that makes them who they are. Anything negative you say about any ideology is inherently also negative about its followers. I could say Communism is evil because it undermines property rights. Likewise, I am saying that Communists are evil because they support the undermining of property rights. No, you would not. An attack on their religion is an attack on their religion. How they choose to feel about an attack on their religion is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the attack was on a system of belief and not on the group they belong to. "Christianity" and "Christians" are not synonymous - they're two different words with two different meanings. | ||
|
L1ghtning
Sweden353 Posts
On January 11 2015 04:59 Kickstart wrote: 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. But you need to realize that the freedom of religion has to trump the freedom to criticize religion, because a restriction on freedom of religion is a critique on religion at the most extreme form, in fact it's beyond that. Basically in case you've misunderstood what I was saying, I'm saying that censoring religious critique is bad, but banning ppl from practicing the religion of their choice is even worse. That's where I disagree with ppl who target all the muslims. Also, to make clear, I don't support legislation that would make it illegal to criticize religion. All I'm saying is that if criticizing a certain religion can get you killed, then it's a problem, but shutting out all ppl who belong to this religion, although it could fix the situation (probably not), in the end, would be more of a loss than a gain. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 11 2015 06:08 Nyxisto wrote: So the only way to legitimately insult you is saying "your face looks funny?", because everything else is not really "you"? If you say "black people are lazy", that is a racist statement because you are talking about a group of people. The target is the group of people, not an ideology. How this is not glaringly obvious is beyond me. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On January 11 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote: No, you would not. An attack on their religion is an attack on their religion. How they choose to feel about an attack on their religion is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the attack was on a system of belief and not on the group they belong to. "Christianity" and "Christians" are not synonymous - they're two different words with two different meanings. But the group is defined solely on the belief system. Christians could not exist without Christianity. The two are inseparable. An attack on Christianity is an attack on Christians. If I say, "Christianity is stupid, its just fairy tales for adults.", I am implicitly saying Christians are stupid for believing in fairy tales. On January 11 2015 06:12 kwizach wrote: If you say "black people are lazy", that is a racist statement because you are talking about a group of people. The target is the group of people, not an ideology. How this is not glaringly obvious is beyond me. Because ideologies are inseparable from the groups that believe them. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22414 Posts
On January 11 2015 05:54 kwizach wrote: Of course you can attack ideologies without attacking people. Your example is pretty terrible because "America" is not an ideology. If you said "I hate the US' foreign policy interventionism", would you be attacking the American people? No. If you said "I hate dogmas of all forms, including religions", would you be attacking religious people? No, you would be attacking religions as dogmatic systems of belief. You're not blaming people for being religious, disputing their right to be religious or attacking them individually or collectively for having their religious beliefs, you're criticizing a system of belief for its characteristics as a system of belief. Well what one does and what one interprets has happened are not always the same. For instance anti-police brutality/abuse protests in the US are conveniently relabeled "anti-police protests" by those who feel like addressing police abuses is the same thing as attacking the officers themselves. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5156 Posts
On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote: Because ideologies are inseparable from the groups that believe them. Well would you be insulting dead people if you attacked Bonapartism? | ||
| ||
