Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2015, 04:59 PM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
(08-02-2015 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 04:50 PM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  Can I throw this in the mix here too guys, as an update as to what's happening in Britain; University of Manchester has introduced blasphemy codes and banned pictures of Muhammad.

Ooh - how cravenly PC of them. Drinking Beverage

Guess I can't go to Manchester.

[Image: mospeaks.jpg]

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
13-02-2015, 05:18 PM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
(13-02-2015 04:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-02-2015 01:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is the important difference that political power is explicitly demanded in the texts of Islam.

It isn't; no more than it is required, again, of any religion. To subordinate all else to what one believes to be objective, divine truths follows inevitably.

All religious bodies of texts are large enough and ambiguous enough to be turned to almost any ends. As such it's an incredibly pointless thing to harp on.

Harp on? Politics is inseparable from the theology. That is not true of all religions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 05:23 PM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
(13-02-2015 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 04:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It isn't; no more than it is required, again, of any religion. To subordinate all else to what one believes to be objective, divine truths follows inevitably.

All religious bodies of texts are large enough and ambiguous enough to be turned to almost any ends. As such it's an incredibly pointless thing to harp on.

Harp on? Politics is inseparable from the theology. That is not true of all religions.

It's not true of all Muslims. Trivially so at that. It is true of the many flavours of, e.g., Dominionist Christians, or hardline Hindutvas.

As such it's almost as if we need to account for more than the specifics of a given religion to understand such cross-denominational human behaviour...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2015, 05:53 PM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2015 11:03 PM by CleverUsername.)
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
I still don't see why it matters if other religions also do the stuff we don't approve of. Last I checked we're not really partial to Christianity either, so why does it keep being brought up every time someone mentions Islam's flaws as if it somehow effects things?

Popcorn I put more thought into fiction than theists put into reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CleverUsername's post
13-02-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
Finally have a chance to get back to this. Sorry for dropping out but I was busy the last few days keeping corporate financial behemoths safe from those who would seek to do them harm. It's Friday night and I'm now and I'm sitting in the kitchen and drowning my self loathing and career choice regrets in beer (because I ran the fuck out of vodka and scotch and although I asked the dogs to go out and get me some more, they couldn't be fucking bothered). But, on the plus side, I now have time to play on the internets again. Yay me.

Anyway, couple of points I wanted to respond to.

First, the whole "racism is irrelevant" comment. I disagree. Or, maybe a better phrase would be "discrimination" because I do tend to use "racism" as a catch-all phrase to describe when people are being judged on their culture/religion/ethnicity/etc as opposed to the quality of their character. I do think it plays a role here. I'm not talking about any one individual here but I think a lot of how the west deals with muslims has everything to do with their culture/race/etc. How they are treated, how stories about them are reported, even how governments treat them (both good and bad) have to do with that. Even the allegations of pandering to muslims are racism - both the allegation and the actual pandering. So, I disagree that it is not part of the discussion.

Second, I think this "disagree with fundamental freedoms" is ridiculous for several reasons. People disagree with fundamental freedoms all the time. Earlier in this thread Muffs made a comment about how Christians disagree without calling for limitations on free speech (paraphrasing). I call bull shit on that. Christians protest perceived slights on their religion all the time. Constantly. They complain about art, about movies, about music, about public statements. Here's a recent example: Obama talked about the Crusades recently and the sins and violence of Christian at his Prayer Breakfast (and that is a topic worth of it's own discussion). Judging by the reactions from the right and religious groups, I feel pretty confident in saying his right to free speech was not paramount on their agenda. And, to that I say: tough fucking noogies.

People disagree with things all the time. Even what is a "fundamental right" is subject to debate. Is abortion a fundamental right? The current law of the land in the US says "yes it is" but there are plenty of people who disagree. Is the personal right to own a gun a fundamental right? There current law of the land in the US also says "yes it is" but there are plenty of people who disagree on that too. Are we really going to suggest that people who have immigrated to this country should be kicked out, and citizens have their citizenship revoked, because they disagree on abortion or guns? I'm pretty sure we aren't doing that. I've not seen anyone suggest anything like that.

The right to dissent, to have a contrary opinion, to disagree is a fundamental human right. The idea that we are going to take that away because a person is an immigrant and has a contrary opinion is ridiculous. How can we claim to have any ideals if we punish people for following our rules and using the rights we claim to cherish? A group of people peacefully assembled to list their grievance with something in their society. I disagree with their position but saying you don't agree with our right to free speech and we are going to punish you for saying it is ridiculous. It's completely contrary to what free speech is. How some of you can't see that is a mystery to me.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
14-02-2015, 06:45 AM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
(13-02-2015 06:10 PM)BnW Wrote:  Finally have a chance to get back to this. Sorry for dropping out but I was busy the last few days keeping corporate financial behemoths safe from those who would seek to do them harm. It's Friday night and I'm now and I'm sitting in the kitchen and drowning my self loathing and career choice regrets in beer (because I ran the fuck out of vodka and scotch and although I asked the dogs to go out and get me some more, they couldn't be fucking bothered). But, on the plus side, I now have time to play on the internets again. Yay me.

Anyway, couple of points I wanted to respond to.

First, the whole "racism is irrelevant" comment. I disagree. Or, maybe a better phrase would be "discrimination" because I do tend to use "racism" as a catch-all phrase to describe when people are being judged on their culture/religion/ethnicity/etc as opposed to the quality of their character. I do think it plays a role here. I'm not talking about any one individual here but I think a lot of how the west deals with muslims has everything to do with their culture/race/etc. How they are treated, how stories about them are reported, even how governments treat them (both good and bad) have to do with that. Even the allegations of pandering to muslims are racism - both the allegation and the actual pandering. So, I disagree that it is not part of the discussion.

Second, I think this "disagree with fundamental freedoms" is ridiculous for several reasons. People disagree with fundamental freedoms all the time. Earlier in this thread Muffs made a comment about how Christians disagree without calling for limitations on free speech (paraphrasing). I call bull shit on that. Christians protest perceived slights on their religion all the time. Constantly. They complain about art, about movies, about music, about public statements. Here's a recent example: Obama talked about the Crusades recently and the sins and violence of Christian at his Prayer Breakfast (and that is a topic worth of it's own discussion). Judging by the reactions from the right and religious groups, I feel pretty confident in saying his right to free speech was not paramount on their agenda. And, to that I say: tough fucking noogies.

People disagree with things all the time. Even what is a "fundamental right" is subject to debate. Is abortion a fundamental right? The current law of the land in the US says "yes it is" but there are plenty of people who disagree. Is the personal right to own a gun a fundamental right? There current law of the land in the US also says "yes it is" but there are plenty of people who disagree on that too. Are we really going to suggest that people who have immigrated to this country should be kicked out, and citizens have their citizenship revoked, because they disagree on abortion or guns? I'm pretty sure we aren't doing that. I've not seen anyone suggest anything like that.

The right to dissent, to have a contrary opinion, to disagree is a fundamental human right. The idea that we are going to take that away because a person is an immigrant and has a contrary opinion is ridiculous. How can we claim to have any ideals if we punish people for following our rules and using the rights we claim to cherish? A group of people peacefully assembled to list their grievance with something in their society. I disagree with their position but saying you don't agree with our right to free speech and we are going to punish you for saying it is ridiculous. It's completely contrary to what free speech is. How some of you can't see that is a mystery to me.

How some of you cannot see that questioning the motivation of immigrants who fundamentally disagree with the bases of the society is rational is a mystery to me.

So I'll ask again: why did they immigrate to a culture with which they fundamentally disagree?

And I will reiterate, I made no proposal; I stated my gut reaction to their protest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 06:49 AM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
(13-02-2015 05:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(13-02-2015 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  Harp on? Politics is inseparable from the theology. That is not true of all religions.

It's not true of all Muslims. Trivially so at that.

And it is trivially true that I never said any such thing.

Quote:It is true of the many flavours of, e.g., Dominionist Christians, or hardline Hindutvas.

And not true of Jains, Rastafarians, and others. So?

Quote:As such it's almost as if we need to account for more than the specifics of a given religion to understand such cross-denominational human behaviour...

Said behaviors are activated by some religions and ideologies and not others. So there's that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
(09-02-2015 10:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  ... I think it is reasonable to consider deporting {a person} who wants to fundamentally change the society by limiting people's rights.

Your concept would have ALL of us deported, probably to Mars, since deportation to some country would not change that fundamentally human frame of mind that can't stand "others" doing it "wrong". The sheer fact that your actual quote was directed at "immigrants" (i.e. "others") proves the point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
(13-02-2015 06:10 PM)BnW Wrote:  Finally have a chance to get back to this. Sorry for dropping out but I was busy the last few days keeping corporate financial behemoths safe from those who would seek to do them harm. It's Friday night and I'm now and I'm sitting in the kitchen and drowning my self loathing and career choice regrets in beer (because I ran the fuck out of vodka and scotch and although I asked the dogs to go out and get me some more, they couldn't be fucking bothered). But, on the plus side, I now have time to play on the internets again. Yay me.

Anyway, couple of points I wanted to respond to.

First, the whole "racism is irrelevant" comment. I disagree. Or, maybe a better phrase would be "discrimination" because I do tend to use "racism" as a catch-all phrase to describe when people are being judged on their culture/religion/ethnicity/etc as opposed to the quality of their character. I do think it plays a role here. I'm not talking about any one individual here but I think a lot of how the west deals with muslims has everything to do with their culture/race/etc. How they are treated, how stories about them are reported, even how governments treat them (both good and bad) have to do with that. Even the allegations of pandering to muslims are racism - both the allegation and the actual pandering. So, I disagree that it is not part of the discussion.

Second, I think this "disagree with fundamental freedoms" is ridiculous for several reasons. People disagree with fundamental freedoms all the time. Earlier in this thread Muffs made a comment about how Christians disagree without calling for limitations on free speech (paraphrasing). I call bull shit on that. Christians protest perceived slights on their religion all the time. Constantly. They complain about art, about movies, about music, about public statements. Here's a recent example: Obama talked about the Crusades recently and the sins and violence of Christian at his Prayer Breakfast (and that is a topic worth of it's own discussion). Judging by the reactions from the right and religious groups, I feel pretty confident in saying his right to free speech was not paramount on their agenda. And, to that I say: tough fucking noogies.

People disagree with things all the time. Even what is a "fundamental right" is subject to debate. Is abortion a fundamental right? The current law of the land in the US says "yes it is" but there are plenty of people who disagree. Is the personal right to own a gun a fundamental right? There current law of the land in the US also says "yes it is" but there are plenty of people who disagree on that too. Are we really going to suggest that people who have immigrated to this country should be kicked out, and citizens have their citizenship revoked, because they disagree on abortion or guns? I'm pretty sure we aren't doing that. I've not seen anyone suggest anything like that.

The right to dissent, to have a contrary opinion, to disagree is a fundamental human right. The idea that we are going to take that away because a person is an immigrant and has a contrary opinion is ridiculous. How can we claim to have any ideals if we punish people for following our rules and using the rights we claim to cherish? A group of people peacefully assembled to list their grievance with something in their society. I disagree with their position but saying you don't agree with our right to free speech and we are going to punish you for saying it is ridiculous. It's completely contrary to what free speech is. How some of you can't see that is a mystery to me.

I agree with everything you say, however, I think you seem to failure to make the distinction most people have in this thread. The distinction between the ideology of Islam and actual muslims.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2015, 06:50 PM
RE: Anti-freedom of speech protests in London
(14-02-2015 01:45 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 10:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  ... I think it is reasonable to consider deporting {a person} who wants to fundamentally change the society by limiting people's rights.

Your concept would have ALL of us deported, probably to Mars, since deportation to some country would not change that fundamentally human frame of mind that can't stand "others" doing it "wrong". The sheer fact that your actual quote was directed at "immigrants" (i.e. "others") proves the point.


The final three words of what you have quoted weren't addressed in your point. All of us have different views and ideas of how a country should exist and be run. Most of us agree and concede other ideas may be superior to our own and thus do not support the suppression of their views.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: