Forum menu
I have the strangest...
Strangest what Cougar? Strangest growth? Strangest attraction to a fat bald bloke from Yorkshire? Strangest urge to rush at people whilst hissing? I need answers dammit!
True, hence the reason why I highlighted one of the two commandments that certain religions consider to be the greatest. Difficult to trawl through all of it (I never have) so always a help if they have a "get started quickly" guide to get you going, hey?
Clegg is correct in one sense (my and Vince's view) re the clear and categorical claim starting "you cannot have freedom....."
Indeed you cannot and we do not. We have considerable restrictions on our freedom which "liberals" should be aware of. And the first casualty of terrorism is usually liberty/freedom.
I think one of the standout features of islam is how touchy it makes it's followers. Also christianity, to a slightly lesser extent.
As an atheist, I find the deference given to religion to be offensive. My reaction, however, is not to burn books, demonstrate with placards calling for the castration of the Salvation Army or shoot people.
You know - I think your beliefs are risible gibberish. O.K., so you're offended - and?
[img] 
[/img]
As a (admittedly not a particularly staunch) Catholic, I find the expectation of deference somewhat baffling. They're my beliefs, not yours, they give me no particular rights. I object to being thought of as stupid because of them, but realise I just have to live with this - it's certainly not worth getting shooty about. Spotted something on Facebook which I thought was appropriate, just a post that said "if you believe your religion is worth killing for, why not start with yourself", which I can't help but agree with.
Some of history's famous and peace loving atheists, aside from Mr Woppit, include:
Adolf Hitler
Josepth Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin (very much so in his case).
Not quite cut-and-dried, but I take your general point about everyday touchiness - that is not the same, however, as acting violently.
Belief system, whether religion or not might incite but they don't kill, people do.
Guns might blow you to pieces but don't kill, people do.
People = zombie maggots
(When thoughts are transformed into action. However, you are not zombie maggot until you put them into action. )
😯
Belief system, whether religion or not might incite but they don't kill, people do.
In various books, Oxford University theologian Keith Ward argues that religion properly defined is an attempt to alleviate human beings from a condition of hatred, guilt, violence, lust, etc.
Its fairly obvious that for the majority of people it doesn't achieve that. Christianity has another trick up its sleeve, however: original sin. This suggests that human beings are in a permanently fallen condition and only God's grace can liberate them.
There's been plenty of research on whether religion harms or helps people, personally I've noticed no real difference between believers and non-believers, except at the extremes: in religion, the bad people tend to be very bad (often attracted by religious Judgementalism) but the good people tend to be very good and selfless.
Woppit - does this mean, albeit not entirely, that we agree on something? This could be the start of a true bromance!
barnsleymitch - MemberWoppit - does this mean, albeit not entirely, that we agree on something? This could be the start of a true bromance!
I pronounce you husband and husband. 😆
You may proceed with "sword fighting" now ... 😆
The raising of the tired old canard already discussed and dismissed SO many times:
Some of history's famous and peace loving atheists, aside from Mr Woppit, include:
Adolf Hitler
Josepth Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin
and the return of the Pantomime Dame means...
I'm out.
Mr Woppit - Memberand the return of tyhe Pantomime Dame means...
I'm out.
Oh no you're not ... 😆
I'm out.
I'd prefer to not have to answer the boring 6th form block "Im an athiest and therefore better than you" tirades but you keep bringing it up for a regular self-esteem boost.
Likewise, though - Exit Badnewz, pursued by a beer.
Some of history's famous and peace loving atheists, aside from Mr Woppit, include:
Adolf Hitler
Josepth Stalin
Pol Pot
Lenin (very much so in his case).
I'm sure none of us would need assistance compiling an alternative list of war mongering believers.
So what?
As a (admittedly not a particularly staunch) Catholic, I find the expectation of deference somewhat baffling.
You shouldn't be. It merely demonstrates how difficult is is to throw off the old relationship of politics (state) and religion (church). Break that link once and for all say and while you're at it throw all the woo woos out of the House of Lords.
Not as simple as Nick likes us think with his bottom line
I think you're falling into the same trap as a lot of other people who go with the "my freedom of speech is removed when you criticise what I say" argument. Criticism or counterargument isn't, in any way, damaging to your freedom of speech. You're free to say something idiotic, I'm free to point out why it's idiotic and tell other people to ignore you. And vice versa.
"You have no right not to be offended" is NOT incompatible with "I am offended". I believe you have the right to say to me "I think you're less intelligent/more likely to commit crime because you're black/white/chinese/Muslim/whatever" but that doesn't mean I'd be unoffended by it if you said it. But you should have the right to say it. And I should have the right to argue against what you've said without being accused fo restricting freedom of speech.
It's back to the fundamental point of "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it". Clegg might think Whelan is a nasty racist. He might come out and say that what Whelan said doesn't belong in a modern, tolerant society. But he's not saying that Whelan should be arrested or burned at the stake for saying it. Just that he's shown some unsavoury views that Clegg doesn't agree with.
Some of history's famous and peace loving atheists, aside from Mr Woppit, include:
Adolf Hitler
This gets trotted out semi-regularly and the sad fact is, it's not true. Hitler was raised a Catholic, was never excommunicated, and identified as Christian (at least when it suited his ends). The majority of the movers and shakers in the Nazi party were either Catholic or Protestant.
Stalin was raised Catholic also (wasn't he going to be a priest at one point, or am I misremembering?). Pol Pot, I think, was a Buddhist.
But this is largely academic. Even if all three were militant atheists it would beg the really very obvious question of "so bloody what"? What's the implication here, that all atheists are genocidal cocknockers? Do I need to compose a list of atheists who aren't murdering sociopaths in order to rebut that? I guarantee my list will be longer than yours, we can start with about 40% of the UK alive today for a kick-off.
After spending 30 pages asserting that a couple of gun-toting lunatics are in no way representative of Islam as a whole, this sort of wooly thinking leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth. Why not sit down for a minute and think about what you've done?
On the subject of offence, there seems to be some confusion.
No-one has the right not to be offended or to insist on special treatment because of their superstitions. HOWEVER, this does not equate to it being open season on being an arsehole towards your fellow man.
Ie, I have the right, should I so desire, to be offensive. Whether or not I exercise that right speaks volumes about who I am as a person, and as a rule I try not to be. Unless they've really deserved it. (-:
And you're offended, so what? Be offended. It doesn't hurt, no-one died, you can suck it up or complain or ask people nicely not to be offensive, but you don't get to start making demands and you sure as **** don't get to stroll into an office with automatic weaponry because someone drew an unflattering picture of your imaginary friend. These sorts of people don't need protecting, they need professional psychiatric help or they need to find somewhere to live which is more compatible with their world views.
You want Sharia law, fine, you can have it, fill your boots, there's plenty of places where it's in place, sod off to one of them. You'll be happy, we'll be happy, everyone's a winner.
Again, I'm agreeing with Cougar and Woppit on this one, stop dragging out the list of naughty atheists, it's meaningless. Sometimes, religion is used as an excuse to get all murdery, but if it's not that, they'll come up with something else to suit their needs. Let's just hug it out guys, what do you say?
Bails - I think you are taking my point too far (in the last para)
Clegg makes at categorical point in the heat of the moment. It contains two assumptions
1. Freedom of speech is an absolute right
2. Offence can never cause harm
Neither is true.
1) Freedom of speech [i]should [/i]be an absolute right, this is the crux of what is under thread from the likes of screwheads with assault rifles and that gobshite Choudry.
2) Offence clearly can cause harm, as a number of cartoonists would love to be able to tell you I expect.
The thing is, what's the alternative? We give religion special privilege and immunity from criticism? Congratulations, the terrorists just won. And at the risk of brushing with the "tip of the iceberg" / "slippery slope" logical fallacies, that's a really, really dangerous precedent to be setting in a supposedly secular society.
After spending 30 pages asserting that a couple of gun-toting lunatics are in no way representative of Islam as a whole
Um... I haven't totted up any totals but significant numbers of posters haven't been saying that at all.
Debating rather than asserting, then. Sorry, I was ignoring the ramblings of the simple.
The "point" cougs is that this is not a simple thing. On your first point, you have volunteered for a role that falsifies your argument. There are rules that are required to make STW forum work - they require freedom of speech to be limited. This is true for the rest of society.
I am not suggesting that terrorists should win - on the contrary I am more concerned that freedoms are nearly always restricted as a result of these events, That's is normally a bad thing.
The one thing that is certain, religion clearly gets no "special" treatment here. In fact quite the opposite, it's one topic where giving offence is clearly condoned.
But then again sticks and stones.....hey?
Edit: your edit makes my point less valid. More valid in relation to Cleggy not your revised point 1.
And you're offended, so what? Be offended. It doesn't hurt, no-one died, you can suck it up or complain or ask people nicely not to be offensive, but you don't get to start making demands
Gay people - they made demands the bastards
No dogs no blacks no Irish- sensitive and not like anyone died was it ?
Transgender- ah you get the point
Jewish people
Lots of groups do get to say hey that offends me you cannot speak to me or about me/us like that and we have laws that mean you cannot
You just cannot argue it like you and Binners do as it still requires some balance as an examination of the actual law shows. Freedom of speech HAS restrictions, Some you agree with some you dont. All we are debating is whether this is one we agree with or not.
Its not a carte blanche right and we do protect some groups and restrict others freedom of speech
Racists for example have to be careful lest they offend folk. I dont see many arguing for their right to the noble principle of free speech.
what's the alternative? We give religion special privilege and immunity from criticism?
How about we will criticise you any way we see fit in the written word but what we wont do is draw a picture of your prophet as we know this will cause you great upset. In return you will respect our right to say as we please about your beliefs nd none of us will kill anyone.
I would call it a balanced response where we respect both views and try to compromise. It either that or we take an extremist[ entrenched if you prefer] view where we dont give any weight to their view [ we can offend them as we see fit and toughen up Muslamic] and they do the same to us and then we argue and folk die and we find it harder to all get along.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2015/01/why-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo/
Sums up better than I could what I was saying earlier about the racist and unfunny magazine everyone is so vigorously defending/promoting.
I shouldn't have to but I'll repeat the obvious point that nothing printed in a magazine could ever justify these attacks, just in case any morons want to use that particular straw man again.
How about we will criticise you any way we see fit in the written word but what we wont do is draw a picture of your prophet as we know this will cause you great upset.
No thanks.
In fact quite the opposite, it's one topic where giving offence is clearly condoned.
For me there are some who just insult where there are some that say similar things but they are criticisms and they have a rational as well.
I accept that some of what I say in those threads offends the religious . However their message to me about being a sinner who is going to die for what
We both upset each other
I accept [ some of] the atheists are far ruder and mean to
I shouldn't have to but I'll repeat the obvious point that nothing printed in a magazine could ever justify these attacks, just in case any morons want to use that particular straw man again.
If you think killing cartoonists isn't justified why do you keep making excuses?
No thanks.
Why ?
When did you last critique religion and Islam via the medium of imagery
Can i still use the n word then as that causes a bit of offence as well - is that just their problem as well
I need an explanation as I already knew some disagree
f you think killing cartoonists isn't justified why do you keep making excuses?
See that bit where he said he was not doing it he had to do that because some folk would not see it
The proof is that even when he said this explicitlyy did not you did not get it
Nice link Grum they also did various with the prophet in basically pornographic poses
I am not sure what the biting satire was there either.
You can believe what you like. You can say what you believe. You can try to convince others that your beliefs are right.
You can't go around shooting people because they have offended you.
Not difficult stuff.
I need an explanation as I already knew some disagree
Because objecting to a drawing isn't reasonable.
Banning transexuals from driving seems to draw universal derision yet killing people for cartoons has apologists? Odd world.
You can say what you believe.
Unless of course what I believe is illegal- there are limits to freedom of speech this cannot be denied*
* it can but it is just to be wrong and ignore facts
See that bit where he said he was not doing it he had to do that because some folk would not see it
Yeah, as convincing as "I'm not racist but..."
objecting to a drawing isn't reasonable
Are you saying there are no visual images in the UK that, if published, are illegal and objecting to any of them is not reasonable?
you need to campaign to change the law
You are just repeating your view and not explaining it
HAHAHA no one on here but a loon would think Grum is a racist 🙄
FFS even JIve hiney would disagree with that as lacking evidence
Given that reason forgive me for refusing reason lessons from you
You can believe what you like. You can say what you believe. You can try to convince others that your beliefs are right.You can't go around shooting people because they have offended you.
Not difficult stuff.
But if someone was offensive enough in front of me I may punch them on the nose. Its not right but it could happen.
There are rules that are required to make STW forum work - they require freedom of speech to be limited.
No, I'm nnt having that.
There are rules, but I doubt you'll find many moderated forums where your freedom of speech is defended so vociferously (not least of all by me). I'm struggling to think offhand of any STW ruling which limits your freedom of speech beyond clearly defined -isms which are protected in law or things which directly undermine the continued existence of the site as per the T&Cs you agreed to when you signed up for an account. You'd be amazed how many emails we get from non-members demanding (always demanding, never asking nicely, odd that) that we take down commentary which paints them in a bad light. They universally get told to jog on.
Homophobic, racist etc comments are verboten, and rightly so, and people going too far with ad hominem attacks will also be moderated. That's about it I think. If you can think of something beyond that then I'd love to hear it, because I need to go and address it.
The one thing that is certain, religion clearly gets no "special" treatment here. In fact quite the opposite, it's one topic where giving offence is clearly condoned.
Well, no, the opposite of "not getting special treatment" is "getting special treatment." Is that what you want?
We've done this to death previously. Attacking individuals is not allowed. Challenging opinions is allowed, of course it is. Ever post which gets reported is reviewed and a decision made accordingly, and the religion threads very rarely if ever generate complaints. Oh, people piss and moan on the thread of course; but actual official complaints are rare.
Compare to say the sport ones, they're always good for a metric shitload of bleating. Criticise someone's religion and no-one says anything, criticise someone's football team and you should see the bloody letters we get.
are you and TJ discussing rugby ? 😉
Are you saying there are no visual images in the UK that, if published, are illegal and objecting to any of them is not reasonable?
you need to campaign to change the lawYou are just repeating your view and not explaining it
I am at a loss at how to explain murdering people for drawing a cartoon is unreasonable.
So with that I think I'll give up.
HAHAHA no one on here but a loon would think Grum is a racist
Edit to your edit. Read it again and think. You can't be that thick.
And I'm done...
Cougar - ModeratorIf you can think of something beyond that then I'd love to hear it, because I need to go and address it.
Being Grantway?
Compare to say the sport ones, they're always good for a metric shitload of bleating. Criticise someone's religion and no-one says anything,
But Gavin Henson is my god!
Here's another one for you to discuss.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi
Could be lies of course, it is the Guardian.
I take that back. I'm a stone's throw from banning people who are deliberately trying to derail threads.
But if someone was offensive enough in front of me I may punch them on the nose. Its not right but it could happen.
The you lose the argument. You may win the fight, though, so I guess it depends on what your own needs are.
It is correct that some things are not allowed to be said. I know why this is, but actually I do have an issue with it. For me it depends on whether you are inciting someone to act on your behalf. As for holocaust denial, I understand why it is a crime in Germany, but I actually don't think it should be. It happened. The deniers are wrong, and can be shown to be so. Demonstrably. They can go on denying it should they wish, but they just make themselves look even more stupid as a result.
Turn it on its head. I want there to be laws to protect the rights of idiots to make themselves look idiotic to a wide audience.