|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: You've avenged nobody
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This is popping up a little on other Hell threads, but dammit it deserves one of its own.
Fuck you.
FUCK.
YOU.
Fuck your deep insecurities that can't handle a pluralistic society. Fuck your belief that the answer to someone you don't like is to plot their murder and mow them down. Fuck your inability to turn the other cheek.
You know what? I don't actually believe in completely free speech. I believe in there being certain kinds of legal restrictions that prevent really severe forms of harassment, incitement and defamation.
But to think that the suitable punishment for an insult, no matter how severe, is an execution is... it's completely batshit insane.
You haven't avenged the Prophet. You've dragged his name through the mud. In front of an audience of billions, you've suggested that the Prophet's followers are deranged killers. You haven't generated respect for your religion, you've generated contempt for it.
And you've made ME think that the death penalty might be a good idea in some cases after all. That's how mind-bogglingly shitty you are. The main factor in just jailing you for life is the possibility that you'll come to understand, through the ministrations of sane Muslims, just how wrong you've been and will spend your later years tormented by the horror of yourself.
You have brought complete shame upon Islam. So FUCK YOU.
[ 07. January 2015, 21:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Mohammed had poets killed for mocking him. Nothing new.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And I'm sure Christian kings some time in the last dozen centuries managed to do similar. I don't fucking care. I care about what happens now in 21st century democracies.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[...] You know what? I don't actually believe in completely free speech. I believe in there being certain kinds of legal restrictions that prevent really severe forms of harassment, incitement and defamation.
Hellish definition issues, here.
None of those things are speech. Speech is the expression of opinion: harassment, incitement, and defamation are acts, either criminal or tortious.
Speech is either free or it isn't, and I believe it ought to be free, while believing just as strongly that sanction should be visited on folk who commit crimes by proxy, and try to ruin people with malicious lies.
quote:
But to think that the suitable punishment for an insult, no matter how severe, is an execution is... it's completely batshit insane. [...]
Word.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Killing people is WRONG.
End of.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Murdering people is wrong, but homicide is sometimes justifiable. Gunning down satirists for hurting your feelings doesn't tend to cut it in the justification stakes, so these killings are as wrong as wrong gets.
By contrast, if the French police are forced to use deadly force to seize the murderers, that'd be a ... different matter.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Byron wrote:
quote:
None of those things are speech. Speech is the expression of opinion: harassment, incitement, and defamation are acts, either criminal or tortious.
So, by that definition, if a puritan-style government wanted to ban(let's say) pictorial pornography, the law couldn't be challenged on free-speech grounds, because nude photographs don't express an opinion?
[ 08. January 2015, 00:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QB] And I'm sure Christian kings some time in the last dozen centuries managed to do similar.
So? What you're doing is comparing apples to oranges. It would be like me trying to defend Jesus by pointing at post-Mohammed Islamic rulers. I doubt anyone would think I'm doing anything other than being a jackass.
quote:
I don't fucking care. I care about what happens now in 21st century democracies.
I care when someone is doing violence and it is actually emulating their prophet. It tells me their prophet is an asshole.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Murdering people is wrong, but homicide is sometimes justifiable.
Something can be justifiable and still wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So? What you're doing is comparing apples to oranges.
And what you're doing is commenting on the behaviour of a person who lived in the 7th Century as if that has some relevance to behavioural standards in the 21st Century. And you thinking I'm comparing apples and oranges?
Tell me, which do you think is more relevant to acceptable standards of behaviour? The religion of a person, or the century they live in?
You are in fact, in your sheer stupidity, providing justification for Muslims who want to perpetrate honour killings, because you're suggesting that it's a Muslim thing to do. What I'm telling you is that it's a 7th Century thing to do, and that plenty of CHRISTIANS who lived a lot closer to the 7th Century than the 21st would have been just fine with it.
Heck, you only have to go back a few centuries to find Christians having duels over their honour.
Kindly take your religious blinkers off.
[ 08. January 2015, 00:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Hellish definition issues, here.
None of those things are speech. Speech is the expression of opinion: harassment, incitement, and defamation are acts, either criminal or tortious.
Wow, I really love it when we get the clever kind of stupid, it's my favourite variety. You think that expression of opinion isn't an act?
[ 08. January 2015, 00:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Hellish definition issues, here.
None of those things are speech. Speech is the expression of opinion: harassment, incitement, and defamation are acts, either criminal or tortious.
Wow, I really love it when we get the clever kind of stupid, it's my favourite variety. You think that expression of opinion isn't an act?
Or that verbal harassment isn't speech?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yep, exactly.
I can't wait to hear how you defame someone without speech.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And what you're doing is commenting on the behaviour of a person who lived in the 7th Century as if that has some relevance to behavioural standards in the 21st Century.
It does have relevance. Mohammed had his critics whacked and there are folks whacking his critics now. Emulating the prophet is considered a good thing according to 33:21.
quote:
And you thinking I'm comparing apples and oranges?
Yep.
quote:
Tell me, which do you think is more relevant to acceptable standards of behaviour? The religion of a person, or the century they live in?
I'd say the religion. I doubt anyone would disagree unless it turns out they do, in fact, look at the calendar instead of their holy scriptures, especially when they are making what they consider a big decision, like whether or not to go air out someone who drew pictures.
quote:
You are in fact, in your sheer stupidity, providing justification for Muslims who want to perpetrate honour killings, because you're suggesting that it's a Muslim thing to do.
Oh, so Mohammed didn't know the Muslim thing to do? That's an interesting thought.
quote:
What I'm telling you is that it's a 7th Century thing to do, and that plenty of CHRISTIANS who lived a lot closer to the 7th Century than the 21st would have been just fine wiht it.
Well, we know Mohammed was fine with it. Would Jesus be fine with it?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Wow, Nick.
Keep on digging that hole of yours, where it's a bad idea to insult Muslims because we know the 'Muslim' way to react.
Like I said, you are justifying these gunmen's behaviour. And you can't even see it. Never mind whether they're French citizens, born in France and living in France. 'Muslim' defines everything we need to know about them, right?
Perhaps you'd like to join me for pistols at dawn? The Christian precedent is abundant.
[ 08. January 2015, 01:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...what you're doing is commenting on the behaviour of a person who lived in the 7th Century as if that has some relevance to behavioural standards in the 21st Century.
Wait, am I to understand that the (alleged) behavior of Jesus in the first century has no relevance to behavioral standards in the 21st century?
What a revelation!
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...what you're doing is commenting on the behaviour of a person who lived in the 7th Century as if that has some relevance to behavioural standards in the 21st Century.
Wait, am I to understand that the (alleged) behavior of Jesus in the first century has no relevance to behavioral standards in the 21st century?
What a revelation!
Well, if you want to keep attending the local synagogue as Jesus did, speaking Aramaic as Jesus did, reclining for dinner as Jesus did, walking everywhere like Jesus did, knock yourself out.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wow, Nick.
Keep on digging that hole of yours, where it's a bad idea to insult Muslims because we know the 'Muslim' way to react.
I'm not surprised they reacted like Mohammed did.
quote:
Like I said, you are justifying these gunmen's behaviour. And you can't even see it. Never mind whether they're French citizens, born in France and living in France. 'Muslim' defines everything we need to know about them, right?
Quite the opposite. I'm saying that Mohammed is a lousy example for anyone to follow.
quote:
Perhaps you'd like to join me for pistols at dawn? The Christian precedent is abundant.
Bring the same guns that Jesus used in his duels and I'll meet you any place you name at noon. If I'm not there by a quarter after, start shooting without me.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, if you want to keep attending the local synagogue as Jesus did, speaking Aramaic as Jesus did, reclining for dinner as Jesus did, walking everywhere like Jesus did, knock yourself out.
Fortunately for me I lack the compulsion to emulate some long dead Jew...or Arab for that matter.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Fortunately for me I lack the compulsion to emulate some long dead Jew...
Well thanks for wasting my time then.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, if you want to keep attending the local synagogue as Jesus did, speaking Aramaic as Jesus did, reclining for dinner as Jesus did, walking everywhere like Jesus did, knock yourself out.
Fortunately for me I lack the compulsion to emulate some long dead Jew...or Arab for that matter.
Just fling shit on their followers. Gotcha.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, if you want to keep attending the local synagogue as Jesus did, speaking Aramaic as Jesus did, reclining for dinner as Jesus did, walking everywhere like Jesus did, knock yourself out.
Fortunately for me I lack the compulsion to emulate some long dead Jew...or Arab for that matter.
Just fling shit on their followers. Gotcha.
With all the shit their followers have flung all over the world, they shouldn't be surprised when a little splatters back at them.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Quite the opposite. I'm saying that Mohammed is a lousy example for anyone to follow.
And yet you're VALIDATING the idea that someone can be expected to follow Mohammed's example just because they're Muslim. Hell, just before this sentence, you said how you weren't surprised that a couple of his followers, in a context 14 centuries and thousands of kilometres different, behaved in the way that you say Mohammed behaved.
I bet if I tried to tell you that a Christian is someone who actually lived an authentic 1st Century Jewish or Jewish-Christian life, you'd squeal like a pig. How often do you apply the letter to Philemon, and send runaway slaves back to their masters?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet you're VALIDATING the idea that someone can be expected to follow Mohammed's example just because they're Muslim.
Why should it surprise me when a Muslim follows Mohammed's example?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Fortunately for me I lack the compulsion to emulate some long dead Jew...
Well thanks for wasting my time then.
You're pushing 15,000 posts in a little over 6 years in one forum....
I think you've got time to spare.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How often do you apply the letter to Philemon, and send runaway slaves back to their masters?
Well, he is from the south... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I bet if I tried to tell you that a Christian is someone who actually lived an authentic 1st Century Jewish or Jewish-Christian life, you'd squeal like a pig.
We should strive to treat others like Jesus did, yes. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Has that changed?
quote:
How often do you apply the letter to Philemon, and send runaway slaves back to their masters?
I haven't had anyone's slave help me out like Onesimus did, but I'd make the same kind of appeal that Paul did to do the right thing by him. We should always encourage folks to do right by each other.
"Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask."
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
The thing that people don't seem to get about that guy Jesus is he was pretty much asking human beings to consider behaving in a way that, oh, humans are pretty much given not to act. The ink on document Q was still fresh when the people who succeeded him started screwing it up. I can't believe people can't read past the Gospels and see the obvious signs of bickering and rationalizing that began almost right away.
Islam began in the early 600's. CE. One of the major influences in Mohammed's religious thought was his uncle, who was-- wait for it-- a Christian. No kidding Mohammed was thinking about killing himself, Khadija and some Christian dude talked him out of it.
That's one. Two is, -- you'll note that CE stands for Christian Era. So, that was 622 years of Christianity that stood as an example from which Mohammed drew religious thought. 622 years which, by the way, ran the gamut from annoying Christian political/ theological bickering to tub-thumping Christian conquering of "barbarians" for the sake of converting their dear little souls. And the monastics just trying to keep the hell out of it and stay alive.
This was the Christian example Mohammed had to draw on in forming religious doctrine. He proclaimed the same ideas he saw everyone (not the least Christian nations) proclaiming around him-- Righteousness is rewarded, God punishes the wicked, justice is achieved at the end of a sword, the infidel is not to be tolerated. That's the way everyone looked at things.
The only advice Christianity has to give Islam is, "Don't make the same mistakes we did." Everything else is hypocrisy.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And yet you're VALIDATING the idea that someone can be expected to follow Mohammed's example just because they're Muslim.
Why should it surprise me when a Muslim follows Mohammed's example?
Why would you have any leg to stand on when you suggest it was bad of them to do so?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I bet if I tried to tell you that a Christian is someone who actually lived an authentic 1st Century Jewish or Jewish-Christian life, you'd squeal like a pig.
We should strive to treat others like Jesus did, yes. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Has that changed?
No, it hasn't. But you are applying a glorious double standard whereby you look at Christianity and talk about principles and abstract notions, but ignore actual concrete behaviour and events, but you look at the founder of Islam and talk about specific events as if they encapsulated a principle.
The fact is you don't follow the life history of Jesus Christ. You follow a bunch of principles you've extracted from the reports of his teachings and behaviour. You talk about treating others the way Jesus did, in a nice airy-fairy fashion, which apparently doesn't involve the parts where he cursed people or made a whip and drove people out. Whereas you talk about Mohamed by narrating one incident (and I've been assuming for the sheer sake of argument that your narration is accurate rather than a negative smear) and don't include any discussion about his teachings.
You don't follow the life of Jesus. It's as simple as that. Jesus lived a certain way as a 1st Century Jew and you completely ignore copious amounts of how he lived as a 1st Century Jew. If you think that modern Muslims ought to be living in the same fashion as Mohamed, then you are every bit as stupid as fundamentalist Muslims who think the same thing.
It matters not one jot whether someone was killed for insulting Mohamed in the 7th Century. What matters is whether Mohamed taught a principle that continues to justify killing people for insults in the 21st Century. Maybe, just maybe, he did, but if so it is not remotely demonstrated by your tiny bit of narration, any more than narrating bits and pieces of the life of Jesus demonstrates that he taught the desirability of all his followers walking on water.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It matters not one jot whether someone was killed for insulting Mohamed in the 7th Century. What matters is whether Mohamed taught a principle that continues to justify killing people for insults in the 21st Century. Maybe, just maybe, he did, but if so it is not remotely demonstrated by your tiny bit of narration, any more than narrating bits and pieces of the life of Jesus demonstrates that he taught the desirability of all his followers walking on water.
Or flogging bankers. I want to join THAT sect.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fact is you don't follow the life history of Jesus Christ. You follow a bunch of principles you've extracted from the reports of his teachings and behaviour. You talk about treating others the way Jesus did, in a nice airy-fairy fashion, which apparently doesn't involve the parts where he cursed people or made a whip and drove people out. Whereas you talk about Mohamed by narrating one incident (and I've been assuming for the sheer sake of argument that your narration is accurate rather than a negative smear) and don't include any discussion about his teachings.
You don't follow the life of Jesus. It's as simple as that. Jesus lived a certain way as a 1st Century Jew and you completely ignore copious amounts of how he lived as a 1st Century Jew. If you think that modern Muslims ought to be living in the same fashion as Mohamed, then you are every bit as stupid as fundamentalist Muslims who think the same thing.
It matters not one jot whether someone was killed for insulting Mohamed in the 7th Century. What matters is whether Mohamed taught a principle that continues to justify killing people for insults in the 21st Century. Maybe, just maybe, he did, but if so it is not remotely demonstrated by your tiny bit of narration, any more than narrating bits and pieces of the life of Jesus demonstrates that he taught the desirability of all his followers walking on water.
I am no student of the Koran, but from what I have read of it, the themes seems to run disproportionately on the greatness of Allah and the intrinsic benefit of living a righteous life, the peace and joy prayer and worship gives, and the evidence of God in the majesty of creation. It has just about as many references to brutal slaying of enemies as any OT book of the Prophets has. The transcendent God-junkie stuff far outweighs them.
One of our patriarchs sicced a bunch of bears on a group of kids for teasing him about going bald. We need to get over ourselves.
[ 08. January 2015, 03:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It matters not one jot whether someone was killed for insulting Mohamed in the 7th Century. What matters is whether Mohamed taught a principle that continues to justify killing people for insults in the 21st Century. Maybe, just maybe, he did, but if so it is not remotely demonstrated by your tiny bit of narration, any more than narrating bits and pieces of the life of Jesus demonstrates that he taught the desirability of all his followers walking on water.
Or flogging bankers. I want to join THAT sect.
If only the fundies would latch onto that.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One of our patriarchs sicced a bunch of bears on a group of kids for teasing him about going bald. We need to get over ourselves.
Yes but that was the OLLLLD Testament. The Old Testament is to be entirely discounted except when it's talking about buggery, in which case it is still in force and 100% applicable to modern times.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Nowhere in the Bible is it recorded that Jesus said, "Fuck that guy, Elisha, he was a kid-killing douche." In fact, he said he came to fullfil the prophets. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Nowhere in the Bible is it recorded that Jesus said, "Fuck that guy, Elisha, he was a kid-killing douche." In fact, he said he came to fullfil the prophets.
I can't argue the other side of this because I don't believe it*. I was being facetious.
____
*I mean, I don't know what the fundie response to this would be.
[ 08. January 2015, 03:41: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Well for my part, I was just enjoying the image of Jesus calling Elisha a douche. Anyhow...
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Hellish definition issues, here.
None of those things are speech. Speech is the expression of opinion: harassment, incitement, and defamation are acts, either criminal or tortious.
Wow, I really love it when we get the clever kind of stupid, it's my favourite variety. You think that expression of opinion isn't an act?
Expression's an act, speech isn't, and as expression's ancillary to the thing under discussion, it's not relevant to the question of criminality. As William O. Douglas put it in Brandenburg v. Ohio:-
quote:
The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [Same goes for harassment, mousethief.] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution.
Presumably Douglas was clever-stupid too, which seems to mean, like Orwell's definition of fascism, something you consider undesirable. Each to their own I guess.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Hellish definition issues, here.
None of those things are speech. Speech is the expression of opinion: harassment, incitement, and defamation are acts, either criminal or tortious.
Wow, I really love it when we get the clever kind of stupid, it's my favourite variety. You think that expression of opinion isn't an act?
Expression's an act, speech isn't, and as expression's ancillary to the thing under discussion, it's not relevant to the question of criminality. As William O. Douglas put it in Brandenburg v. Ohio:-
quote:
The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [Same goes for harassment, mousethief.] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution.
Presumably Douglas was clever-stupid too, which seems to mean, like Orwell's definition of fascism, something you consider undesirable. Each to their own I guess.
Oh, bullshit. From Douglas:
quote:
Action is often a method of expression, and within the protection of the First Amendment.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Well yes, action can of course be expressive, but it's a separate issue to the question of whether speech itself is an act.
The law punishes overt criminal acts, acts separable from the content of speech. If you burn your own Bible, the act's legal, and the speech is protected; if you burn a church's Bible, it's theft and destruction of property. Likewise, if you daub "Fuck the draft" on the side of a building, the speech is protected, but you can be prosecuted for vandalism. Protection of speech does nothing to shield you from criminal acts you commit in the process of its expression.
Same goes for incitement. If you incite another to commit a crime, you're trying to bring about a criminal act by proxy. It's not protected speech, since your aim isn't to express an opinion, but to commit a crime.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
None of those things are speech. Speech is the expression of opinion: harassment, incitement, and defamation are acts, either criminal or tortious.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wow, I really love it when we get the clever kind of stupid, it's my favourite variety. You think that expression of opinion isn't an act?
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Expression's an act, speech isn't, and as expression's ancillary to the thing under discussion, it's not relevant to the question of criminality. As William O. Douglas put it...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Oh, bullshit. From Douglas:
quote:
Action is often a method of expression, and within the protection of the First Amendment.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Well yes, action can of course be expressive, but it's a separate issue to the question of whether speech itself is an act.
This looks like twisting around to me. You need to pick your belligerent arguments away from areas of expertise - taking on Orfeo especially on this topic is daft.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Speaking is an act. If you can somehow get your speech out without speaking, then more power to you, but that makes about as much sense as saying you can get toast without toasting, a plan without planning, a dead body without death or an education without educating. All you are doing is playing with different parts of speech in a manner that is completely pointless.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I agree that speaking's an action. I think the issue's with me using "speech" as a synonym for "opinion." I disagree that restrictions on incitement, defamation, and harassment are restrictions on speech, since none of those things are the expression of an opinion. They're all overt criminal acts.
mdijon, I make my case. If I'm up against an expert, good, we'll go Socratic, I'll get bested, and I'll do better next time. Lest kowtowing's expected, it's all good.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Using speech as a synonym for opinion is wrong. It's still speech if you're stating facts rather than opinions, and separating the two out can be very difficult. Neither do those two categories exhaust the possibilities of speech.
It is quite clear that some of the restrictions on freedom of speech widely recognised as such, including in the USA, have little to do with restricting an opinion... unless you think for example that laws against pornography restrict an opinion that young children are sexy, laws against incitement restrict an opinion that violence would be a good thing, and so on. But then these things are more naturally described as opinions and not facts.
[ 08. January 2015, 06:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I agree there's no clear cut line between fact and opinion (since we all disagree on what's true, and how we arrive at truth).
I believe in free speech, by which I mean, the content of expressive conduct (be it speaking, writing, film, art, symbols, or something else) should be immune from prosecution solely on the basis of its content. Content neutral restrictions that are reasonable, fine, ditto prosecuting overt criminal acts that many employ writing or the human voice.
Child pornography has zero artistic merit, and creates a market that leads to unimaginable suffering. It's not, in any meaningful sense, speech, and is rightly banned.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I agree there's no clear cut line between fact and opinion (since we all disagree on what's true, and how we arrive at truth).
I believe in free speech, by which I mean, the content of expressive conduct (be it speaking, writing, film, art, symbols, or something else) should be immune from prosecution solely on the basis of its content. Content neutral restrictions that are reasonable, fine, ditto prosecuting overt criminal acts that many employ writing or the human voice.
Child pornography has zero artistic merit, and creates a market that leads to unimaginable suffering. It's not, in any meaningful sense, speech, and is rightly banned.
There is absolutely no correlation between your second paragraph and your third. Why isn't it speech just because (1) you don't think it's "artistic", and (2) it causes suffering? Are other kinds of pornography more artistic? Unlikely. But why doesn't all pornography express an idea, that certain things are sexually alluring?
Is the book/film Lolita acceptable to you, despite the fact that it conveys the idea that children can be sexually alluring? If so, why? I suggest it isn't because it's "art" but because it does so in a way that doesn't suggest that it's a good thing.
How is the reference to causing suffering not a reference to the effect of the content? The content is banned because of its possible effects, but it's the content that is banned, NOT the effect.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Fortunately for me I lack the compulsion to emulate some long dead Jew...
Well thanks for wasting my time then.
You're pushing 15,000 posts in a little over 6 years in one forum....
I think you've got time to spare.
OTOH, you have posted the same damn thing nearly 928 times* which shows little more than the ability to cut and paste.
btw folks. Can we agree that actions and expressions have consequences, and no one should shy away from them? Thanks.
*The odd exception has crept in, like that quoted, but they are few and far between. Broadly romanlion is a five-and-dime Charlton Heston.
[ 08. January 2015, 07:20: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Material should enjoy the status of protected speech if it's expressive. Some sexually explicit material would qualify, some wouldn't, depending on its purpose and content. Agreement's not a valid criterion, as the whole point of free speech is having a marketplace of ideas, in which the answer to opinions is rebuttal, not gags.
Since it's impossible to make child porn without committing multiple felonies, none of which have the slightest relation to restricting the content of opinion, it's simply not a question of free speech. Beyond that, the definition of obscenity's linked to whether a work is seeking to express an opinion, or just get folk off. Ain't nobody who'd call, say, the Miller Test a masterpiece of jurisprudence, but in its rough & ready way, it applies these principles.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Explain laws against perjury to me.
Seems to me like it's a nasty restriction against your right for the content of your speech to be lies.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
For those of you who see this is a perfect pretext to bash Muslims, would you please be so kind as to la fermer*?
As I mentioned in Purgatory, I am deeply, deeply depressed about the golden opportunity this is going to give our local demagogues of the National Front. Talking intolerant crap about Islam without considering the deeper social problems that cause young men of North African origin to get so disaffected plays right into Mme Lepen’s slimy grasping hands. And I would like her not to be elected President.
*Shut up
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
