Religion Good news!

[rynnor]

Not if those principles will repeatedly get people killed.

If not drawing silly pictures, making films of certain subject and not saying sh*t that doesn't need to be said anyway saves ONE life, it's worth it. As i said earlier, i don't condone on limiting peoples freedom(since it's a nice pipedream), but if our choices are actually limited to just freedom or saved lives(as it seems to be), i'll choose saved lives anytime.

How many more bombings does it take? As much as it does? How can that be justified.

Everyone dies - why not die for a fundamental human right? In reality if this stance was maintained the nutters wouldnt bother - its because they perceive a lack of resolve that they try this shit.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Everyone dies - why not die for a fundamental human right? In reality if this stance was maintained the nutters wouldnt bother - its because they perceive a lack of resolve that they try this shit.

On the matter of "why not die for a right", it should be a choice and this is not a choice. It would only be a choice in some macabre setting where people offer themselves for public executions.

If we stopped poking the nest, they wouldn't bother either and we wouldn't need o drag it on. The events have shown that the people getting annoyed are getting -increasingly- aggressive and since we don't know how far it'll go, why do we want to test the waters?

 

[rynnor]

If we stopped poking the nest, they wouldn't bother either and we wouldn't need o drag it on. The events have shown that the people getting annoyed are getting -increasingly- aggressive and since we don't know how far it'll go, why do we want to test the waters?

I'm trying not to invoke Godwins law but lets just say their are historical examples of what happens if you try to appease an aggressive bully - to appear weak can cost an awful lot of lives.

 

[rynnor]

The arguement Toht is making is a lot like telling a raped woman she shouldn't have worn a low cut dress - you are siding with the aggressors and blaming the victims.

 

[old.Tohtori]

True, but we don't know that scale would happen with removal of nestpoking. We do know, atleast it's more plausible, that more of these incidents will happen if it continues.

I'd like for there to be some form of middleground answer, but i can't come up with one. Sometimes you just have to accept that a cost is too high for a principle.

That last comment was a bit low. I'm not siding with their actions, nor am i blaming the victims. I'm saying that those that knowingly cause reactions are not free of blame. Especially since it costs peoples lives who had nothing to do with it, every time.

 

[rynnor]

Sometimes you just have to accept that a cost is too high for a principle.

You have to stand up for your principles or you end up with none - what next - freedom of religion? Everyone must convert to Islam or we will kill some people?

 

[old.Tohtori]

That would be a different discussion since it's a direct cost of freedom, this is about a freedom that doesn't even exist.

 

[rynnor]

That would be a different discussion since it's a direct cost of freedom, this is about a freedom that doesn't even exist.

Either you stand up for your freedoms or you dont - by your arguement you said its not worth lives to stand up for freedoms so you'd presumably be heading down to the mosque?

 

[old.Tohtori]

No, i said it's not worth lives to draw pictures, or say "f*ck religion".

 

[opticle]

If you ask me, people going batshit crazy and blowing people up and/or setting fire to them/things has already gone too far.

Islam should be treated as equally as every other religion, but it's not, and why ? Because its followers throw a tantrum - with bombs.

As Rynnor says, where do you draw the line?

If you ask me, the latest happenings make me even more inclined to go and draw my own pictures - they deserve it. Kill innocents because someone entirely unrelated drew a picture? How DARE they.

I think they've lost the right to Mohammed's protected status. Jesus is freely mocked, so why shouldn't he get a special status ?

Because (apparently) their book says Holy wars are Ok, and martyrdom is encouraged ?
(Anyone know for sure, does it really say these sort of things anywhere, or is it purelymental fundamentalists being tossbags?)

On a similar gripe, Christians aren't allowed to wear Cross necklaces in a lot of workplaces now - even tiny ones. So why the fuck should Veils still be protected??

 

[old.Tohtori]

Still real curious on an answer to this;

I'm going to use an extreme example here; if we knew that bob would kill your mother if i said the word "testicle" to him, would you still say that "you go for it man! Say it! It's your right!" and then be completely ok with me saying it, and causing your mother to be killed?

Because that is the same deal, only on a smaller scale.

 

[opticle]

Still real curious on an answer to this;

Because that is the same deal, only on a smaller scale.

I think Bob is a dick with some serious issues who would probably benefit from psychiatric help.

And Testicle is a fantastic word. It should be heard. Bob shouldn't be allowed to stop you using it because he's a crazy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ah, but would you be ok if i knowingly went out of my way to say testicle to him, knowing he'd kill someone? We all know the answer to it ofcourse, which is "no you stupid f*ck, why would you do that", which in turn changes the whole discussion on how ok it is to draw pictures people know might cause explosions and kill tens of people.

 

[rynnor]

Ah, but would you be ok if i knowingly went out of my way to say testicle to him, knowing he'd kill someone?

Its a bit like if your a city and an invading army besieges it and says - either you sacrifice 1 virgin to us or we will come in and kill everyone. Once you compromise with evil you have lost.

It may all sound ok to make seemingly harmless concessions to the violent but once you open that door you can never close it again.

 

[Punishment]

My sky fairy could beat the shit out of your sky fairy

 

[Scouse]

Not if those principles will repeatedly get people killed.

Yes. Definitely.

How do you think science won in the end? It's a 2000 year old fight - scientists defying the orders and teachings of the church and sometimes paying with their lives.

Truth and science won against the might of the violent sky-fairy oppressors. Many of the small minority that practiced science died to bring about this change.


Your intellectually cowardly way would have us decend back into the inquisition, witch-burning, gay-and-women-hatred, sexual repression and outright bonkery (and ultimately, death of the human race through an inability to spread to the stars because of the lack of science) - that goes with religion-mongering idiocy.

 

[Scouse]

That last comment was a bit low. I'm not siding with their actions, nor am i blaming the victims.

Yes you are. With your very next sentence.

I'm saying that those that knowingly cause reactions are not free of blame.

They shouldn't wear low tops then, eh?


The fact is, people should be free to say anything. If someone decides to deny you the freedom to hold your view through violence - then they are responsible.

 

[Scouse]

I'm going to use an extreme example here; if we knew that bob would kill your mother if i said the word "testicle" to him, would you still say that "you go for it man! Say it! It's your right!" and then be completely ok with me saying it, and causing your mother to be killed?

You wouldn't say testicle. You'd ring the police/psychiatric institutions and have bob locked up.

You can't do that with the reams of people who follow religion but are just as violent as mad people - so you have to shout balls at them and accept the consequences.


It's the only option you've got - and history shows that it works.

Christianity is dying a death in the west because people ridicule it. It's what islam fears - and they are right to fear it - because islam will go the same way as long as we are free to point out what barbaric, stupid, idiotic, sky-fairy creaming, dick-reaming arseholes people are who follow it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So you can't even answer a simple question, well done. There is no if or in there, yes or no, would you blame me for saying testicle to bob?

Its a bit like if your a city and an invading army besieges it and says - either you sacrifice 1 virgin to us or we will come in and kill everyone. Once you compromise with evil you have lost.

It may all sound ok to make seemingly harmless concessions to the violent but once you open that door you can never close it again.

And i wouldn't sacrifice the virgin, because a human life wins over anything. But this isn't like that, this is about pictures being more important then human lives and other people making that choice to fight.

Scouse there would gladly let people die to save his right of speech, i wouldn't.

You two are taking the issue into extremes, paranoia and unrelated rape examples because you can't accept and acknowledge that people are dying for no good reason.

You'd rather have the freedom to draw mohammed and let people die for it.

 

[Scouse]

So you can't even answer a simple question, well done. There is no if or in there, yes or no, would you blame me for saying testicle to bob?

I did answer it. But I'll go further and answer your complete nonsense bullshit non-applicable question it in a way you like:

If you said testicle to bob - which according to your question will definitely result in the death of an innocent, yet have no wider consequences for the world at large - then: YES - I'd blame you for being a butt-reaming idiot when you should be ringing the authorities.

Just like I blame you for not seeing the ass-ramming idiocy and complete inapplicability of your own question, and like I blame you for not reading my perfectly reasonable answer, which explicitly brings the point of inapplicability into the debate (for you to, predictably, ignore), above...

 

[rynnor]

You'd rather have the freedom to draw mohammed and let people die for it.

Anyone who kills unrelated persons over such an offence is the enemy of all right thinking persons.

If a madman stabs you because you are wearing the colour yellow do you blame yourself or him?

 

[old.Tohtori]

All i needed to know Scouse, hypocricy as per usual, because those drawings and films causing bombings are just that; someone poking a dangerous hornets nest.

Rynnor, If i -know- that wearing yellow can get innocents killed, not me mind you, some OTHER people, i'll sure as hell won't wear yellow.

It's real simple, either you accept innocent lives lost in the pursuit of so called freedom of speech, or you don't. I don't.

Other freedoms aren't in question here, neither is the part what you two are trying to stear it to, namely "are the people doing the murders wrong" which ofcourse is a yes answer. This ia bout people taking responsibility for acting like asses at the expense of peoples lives, which you seem to be ok with.

 

[rynnor]

Rynnor, not the same thing, stop trying to make examples that have no relevance. If i -know- that wearing yellow can get innocents killed, not me mind you, some OTHER people, i'll sure as hell won't wear yellow.

It's real simple, either you accept innocent lives lost in the pursuit of so called freedom of speech, or you don't. I don't.

Other freedoms aren't in question here, neither is the part what you two are trying to stear it to, namely "are the people doing the murders wrong" which ofcourse is a yes answer. This ia bout people taking responsibility for acting like asses at the expense of peoples lives.

You are never responsible for the actions of madmen - thats the basic point - and clearly anyone who kills random people out of offense about something they probably haven't even seen is clearly mad.

Secondly I disagree that other freedoms arent involved here - by your actions you are saying - if you kill enough people we will do what you want then clearly theres no end to that and instead of making people safe you end up with more dead.

 

[Scouse]

All i needed to know Scouse, hypocricy as per usual, because those drawings and films causing bombings are just that; someone poking a dangerous hornets nest.

No. Not hypocricy. A strange "personality quirk" on your part - either the inability to see the vast and obvious difference in the situations* as described, or some intransigence that means that you're incapable of rational discussion if it involves giving ground in the face of reason.

Just like the other thread today...



Edit: *lol - "situations" - add to the mongery - the absolute fail of attempting to justify your viewpoint with such a ridiculously engineered question (that was easy to refute, completely) when there are ample real-life examples with many orders of magnitude more relevancy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You are never responsible for the actions of madmen - thats the basic point - and clearly anyone who kills random people out of offense about something they probably haven't even seen is clearly mad.

Secondly I disagree that other freedoms arent involved here - by your actions you are saying - if you kill enough people we will do what you want then clearly theres no end to that and instead of making people safe you end up with more dead.

If you incite a violent riot in the city, you are responsible, even if you do nothing. If you know that posting a picture will cause violent actions, same thing.

Other freedoms aren't relevant because we're talking about picture and movies, that's the stane i've said is not worth human lives. If it came to "would you give in to freedom of pie", then it would be a different question.

That's not saying its' ok to kill people over pictures, that's not saying that the victims are to blame(as the people doing the pictures/etc never get hurt as we've seen), just that there's a level of responsibility to not do stupid things that might get people killed. It doesn't need a law, or banning, or anything like that, but you can't disagree that people doing those kind of actions shouldn't be encouraged to do so.

 

[rynnor]

If you incite a violent riot in the city, you are responsible, even if you do nothing. If you know that posting a picture will cause violent actions, same thing.

If you tell people to break the law thats incitement - if you do something legal and someone chooses to take offense and kills someone thats clearly not incitement.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You don't have to tell people to break the law to be chanrged with it, or even for people to say someone was wrong for posting it, but somehow with islam it's become ok to do whatever to piss them off.

HAve to wonder if it's simply a response to violent acts and the clear propaganda against islam. Before people didn't ridicule, or even care about it.

 

[rynnor]

You don't have to tell people to break the law to be chanrged with it, or even for people to say someone was wrong for posting it, but somehow with islam it's become ok to do whatever to piss them off.

HAve to wonder if it's simply a response to violent acts and the clear propaganda against islam. Before people didn't ridicule, or even care about it.

There are groups on both sides who want to harden opinions on either side because they believe its good for recruitment. Regardless of that its clearly unacceptable outside of some crazy theocracy for people to be killed because someone else in their country comitted what they feel is blasphemy - end of story.

 

[Scouse]

but somehow with islam it's become ok to do whatever to piss them off.

That's disingenuous and you know it.

The reason there's a problem with violence and islam is that islamists can be violent in the face of ridicule and we now live in an era where there's easy access for them to go and find that ridicule - not that the ridicule is "new".

Christians used to be exactly the same - thankfully because in the west that religion is dying out and the hardcore have become a minority it struggles to turn violent. But censorship still rears its ugly religious head - remember the furore over Life of Brian?

As for this new bullshit "incitement" charge - consider this:

If I tell you to stick your finger in the fire, and you do it, who's the person responsible?


You have responsibility for your OWN actions. Stop trying to absolve these murderous religious arseholes from their responsibilities - it's ALL their own fault.

 

[Wij]

It's like hostage taking. Give in once and it will happen more. You decide which approach you want to take.