Religion Good news!

[Job]

I'm old enough in the tooth to know this 'outrage' across the Muslim world is 5% reality and 95% hype.

 

[Job]

Yeah, like the Tottenham riots were the rampage of a generation.

 

[opticle]

"You are poking a hornet's nest" - True, but if that hornet's nest is being a dick, YOU GET RID OF IT - you don't let it continue causing a danger or being an arsehole to those you care about.

Your "Bob" situation doesn't work, you keep ignoring the fact that everyone is saying Bob should be locked up. And reality he would be - or treated (hopefully) - as he is a danger to others.

Funny thing people are exempt from that response in the media when they label their beliefs as "religion" and form a club

Anyway, this made me think of this:

I AM NERD. For some reason it's a music video version, but you get the idea. <3
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL7MHZoE7LQ&feature=fvwrel

 

[old.Tohtori]

So you to have these "end of" statements; they are wrong for murdering people over images and i'm trying to absolve / am siding with those people?

Interesting as i've not said anything of the sort and said the contrary many times. Funny how you argue the things i agree with.

Now to clarify it, here's a question that should be end all;

If someone knows that doing X most likely will cause violence and might get people killed, and still does it, isn't that atleast slightly irresponsible? Nothing about the people doing the action, nothing about freedom of speech, just that action. How do you judge it?

Opticle has a good point though, instead of sitting and going "no, we'll just ridicule you", we should be actively retaliating against those people, make examples of them, make the cost too high.

 

[opticle]

If someone knows that doing X most likely will cause violence and might get people killed, and still does it, isn't that atleast slightly irresponsible? Nothing about the people doing the action, nothing about freedom of speech, just that action. How do you judge it?

Opticle has a good point though, instead of sitting and going "no, we'll just ridicule you", we should be actively retaliating against those people, make examples of them, make the cost too high.

Personally I don't think the violence or the threat of it should be allowed in the first place, but easier said than done. The situation you're suggesting isn't true to life however - there is always all that other stuff; yes that could be considered irresponsible if someone doesn't consider the negative consequences of their actions - but it shouldn't be allowed that they should have to fear doing something like that in the first place. Answered

Not sure if you're highlighting the danger of too absolute an interpretation of my point - a lot of death No one wants that on their hands, or at least doesn't want to take responsibility for it in the media, and so we find ourselves where we are. But sometimes you have to fight for freedom - where do you draw the line? Hitler obviously, but it took a lot of people years and thousands of dead to do that.. don't you bet they wished they'd acted sooner ?

But perhaps out of the ashes, a golden age would emerge

Obviously you can't take anything as an absolute interpretation - which is where fundamentalists cause all the trouble in the first place.

 

[Gwadien]

Scouse, I was having a conversation with my old man the other night, we were talking about the Freedom of Speech, and the case of that Greek Athlete who tweeted racist stuff and consequently was removed from the team...

As a believer of Freedom of Speech, do you believe that someone in a influential position should be able to use social media's to express their opinions on delicate areas such as racism, which could have the knock-on effect of swaying 'sheep' to the side of racism, a better example if a more well known role model did so, let's say Rooney. If yes, do you believe that their actions should have consequences from their governing bodies? IE, Football Clubs, the FA, etc.


As for the 'Mohammad Film Riots' It's obvious such a film would massively offend the masses, so in that case, as Christianity see's itself as a superior religion in Western society, surely they should use their superiority over Islam to again 'take the morale highground' have a word with the people behind the film, and get it banned, I mean, you're not going to strengthen relations with the Middle East if your main selling point is the Freedom of Speech, You need to break down these barriers by appeasing them at first, then you can slowly introduce them to a more western way of life, stop giving them reasons to side with the radicals.

 

[Wij]

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??

Actually that's not true. The Mail and The Telegraph have lied about those cases to a staggering degree. They should be made to issue apologies on TV saying "We lied because we are cunts. Please stop buying our shitty rags."

 

[Scouse]

If someone knows that doing X most likely will cause violence and might get people killed, and still does it, isn't that atleast slightly irresponsible? Nothing about the people doing the action, nothing about freedom of speech, just that action. How do you judge it?

IF magical-fairy-hypothesis <> toht's desired outcome THEN repeat until perceived success


Seriously. How about you answer some of the very valid points about real-world scenarios that people have raised, which you've, as usual, subsequently ignored, rather than attempt to come up with some random thing that fits what you want to believe?

 

[opticle]

Actually that's not true.

Ta for correcting me I hate being a victim to media sensationalism. What was the truth ?

You need to break down these barriers by appeasing them at first, then you can slowly introduce them to a more western way of life, stop giving them reasons to side with the radicals.

Frustratingly, perhaps this is how it should be and you're right about the moral high ground. Fair point. It makes me angry that we have to pander to the idiots though, its not fair on those who try their best to be tolerant and good to other people, especially as its out of fear for threats against those we care about.

 

[old.Tohtori]

IF magical-fairy-hypothesis <> toht's desired outcome THEN repeat until perceived success

Seriously. How about you answer some of the very valid points about real-world scenarios that people have raised, which you've, as usual, subsequently ignored, rather than attempt to come up with some random thing that fits what you want to believe?

Just answer the question, or refuse to do so, the rest that you've argued about i agree on, or don't support(like siding with terrorists) so it's pointless to discuss those.

Opticle not ignoring your post, just late and will answer with more thought tomorrow

 

[Raven]

Ta for correcting me I hate being a victim to media sensationalism. What was the truth ?

I imagine there would be one or two places where having something dangling from your neck would or should not be allowed, mental institutions, working with some kinds of machinery, prisons etc...but certainly not because they are religious symbols, just that they could pose a danger.

 

[opticle]

I imagine there would be one or two places where having something dangling from your neck would or should not be allowed, mental institutions, working with some kinds of machinery, prisons etc...but certainly not because they are religious symbols, just that they could pose a danger.

I vaguely recall that although claims of "infection risk" (rings a bell) are complete balls peddled by idiots, but for other reasons.

 

[Wij]

Check the NSS website sometimes and they'll have a few commentaries on the cases. If I remember correctly though the lady who was a nurse was well aware that dangly jewellery was not allowed because she worked with confused old people who might grab at them. She hadn't worn a cross round her neck until one day she turned up with it, knowing the rules full well, and then claimed she was being persecuted when they asked her to remove it. They offered several compromises, like wearing a cross on her lapel, but she refused, despite not having worn it round her neck before she had decided that that was now her religious duty. She was also in trouble on other counts for being an awkward bitch (hope I'm not confusing it with the BA case here, seriously, read them). At no point was the fact that it was a cross an issue except in her mind. The Christian groups who took up the case are just looking for a fight and in some ways are just as but as the Islamists. They are trying to intimidate people into capitulating to their religion without any clear goal beyond that. OK - there's no death threats but the end is the same even if the means aren't.

 

[Gwadien]

Frustratingly, perhaps this is how it should be and you're right about the moral high ground. Fair point. It makes me angry that we have to pander to the idiots though, its not fair on those who try their best to be tolerant and good to other people, especially as its out of fear for threats against those we care about.

Well... You can see it that light, or as I'd rather see it, we're a much more 'advanced' society than Middle-Eastern countries, we can either pamper the idiots, or it's more like, if a child hit you in the face, would you hit them back? or teach them it's wrong, but no, they're not children, they're 'young adults' so therefore we must treat them like adults in order to get the respect back off them, I'd rather see it in that light?

The only reason that this isn't a phesable option is because then the general population of the Western countries will think we're bending to the rules of Islam, breaking our Freedom of Speech etc just to please a certain crowd in society, I for one, am for this, and I for one, will not let my life be forcibly governed by any religion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Personally I don't think the violence or the threat of it should be allowed in the first place, but easier said than done. The situation you're suggesting isn't true to life however - there is always all that other stuff; yes that could be considered irresponsible if someone doesn't consider the negative consequences of their actions - but it shouldn't be allowed that they should have to fear doing something like that in the first place. Answered

Not sure if you're highlighting the danger of too absolute an interpretation of my point - a lot of death No one wants that on their hands, or at least doesn't want to take responsibility for it in the media, and so we find ourselves where we are. But sometimes you have to fight for freedom - where do you draw the line? Hitler obviously, but it took a lot of people years and thousands of dead to do that.. don't you bet they wished they'd acted sooner ?

But perhaps out of the ashes, a golden age would emerge

Obviously you can't take anything as an absolute interpretation - which is where fundamentalists cause all the trouble in the first place.

Well answered really, in short it could really be said as; both sides need to smarten the f*ck up

If the people knew Hitler would lead to what it did, i bet they would've acted. Or rather acted more, there was a lot of things going on there. I just don't think we're not at a hitler stage yet and these days it wouldn't be as easy anyway.

One way to resolve it all would be for the western and islam nations to sit down, come up with some common ground and the islam leaders saying "look, we don't want you doing killing and stuff". That way we can continue living in peace, without removing peoples rights(if we want to keep freedom of speech, we have to keep islam as well, one right versus other) and just call the people bombing sh*t what they are; exceptions.

 

[Job]

When the oil runs out, Islam will retreat back into the sand dunes.

 

[old.Tohtori]

When the oil runs out, Islam will retreat back into the sand dunes.

The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

 

[DaGaffer]

Now to clarify it, here's a question that should be end all;

If someone knows that doing X most likely will cause violence and might get people killed, and still does it, isn't that atleast slightly irresponsible? Nothing about the people doing the action, nothing about freedom of speech, just that action. How do you judge it?

Its actually quite easy to judge. If I'm in America and I follow the laws of America, someone in Sudan can fuck right off if they think their opinion matters. It really is that simple. If an American is subsequently killed in Sudan, nominally as a consequence of my actions in America, that is not my responsibility. At all. Look at this way; if I'm a true fundamentalist believer in Islam, pretty much everything they do in America is against my views anyway; they dress immodestly (stoning offence), women drive, eat unclean food, don't keep the Sabbath, don't follow Sharia etc. etc. So making a film is neither here nor there because the cunts could still execute Americans on their soil at any time, and that is their fault, not mine.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's a fair point, though it blurs a bit when we're talking international releases. Perhaps those releases then should be limited, even blocking internet access to such content, from countries like that. Afterall we protect children from harmful images with no problem, why not pop a warning like "This imagery might offend your religious beliefs and is meant for western people only, viewer discretion is advised."

 

[DaGaffer]

That's a fair point, though it blurs a bit when we're talking international releases. Perhaps those releases then should be limited, even blocking internet access to such content, from countries like that. Afterall we protect children from harmful images with no problem, why not pop a warning like "This imagery might offend your religious beliefs and is meant for western people only, viewer discretion is advised."

I'm pretty sure such things are blocked in those countries. Not that it matters; how many of those outraged nutcases do you suppose have actually seen it?

 

[Scouse]

Lol! You're now arguing for censorship, but if not that then a "viewer discretion" label on the front of videos - like that'll sort the problem out?

Lol! Just lol

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm pretty sure such things are blocked in those countries. Not that it matters; how many of those outraged nutcases do you suppose have actually seen it?

I'm not sure they are that effectively blocked, internet and all. Maybe we need a way for countries to block out content from leaving their country at all, in a manner like the BBC player works. Who knows, it'll stop nothing as the internet is quite a virus based organism where every photo finds it's way to any locale.

You do raise a good point on the nutcases actually seeing it, which would shift the cause of it all to something else. Mainly; if these people haven't even seen it, are they really doing it because of it? Because if they aren't, then we have no way of stopping it.

Scouse, discussions change and move on, that's how discussions work.

 

[Wij]

They haven't seen the film and do not want to. They have been told to be outraged and are happy to oblige.

 

[Wij]

Also you have to laugh that many Islamic nations are lobbying the UN to get insulting of religion banned. They'd have a lot of their own people locked up if that ever happened. (not they'd enforce it on their own people.)

 

[Scouse]

if these people haven't even seen it, are they really doing it because of it? Because if they aren't, then we have no way of stopping it

The majority haven't seen it, but are quite prepared to be violent and murderous because their imams have told them to be.

Their religious belief is the problem - contol of sheep by imams who can see the very real threat to their religion that ridicule poses and have decided to mobilise their violent retard armies in an attempt to bully the west into legislating against their own population - so they can stop us ridiculing their religion and protect their power base.

History has given us a tried-and-tested way to stop them - continuing ridicule of their religion, refusal to back down in the face of their violence, economic and social improvements - including freeing their women - and the vocal telling of unbiased scientific truth in the face of nonsense.

I.E. To continue on the course we're on. The reason they're being violent is because they fear what is happening to them.

Good. I'm glad they're scared. Their religion IS under attack. And they will lose

 

[old.Tohtori]

But you do see the point i'm raising?(for both above replies) If they don't even care about the ridicule, just the notion of it existing, they could as easily start bombing us for being white. In that sense the ridicule is, well, pointless really as they'd continue to be aggressive without it. That's not saying we should stop the ridicule, just that it might not have such an impact as it might seem.

You do say one thing that i think infact is the problem; the leaders. In that sense perhaps the answer is to go back a few hundred years and simply eliminate the leaders from power who are telling people to do this. We've done it before, recently even.

 

[Aoami]

Fundamentalist muslum leaders have been deported from the uk in the past for inciting nutters. The clue is at the end of the first word.

 

[Scouse]

But you do see the point i'm raising?

Do you see the points we are raising? It doesn't look like it. You don't bother properly addressing any of them.

In answer to your point above - leaders are always given their power by the masses. The masses have to be dealt with. Period.

 

[Scouse]

Fundamentalist muslum .... The clue is at the end of the first word.

Muslim?

You think this is a phenomenom unique to islam, rather than common to all religions?

If I'm wrong and you mean fundamentalist - then you're also incorrect. Fundamentalism is something every church would dearly love to stoke in each and every one of their believers. Islam just has a massive amount of them because, in their countries, islam is still relevant.

Christianity still holds a fair few, especially in bible-belt America, but a lot less because of its increasing irrelevancy to its own practicioners.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Scouse you have to be a dick about every reply don't you?

I've actually tried to reply to all points risen, even agreed and given credit where credit is due. Best if i just don't reply to your posts from now on in matters that get you so heated.