Are you with UN "global" law prohibition the provocation "mock/insult/lie", about all religions ?

[Storm]

You are entitled to your opinion.

The reverend established insult as the tone of our interaction.

I expressed an opinion that the idea of hell is psychotic, and suggested he lacked insight. He chose to initiate outright personal insult. I have been very restrained in my response.

We may disagree. Let's move on ...

I criticized your pile up of fallacies, not your tone. But think what you like.

 

[apophenia]

No pile-up of fallacies at all. That is just how you choose to interpret it.

And yes, of course I will think what I like

Have a nice day.

 

[Storm]

Of course, dear. Whatever you say, because it's right there in black and white.

 

[apophenia]

No, it isn't. That is merely your interpretation. My points are valid.

 

[Storm]

It's not there in black and white?

*points*

 

[apophenia]

If you feel motivated to quoting and dissecting minutiae, go right ahead, but I feel that this is a waste of time. You have taken exception to one line in one post (and ignored the central issues of my posts), and this is derailing the thread. So out of respect to the other members of the forum, I will not continue this with you.

By all means make whatever effort you feel motivated to make to dissect my posts, if you really think it is warranted. I won't bother answering this particular concern of yours any further, because my points are clear and understandable, and this dialogue is a pointless distraction IMO.

But hey, if you feel you need to ... go for it.

 

[Storm]

Not my fault you can't remember what you said, much less anyone else.

 

[Pegg]

I guess the principle 'two wrongs dont make a right' should apply to free speech.

yes it is wrong for someone to mock and humiliate another persons religion...but its also wrong (and against Gods laws) for a group of people to violently attack innocent bystanders. So God will hold all lawbreakers to account...my guess is that those who claim to be upholding his laws will be held more accountable though.

 

[McBell]

My points are valid.

Please be so kind as to point out where you "validated":

So I am saying that anyone who teaches children that there is a hell is committing child abuse.

I ask because I cannot find it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Just for the record, I made the remarks I did to make a point to Godobeyer, and anyone else interested, that much of what muslims and christians say publically is very offensive, and so the idea of making it illegal to offend the religious would need to be met with the equal and fair banning of statements from the religious which are offensive to others.

No one has the right to not be offended. :no:

This would become an unacceptable absurdity, and also effectively end everyone's free speech.

We agree. :yes:

You have reacted to me in an extreme, insulting, and frankly, ridiculous way. But I am not demanding that you should be legally restrained from teaching your religion, as long as no-one is prevented from telling your children that they have been brainwashed with theo-psycho-babble.

I'm sorry, you have no right to say anything to my children. That would be p-tizing. I have a right to p-tize to my children but you do not. They are my children not yours. :sorry1:

I certainly do consider however, that no-one should have the right to inflict coercive and psychotic ideas on other people's children in public schools or public institutions, because it most certainly is child abuse, even though you lack the insight to see that.

Now you are moving the goal posts. I never said anyone should be able to indoctrinate children in schools. You are putting words into my mouth now to paint me as an extreme person. I only have the right to raise my own children as I see fit, not others.

It reminds me of the illuminati joke about teaching parrots to say "here kitty kitty kitty".

For those of us who are not the deluded products of theology, religion is clearly a manufactured mental illness. It is not natural - it has to be inculcated in trusting young minds. It is not necessary in any way whatsoever, and historically has been just as negative a force as the worst excesses of dictatorship or communism or the nazi party.

It has been my experience when anyone brings the nazi party into a debate, they are floundering and have lost the debate. You have failed to produce any evidence to support your claims and basically have demonstrated your hypocrisy by championing free speech while in the same sentence wanting to limit what a parent can tell their children.

I am curious - if you found that an adult was teaching ritual satanism to children in your local area (including your children when they were young), how would you feel about that ?

Would you champion the satanist's freedom to do so ? Would you be offended or disturbed if your children were being taught these ideas ?

BTW, I'm curious, how do you feel about positive references to Jesus and god being made in public schools ? Should it be allowed ?

I have never said religion of any kind should be taught in schools.

If the answer is yes, how do you feel about satanist teachers saying "Hail Satan" to children in public schools ?

Do you champion their freedom to do so in schools which your children or grandchildren attend ?

If a Satanist wants to teach their religion to their children at home, that is their right. Freedom of religion means all religions not just the ones we like. Schools are another thing all together.

The bottom line is, you can teach your children anything you like, schools can not however. You seem to misunderstand this basic difference.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You clearly missed the righteous Reverend's insults and goal-post shifting. I am just talking to him in his own style. Mimicking him you might say, to see if he can recognise how offensive he can be.

I never made anything personal, I attacked your argument not you. What is offensive is your self proclaimed right to have any dialog with other folks children. Actually it is kind of creepy.

Read your own words, you take offense at my freedom of speech while championing the right to criticize religion.

Free speech is all speech, not just the speech you agree with.

You don't think you should be insulted personally but have no problem with Muslims around the world being offended when someone exercises their free speech.

Do you not see a problem with allowing outsiders to discuss religion with your children while limiting what a parent can tell their own children?

Simple logic seems to escape you. You have to be the worst debater I have ever interacted with.

Game, set, match, you lose.

 

[Godobeyer]

Free speech is all speech, not just the speech you agree with.

yes brother ,you know how much i respect you , and by my experience most of the western people here are deserve to respect .

it's just we had different opinions , and it's not important for me .

i just want to show my "opinion" that i felt hurt, when someone lie/mock/insult my Prophets .

I respect all the opinion , but i wounder how some religious vote against the law !!!
is their own religions allow to provoke (lie) ?!!!!!

edit:
for exemple
is their religions allow to lie ? !!!

 

[Revoltingest]

yes brother ,you know how much i respect you , and by my experience most of the western people here are deserve to respect .
it's just we had different opinions , and it's not important for me .
i just want to show my "opinion" that i felt hurt, when someone lie/mock/insult my Prophets .
I respect all the opinion , but i wounder how some religious vote against the law !!!
is their own religions allow to provoke ?!!!!!

A parenthetical aside: You do a fine job advocating for a position I oppose.
One's true colors shine when disagreeing, while remaining civil & thoughtful.

 

[Storm]

yes brother ,you know how much i respect you , and by my experience most of the western people here are deserve to respect .

it's just we had different opinions , and it's not important for me .

i just want to show my "opinion" that i felt hurt, when someone lie/mock/insult my Prophets .

I respect all the opinion , but i wounder how some religious vote against the law !!!
is their own religions allow to provoke (lie) ?!!!!!

edit:
for exemple
is their religions allow to lie ? !!!

Well, sweetie, review the last few pages. I think it's clear that I find Photonic's view disgusting, dishonest, and immoral... but I still think he has every right to say it.

There's also the matter of tactics: it's more effective to expose such views for what they are than force them into hiding where they thrive uncontested.

So says this deeply religious advocate of free speech.

 

[Badran]

I respect all the opinion , but i wounder how some religious vote against the law !!!
is their own religions allow to provoke (lie) ?!!!!!

edit:
for exemple
is their religions allow to lie ? !!!

It's fascinating that after 20 pages you've failed to grasp the very simple concept that people differentiate between their religious teachings/personal opinions/preferences/beliefs and so forth, and between what should and should not be legal.

What's more fascinating is the implication you're making by not being surprised that non-religious people are against the law, putting in mind why you think people in general should be supporting the law.


IOW, this:

for exemple
is their religions allow to lie ? !!!

You're surprised that religious people are against the law, since, for example, lying or insulting others is wrong according to most religions, and as such, religious people should be against those things, including wanting to make such things illegal (thus failing to understand a very simple concept).

Then of course, you're not surprised that non-religious folks are against the law, since, they have no religion to start with. So, it's normal that they're okay with lying, insulting others etc..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

is their own religions allow to provoke (lie) ?!!!!!

I'm sure that comment would have been far more powerful had you added one more question mark and three more exclamation points. Nevertheless ...

All else being equal, it is far better to allow you to provoke me that to allow the creation of laws and tribunals that could someday be turned against me.​

 

[Photonic]

Well, sweetie, review the last few pages. I think it's clear that I find Photonic's view disgusting, dishonest, and immoral... but I still think he has every right to say it.

There's also the matter of tactics: it's more effective to expose such views for what they are than force them into hiding where they thrive uncontested.

So says this deeply religious advocate of free speech.

Funny, I think the same of your use of your own position as a stage upon which to dictate how disgusting I am.

 

[idav]

I gotta ask because of the lies and truth thing. Was the film being protested actually telling untruths? Are we allowed to spread the truth about something even if it might offend? Nobody said the truth is always pretty.

 

[Storm]

Funny, I think the same of your use of your own position as a stage upon which to dictate how disgusting I am.

It was a convenient example. You're free to explain how your position that Rick has no moral standing to raise HIS children to HIS religion really demonstrates the underlying principle and strategy of freedom of conscience, though.

 

[idav]

Funny, I think the same of your use of your own position as a stage upon which to dictate how disgusting I am.

Lol, wow quite the irony there. Free speech FTW!