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

[Photonic]

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

No, I agree with his stance, even though I find it disgusting. He still has the right to use his emotional baggage as ammunition.

 

[Storm]

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.

1) I refuse to watch the video in question, so cannot address the specific example. That said, certain religious groups (and they're not all Islamic) have been advocating anti-blasphemy legislation from anyone they thought might listen for a good long while now.

2) Truth is a perfect defense, of course. On the other hand, you have to be able to demonstrate the veracity of the claim to use that defense. (If you want anyone to care, at least.)

 

[Storm]

No, I agree with his stance, even though I find it disgusting. He still has the right to use his emotional baggage as ammunition.

1) I'm a 'she.'

2) May I ask why expecting you to justify your claim is 'disgusting?' Or is that just me being manipulative again?

 

[idav]

1) I refuse to watch the video in question, so cannot address the specific example. That said, certain religious groups (and they're not all Islamic) have been advocating anti-blasphemy legislation from anyone they thought might listen for a good long while now.

I haven't seen the film either but if it anything like the muhamed threads I see insinuating marriage to minors, i could see where the offense might be coming from. Still I'm not even sure about claims like that to tell whether they are lies.

2) Truth is a perfect defense, of course. On the other hand, you have to be able to demonstrate the veracity of the claim to use that defense. (If you want anyone to care, at least.)

True but even if we back up our claims won't change the offensiveness.

 

[Storm]

I haven't seen the film either but if it anything like the muhamed threads I see insinuating marriage to minors, i could see where the offense might be coming from. Still I'm not even sure about claims like that to tell whether they are lies.


True but even if we back up our claims won't change the offensiveness.

No, but it does reveal the difference between fact and slander.

 

[Photonic]

1) I'm a 'she.'

2) May I ask why expecting you to justify your claim is 'disgusting?' Or is that just me being manipulative again?

I can justify a claim all day, finding something you wouldn't block out with your particular brand of emotional rejection is another matter all together. Especially when your belief that I am using mental abuse as a soap box for a political agenda of some kind is firmly rooted in your emotions instead of reason.

What this means, dear Storm, is there is no point in justifying a claim that is already fairly obvious. Presenting children with abhorrent ideas that make them hate themselves or reject who they are is inherently an attack on their mental well being.

How many gay children have killed themselves because of their parents religious dogma? Is that a number you would be comfortable knowing? No, you would reject even that. Why should I bother? Why bother justifying a statement when it will only be measured against your emotions?

 

[McBell]

I can justify a claim all day, finding something you wouldn't block out with your particular brand of emotional rejection is another matter all together. Especially when your belief that I am using mental abuse as a soap box for a political agenda of some kind is firmly rooted in your emotions instead of reason.

What this means, dear Storm, is there is no point in justifying a claim that is already fairly obvious. Presenting children with abhorrent ideas that make them hate themselves or reject who they are is inherently an attack on their mental well being.

How many gay children have killed themselves because of their parents religious dogma? Is that a number you would be comfortable knowing? No, you would reject even that. Why should I bother? Why bother justifying a statement when it will only be measured against your emotions?

Ah, so you are flat refusing to support your opinion with anything other than jumping up and down repeating your opinion?

And you want to be taken seriously?

 

[Photonic]

Ah, so you are flat refusing to support your opinion with anything other than jumping up and down repeating your opinion?

And you want to be taken seriously?

I have posted several justifications, apparently all grounds for calling me disgusting.

 

[McBell]

I have posted several justifications, apparently all grounds for calling me disgusting.

You have done nothing but present more of your opinion in an attempt to support your opinion.

That is the same as using the Bible to support the Bible, or the Koran to support the Koran.
It holds no sway.

 

[Photonic]

Alright, I'll try to make this clearer. Somehow someone somewhere has gotten it into their head that as long as it's religious it's ok to slap anything that would normally be considered bad into a child's mind.

I want to make one thing in particular clear. I am not advocating that religious teaching should be barred from being taught to children by their parents. That is their domain. There are certain things however, that no well adjusted human would teach a developing mind. There are certain realities to the development of a child that have a very adverse affect on how they think.

Quick little exercise here.

Let me ask you this, at what age is it appropriate to teach a child about the holocaust for example?

 

[Storm]

I can justify a claim all day, finding something you wouldn't block out with your particular brand of emotional rejection is another matter all together. Especially when your belief that I am using mental abuse as a soap box for a political agenda of some kind is firmly rooted in your emotions instead of reason.

Nice assumption. Armchair psychology is a perfect excuse to not support a claim, that's a brilliant rebuttal.

Notice how I didn't come to that conclusion until you refused to even attempt to support the claim? Given the combination of your incendiary language, refusal to support anything you said, and the fact that yeah - I was actually abused, do you really think I have no right to take offense?

Or is this just cheap manipulation in lieu of hard data?

What this means, dear Storm, is there is no point in justifying a claim that is already fairly obvious.

Every claim is obvious to those who already agree with it. But, look over the thread. It's not obvious to anyone else.

Presenting children with abhorrent ideas that make them hate themselves or reject who they are is inherently an attack on their mental well being.

Uncontested. Now you just have to demonstrate that the above statement typically applies to Abrahamic households. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be that difficult.

How many gay children have killed themselves because of their parents religious dogma? Is that a number you would be comfortable knowing? No, you would reject even that. Why should I bother? Why bother justifying a statement when it will only be measured against your emotions?

I don't know the exact number, but too damn many. How many haven't? Do you think there might be a difference between "Hell exists" and "you're going to Hell, you little ***?" Do you think the doctrine of Hell is the root cause of homophobia? Or are you trying to expand your unsupported accusation to condemn Christianity as a whole now?

In short: It's not my fault you ****** up and tried to exploit abused children in the presence of a child abuse survivor, and you don't get to handwave that away by trying to exploit me further with armchair psychology.

But you did do an excellent job of making yourself look even worse, so thanks.

 

[Storm]

You have done nothing but present more of your opinion in an attempt to support your opinion.

That is the same as using the Bible to support the Bible, or the Koran to support the Koran.
It holds no sway.

Oh, but he has! He's accused one of the people he's blatantly exploiting of being a manipulative, irrational ***** (my words, don't want to give him more ammo with a vague disclaimer) for calling him on said attempted exploitation!

So, yeah. I'll stick with disgusting.

 

[Storm]

Alright, I'll try to make this clearer. Somehow someone somewhere has gotten it into their head that as long as it's religious it's ok to slap anything that would normally be considered bad into a child's mind.

Wrong, try again.

I want to make one thing in particular clear. I am not advocating that religious teaching should be barred from being taught to children by their parents. That is their domain. There are certain things however, that no well adjusted human would teach a developing mind. There are certain realities to the development of a child that have a very adverse affect on how they think.

You're not? So you think child abuse should be legal? Yeah, that's MUCH better.

Let me ask you this, at what age is it appropriate to teach a child about the holocaust for example?

It depends entirely on the kid's maturity, which is >gasp< best judged by the PARENTS. OMG, that'll never fly!

 

[Photonic]

Nice assumption. Armchair psychology is a perfect excuse to not support a claim, that's a brilliant rebuttal.

Notice how I didn't come to that conclusion until you refused to even attempt to support the claim? Given the combination of your incendiary language, refusal to support anything you said, and the fact that yeah - I was actually abused, do you really think I have no right to take offense?

Or is this just cheap manipulation in lieu of hard data?


Every claim is obvious to those who already agree with it. But, look over the thread. It's not obvious to anyone else.


Uncontested. Now you just have to demonstrate that the above statement typically applies to Abrahamic households. If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be that difficult.


I don't know the exact number, but too damn many. How many haven't? Do you think there might be a difference between "Hell exists" and "you're going to Hell, you little ***?" Do you think the doctrine of Hell is the root cause of homophobia? Or are you trying to expand your unsupported accusation to condemn Christianity as a whole now?

In short: It's not my fault you ****** up and tried to exploit abused children in the presence of a child abuse survivor, and you don't get to handwave that away by trying to exploit me further with armchair psychology.

But you did do an excellent job of making yourself look even worse, so thanks.

Look, I'm sorry you have problems. We've all had our share of them. But I am not *exploiting* your abuse or mine. I am not condemning all Abraham faiths, or indeed all religions, on the basis of some bad parenting. But a lot of teachings can and will be used to abuse children.

Is that grounds for banning it? I doubt it, considering Free speech is very important. However, young children as a whole do not have much in the way of reasoning when it comes to rejecting ideas when they come from an authority figure. This should be taken into consideration is what I'm saying. There is an age (specific to an individual basis of course) where such things become acceptable to teach.

There is also the case of parents who are pretty much given complete freedom to abuse their child under religious doctrine. While I am sure such parents would most likely find any means to do it, it still begs the question why it's acceptable just because it's religious.

I don't believe I've asked for it to be banned, or limited, just deemed unacceptable.

 

[Photonic]

You're not? So you think child abuse should be legal? Yeah, that's MUCH better.

Storm, that was pathetic. Let's avoid that particular brand of idiocy today at least.

 

[Storm]

Storm, that was pathetic. Let's avoid that particular brand of idiocy today at least.

Sorry, but this just proves what I've been saying all along: that you're belittling the issue of child abuse rather than let go of your incendiary language, regardless of how offensive it is.

See, in MY world, and that of EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO TAKES CHILD ABUSE SERIOUSLY, child abuse is legal and moral grounds for intervention, up to the point of permanently removing a child from the home if there's no other way to stop it from happening.

If you don't think the doctrine of Hell meets that standard, don't ******* call it child abuse.

Now, when and if you want to discuss whether a given doctrine is beneficial or not, we can do that without the incendiary language.

Until then, I will absolutely continue to point out your exploitation, hypocrisy, and any other immoral crap you decide to resort to. Deal with it.

 

[Photonic]

Sorry, but this just proves what I've been saying all along: that you're belittling the issue of child abuse rather than let go of your incendiary language, regardless of how offensive it is.

See, in MY world, and that of EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO TAKES CHILD ABUSE SERIOUSLY, child abuse is legal and moral grounds for intervention, up to the point of permanently removing a child from the home if there's no other way to stop it from happening.

If you don't think the doctrine of Hell meets that standard, don't ******* call it child abuse.

Now, when and if you want to discuss whether a given doctrine is beneficial or not, we can do that without the incendiary language.

Until then, I will absolutely continue to point out your exploitation, hypocrisy, and any other immoral crap you decide to resort to. Deal with it.

Yes. I support child abuse. This is so obvious to me now, thank you Storm.

When my uncle raped me, I deserved it, clearly. I guess I just can't take it SERIOUSLY like you do.

 

[Storm]

Yes. I support child abuse. This is so obvious to me now, thank you Storm.

Didn't say you supported it. Said you're willing to exploit it to make a point.

Prove me wrong.

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: child abuse is legal and moral grounds for intervention, up to the point of permanently removing a child from the home if there's no other way to stop it from happening.

Sorry, but this is one issue where you absolutely cannot have it both ways.

 

[Photonic]

Didn't say you supported it. Said you're willing to exploit it to make a point.

Prove me wrong.

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: child abuse is legal and moral grounds for intervention, up to the point of permanently removing a child from the home if there's no other way to stop it from happening.

Sorry, but this is one issue where you absolutely cannot have it both ways.

Look, I see what you are saying, and it makes perfect sense. I agree with the statement (should you mean "illegal" of course). I understand you are saying that if the above is true, and if I should agree with that, and I agree that teaching hell in any form is child abuse, then it should apply logically.

However, I have clearly stated that I consider it on an individual basis given the maturity of the child, their essential ability to actually understand that what they are hearing has the possibility of being false, or not applying to them. Not to mention there are certain ways to teach it that are obviously outright child abuse, but I'll exclude those for the context of this statement.

 

[McBell]

Yes. I support child abuse. This is so obvious to me now, thank you Storm.

That is what it looks like based on your posts in this thread.
You said that the teaching of hell is child abuse and then said that teaching it to ones children is ok...

When my uncle raped me, I deserved it, clearly. I guess I just can't take it SERIOUSLY like you do.

move the goal posts much?