Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
If people cannot handle the fact that I say that their Catholic faith is retarded, that is their problem.
so that is the generally nice and gentle person, you quoted, that is interesting.
I explain to them why. I prefer a straightforward person over a hypocrite. So yes, me explaining to them why their faith is stupid is being nice.
Read it yourself, why people in a society protect their loved ones, homes and goods, why there are laws, how humans tick all these things.
That's not the point. The point is that you seem to think that people protecting their houses indicates that people are in general not nice.
It is not worth it offending people using liberal views as an excuse to do so. That is not what liberal means.
The point is that everything can be considered offensive. If I cannot offend people, I cannot talk about religion, as religious people tend to take criticism to their religion quite personal.
I explain to them why. I prefer a straightforward person over a hypocrite. So yes, me explaining to them why their faith is stupid is being nice.
Read it yourself, why people in a society protect their loved ones, homes and goods, why there are laws, how humans tick all these things.
That's not the point. The point is that you seem to think that people protecting their houses indicates that people are in general not nice.
It is not worth it offending people using liberal views as an excuse to do so. That is not what liberal means.
The point is that everything can be considered offensive. If I cannot offend people, I cannot talk about religion, as religious people tend to take criticism to their religion quite personal.
I explain to them why. I prefer a straightforward person over a hypocrite. So yes, me explaining to them why their faith is stupid is being nice.
Explaining why in your opinion it doesn't make sense - it's 'nice', or rather 'neutral'
calling names "Catholic faith is retarded" is not 'nice' at all :-)
(edited)
Explaining why in your opinion it doesn't make sense - it's 'nice', or rather 'neutral'
calling names "Catholic faith is retarded" is not 'nice' at all :-)
(edited)
Well as soon as you brush up your education you will realize that humans are not nice nor bad generally. They are pretty complicated mammals. And for a society to work, history has shown us that rules are important. Which ones that is a matter of discussion. And yes, no rules are also rules.
Yes, rules are necessary. Did I ever deny that? And does that deny my assumption (and that assumption can be wrong, I realize that) that people on average do good?
You see why rules are not ridiculous? By rules you describe what is offensive and insulting and what is not. And as we found out before, humans have different personalities, different thoughts and ideas. So they get insulted easier or not so easy. But in a society you should get all these people at one table and avoid that many of them get insulted. And there you go, you give them the rule "don't call the other ones believe stupid if he might get insulted by that". Make a discussion with him, objective and fair.
Well, Muslims are probably offended if you say Muhammad was a child molester. Should I not say that, although according to the Hadith, Muhammad's marriage with Aisha was consummated when she was nine? So it is objective AND insulting.
Edit: You'll probably say: well, in majority, we rule that that is allowed or not. But why should it be subject to a vote? Does that make sure that the right decision is made? No.
(edited)
Yes, rules are necessary. Did I ever deny that? And does that deny my assumption (and that assumption can be wrong, I realize that) that people on average do good?
You see why rules are not ridiculous? By rules you describe what is offensive and insulting and what is not. And as we found out before, humans have different personalities, different thoughts and ideas. So they get insulted easier or not so easy. But in a society you should get all these people at one table and avoid that many of them get insulted. And there you go, you give them the rule "don't call the other ones believe stupid if he might get insulted by that". Make a discussion with him, objective and fair.
Well, Muslims are probably offended if you say Muhammad was a child molester. Should I not say that, although according to the Hadith, Muhammad's marriage with Aisha was consummated when she was nine? So it is objective AND insulting.
Edit: You'll probably say: well, in majority, we rule that that is allowed or not. But why should it be subject to a vote? Does that make sure that the right decision is made? No.
(edited)
Well, Muslims are probably offended if you say Muhammad was a child molester. Should I not say that, although according to the Hadith, Muhammad's marriage with Aisha was consummated when she was nine? So it is objective AND insulting.
Since you're so liberal and pro-ultimate-freedom...
in THEIR society they can easily claim that in THAT time it was normal to consummate a marriage with 9yo girl [well, the European were not far from it in the dark ages, not to mention the Gypsy culture] so yes, they can disagree that he was a child molester.
It's all a matter of what a certain group perceives as child molesting...
In some countries, like Poland, it's under15, in USA as far as I know it's u18 etc...
don't know what the rules are in UK, but there were loads of stories about 12yo fathers and I don't recall the term 'child molesting' being used in those reports...
Since you're so liberal and pro-ultimate-freedom...
in THEIR society they can easily claim that in THAT time it was normal to consummate a marriage with 9yo girl [well, the European were not far from it in the dark ages, not to mention the Gypsy culture] so yes, they can disagree that he was a child molester.
It's all a matter of what a certain group perceives as child molesting...
In some countries, like Poland, it's under15, in USA as far as I know it's u18 etc...
don't know what the rules are in UK, but there were loads of stories about 12yo fathers and I don't recall the term 'child molesting' being used in those reports...
Insulting other people, then calling yourself nice and gentle.
Yes. Because the insult itself is not my purpose. I never talk to someone and think: "You know what, I'll insult him."
Seeing the people as one cohesive nice unit.
That's a lie. I never said that. I said I believe that people are in general nice. Ergo, most people are most of the time nice.
Is it sure in a complex world to make the right decision? No.
Stating the obvious there.
Do you, as someone who likes to do all that I pointed out before has the right decision in his hands? No, obviously not.
Once again, stating the obvious. I never claimed I can call the right decision ("What is insulting and what is not?"). I say there should not be a decision at all. Nobody should determine (democratically or authoritarian) impose rules on what is insulting and cannot be said.
Yes. Because the insult itself is not my purpose. I never talk to someone and think: "You know what, I'll insult him."
Seeing the people as one cohesive nice unit.
That's a lie. I never said that. I said I believe that people are in general nice. Ergo, most people are most of the time nice.
Is it sure in a complex world to make the right decision? No.
Stating the obvious there.
Do you, as someone who likes to do all that I pointed out before has the right decision in his hands? No, obviously not.
Once again, stating the obvious. I never claimed I can call the right decision ("What is insulting and what is not?"). I say there should not be a decision at all. Nobody should determine (democratically or authoritarian) impose rules on what is insulting and cannot be said.
in THEIR society they can easily claim that in THAT time it was normal to consummate a marriage with 9yo girl [well, the European were not far from it in the dark ages, not to mention the Gypsy culture] so yes, they can disagree that he was a child molester.
Okay (although I disagree with it; I believe in absolute moral values, not in relative ones).
But the point was: can I call Muhammad a child molester or not? (I assume that saying "Muhammad is a child molester" is insulting to Muslims.)
It's all a matter of what a certain group perceives as child molesting...
Are you saying that my permission to say that phrase depends on what is perceived as child molesting in my country?
Okay (although I disagree with it; I believe in absolute moral values, not in relative ones).
But the point was: can I call Muhammad a child molester or not? (I assume that saying "Muhammad is a child molester" is insulting to Muslims.)
It's all a matter of what a certain group perceives as child molesting...
Are you saying that my permission to say that phrase depends on what is perceived as child molesting in my country?
But you don't get that.
I beg to differ indeed.
For me personally If someone insults me I feel vengeance and rage up to some point and I will do just these two things.
I have noticed that.
I beg to differ indeed.
For me personally If someone insults me I feel vengeance and rage up to some point and I will do just these two things.
I have noticed that.