FTA: In May 2008, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with a cartoon that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who meet at an anti-gay rally and want to marry.

Actually, he was prosecuted for insulting Muslims. There was no charge of insulting Christians.

It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended." It is almost always Muslims that were offended (and it was by someone telling the truth about Islam, or just asking uncomfortable questions about Islam).

I insult everyone equally - gays, muslims, christians, atheists, baptists, furries, scientologists, Republicans, Democrats to name just a few. Basically if you've got a thin skin and an attitude, you can expect me to taunt and belittle your viewpoint in a public venue.

give me doughnuts: It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended." It is almost always Muslims that were offended (and it was by someone telling the truth about Islam, or just asking uncomfortable questions about Islam).

Don't you remember in 2007 when hundreds of thousands of Jews rioted and burned down Iranian embassies in reaction to the Holocaust-denial conference?

Tatsuma: give me doughnuts: It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended." It is almost always Muslims that were offended (and it was by someone telling the truth about Islam, or just asking uncomfortable questions about Islam).

Don't you remember in 2007 when hundreds of thousands of Jews rioted and burned down Iranian embassies in reaction to the Holocaust-denial conference?

so you're saying that jews are revolting?


nah. too easy a button to push.

give me doughnuts:

It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended." It is almost always Muslims that were offended (and it was by someone telling the truth about Islam, or just asking uncomfortable questions about Islam).

FTFA: "Last September, Italian prosecutors launched an investigation of comedian Sabina Guzzanti for joking about Pope Benedict VXI. "In 20 years, [he] will be dead and will end up in hell, tormented by queer demons, and very active ones," she said at a rally.

In February, Rowan Laxton, an aide to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, was arrested for "inciting religious hatred" when, watching news reports of Israel's bombardment of Gaza while exercising at his gym, he allegedly shouted obscenities about Israelis and Jews at the television."

If the author's tying to say that it is better to tolerate hate speech that to suppress the freedom to criticize religion, I agree. But there's a HUGE caveat to add:

There ARE ways to distinguish the two, and in fact it is very important to do so. For example, international debate of the Israel/Palestine conflict has been systematically derailed by dishonest accusations that all criticism of Israel equals anti-Semitism.

The two can indeed be disentangled. To conflate criticism with hate speech--as I think the author does--is intellectually dishonest and puts one in the same camp as ideological censors.

Procedural Texture: The two can indeed be disentangled. To conflate criticism with hate speech--as I think the author does--is intellectually dishonest and puts one in the same camp as ideological censors.

Try saying something like that in a gay marrage thread.

give me doughnuts: It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended."

FTFY.

eqtworld: give me doughnuts:It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended." It is almost always Muslims that were offended (and it was by someone telling the truth about Islam, or just asking uncomfortable questions about Islam).

Link (to "Dancing Pope advert banned")

Oh, so that's what almost never means...

Weaver95: Try saying something like that in a gay marriage thread.

I respect people's right to express their opinion against gay marriage; even though I disagree with them.
I do not have any time for people who express hatred of homosexuals. Such people go on my ignore list.

Procedural Texture: Weaver95: Try saying something like that in a gay marriage thread.

I respect people's right to express their opinion against gay marriage; even though I disagree with them.
I do not have any time for people who express hatred of homosexuals. Such people go on my ignore list.

yeah, but if you disagree with the legislative agenda of the gay rights folks, then you're automatically tagged as a homophobe.

Same thing if you advocate the 'wrong opinion' of what to do with illegal aliens.

I see a lot of people who just assume that if you disagree with 'em, you aren't just wrong, you're evil for thinking differently. And those divisions, at least here on fark, have become more and more apparently of late. the level of intolerance is higher than i've ever seen it.

Just my opinion though. I just don't see a lot of discussion, just a lot of yelling. Mostly from about the same group of people, who shall remain nameless.

Procedural Texture: I do not have any time for people who express hatred of homosexuals.

Just homosexuals? Not rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers and Methodists?

"It is not possible to systematically protect religions or their followers from offence without infringing the right of individuals."

For example:

A blogger critical of First Baptist Church Pastor Mac Brunson wants to know why his Web site was investigated by a police detective who is also a member of the minister's security detail.

Thomas A. Rich also wants the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office to explain what suspected crimes led Detective Robert Hinson to open the probe into his once-anonymous Web site.

Rich also wants to know why Hinson revealed his name to the church despite finding no wrongdoing. Hinson obtained a subpoena from the State Attorney's Office requiring Google Inc. to reveal the author of the blog.

Weaver95: Yeah, but if you disagree with the legislative agenda of the gay rights folks, then you're automatically tagged as a homophobe. Same thing if you advocate the 'wrong opinion' of what to do with illegal aliens.


There's a reason I have you tagged as a favourite on this site, and it's because even though we differ on many issues (definitely not all), you always take the time to articulate your point well. You're not the only one, but you do stand out in the conservative crowd.

Conversely, that's why I dislike this article: it serves only to muddle the issue and encourage polarization between false opposites.

Procedural Texture: Weaver95: Yeah, but if you disagree with the legislative agenda of the gay rights folks, then you're automatically tagged as a homophobe. Same thing if you advocate the 'wrong opinion' of what to do with illegal aliens.


There's a reason I have you tagged as a favourite on this site, and it's because even though we differ on many issues (definitely not all), you always take the time to articulate your point well. You're not the only one, but you do stand out in the conservative crowd.

Conversely, that's why I dislike this article: it serves only to muddle the issue and encourage polarization between false opposites.

I expect a certain level of polarization in any discussion. But lately, it seems that we're more interested in spelling mistakes and looking for the 'gotcha' factor than talking about any of the headlines that cross this site on a daily basis.

Ok, not EVERYONE here is like that, it's mainly 3 or 4 people who consistantly sidetrack discussions into pointless irrelvancy. But they are quite prolific indeed at their obfuscations.

As for the national debate about where we're going and what we should be doing - that's even WORSE! The Republicans are obstinate and want Obama to fail simply because he's not a Republican. The Democrats are...well, 'fractured' would be a good a term as any I suppose. winning a damn near clean sweep seemed to divide them more than if they'd lost to McCain. But it's safe to say that the Democratic leaders are more interested in sticking it to the Republicans than doing their jobs. And neither side wants to listen to any alternative viewpoints at all, be it libertarian, fiscal conservative or even the green party.

Again, just my opinion. take it for what you will.

Dancin_In_Anson: Just homosexuals?

My ignore criteria are posted in my profile, though admittedly not with precision. Someone has to seriously cross the line, with no trace of irony or merely trolling, to earn an ignore. Merely being an idiot (ie: Bevets) is not sufficient.
So far 171 asshats have made the cut.

Weaver95: Again, just my opinion. take it for what you will.


Democrat vs Republican, left vs right, even liberal vs conservative) are false oppositions that exclude the majority of political positions.

I think it's fair to say that these distractions also exclude nearly all practical solutions to problems in the world, if history is any guide. Business as usual in politics is not the way forward, and that's why I have no affiliation. Though I find that I agree with the principles and assumptions of the left more often that the right, their proposals suck only slightly less ass in the bigger picture.

Again, the shoddy article linked is part of the problem.

Weaver95: yeah, but if you disagree with the legislative agenda of the gay rights folks, then you're automatically tagged as a homophobe.

The fact that you disagree with the legislative agenda of homosexuals is not the problem. It is that you express it in a piss-poor way and you completely ignore the many very valid criticisms of the position to just say that the gay people are trying to infringe on other people's rights and they are being far too aggressive.

You can disagree with the position if you want, but you don't express it as clearly as you think you do.

Procedural Texture: give me doughnuts: It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended."

FTFY.

Look up Hindutva and get back to me on that one.

give me doughnuts: FTA: In May 2008, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with a cartoon that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who meet at an anti-gay rally and want to marry.

Actually, he was prosecuted for insulting Muslims. There was no charge of insulting Christians.

It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended." It is almost always Muslims that were offended (and it was by someone telling the truth about Islam, or just asking uncomfortable questions about Islam).

Have you ever been to America? Christians and Jews get offended A LOT!

They usually react better, and Christian and Jews in America tend to not be poor immigrants.

So, really, you're surprised that, when poor immigrants feel insulted, they turn to violence quicker than middle class, electorally powerful people? How shocking! Clearly they are savages!

bulldg4life: You can disagree with the position if you want, but you don't express it as clearly as you think you do.

I make the mistake of assuming too much of people, that they'll approach issues in a calm and rational manner.

I keep forgetting that 'calm and rational' really means 'weak and defenseless' to every special interest group on the internet.

So wait...

The west is becoming increasingly atheistic and hostile to religion, but it's also suppressing free speech so that religions won't be offended?

How does THAT work exactly?

Weaver95: Procedural Texture: The two can indeed be disentangled. To conflate criticism with hate speech--as I think the author does--is intellectually dishonest and puts one in the same camp as ideological censors.

Try saying something like that in a gay marrage thread.

Because, unlike criticism of Israel, there is really only one reasons to oppose gay marriage: You think gays will "dirty" marriage. If you don't believe that, why be against it?

It is our duty to point out the oppressiveness of Islam to the people of the world who do not have the luxury of free speach. We all know it is wrong, and it is our duty to speak out. Every day that the Muslims deny access to the temple mount to Christians and Jews is a slap in the face to free religious expression around the world. Every time a Muslim woman is made to wear a burka it is a slap in the face to women around the world.

/We have to speak up, it is our duty as free people

Weaver95: I make the mistake of assuming too much of people, that they'll approach issues in a calm and rational manner.

I keep forgetting that 'calm and rational' really means 'weak and defenseless' to every special interest group on the internet.

For someone that makes broad generalized statements from time to time and then refuses to explain themselves when called out on errors in their impeccable logic by resorting to "going to lunch" or "focusing on work" or "not wasting the time to explain things"...that's a funny statement.

Weaver95: yeah, but if you disagree with the legislative agenda of the gay rights folks, then you're automatically tagged as a homophobe.

BECAUSE TO BE OPPOSED TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA OF GAY PEOPLE IS TO BE OPPOSED TO GIVING GAY PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS!

That IS the legislative agenda of gay people!

"What, just because I'm against the legislative agenda of Martin Luther King I'm a racist?"

YES!

How can you be so stupidly blind on this issue?

RemyDuron: They usually react better, and Christian and Jews in America tend to not be poor immigrants.

Amazing what a few banking connections generations will get ya!

Dancin_In_Anson: hornswogglers,



those are just the WORST.

RemyDuron: Because, unlike criticism of Israel, there is really only one reasons to oppose gay marriage: You think gays will "dirty" marriage. If you don't believe that, why be against it?

Because I think it's more than possible to write a bad law, and that if we aren't extremely careful and considerate, we'll end up causing no end of headaches over who can and can't get married to whom. But we aren't permitted to make that sort of observation, because it's a hot button issue for two sides of an issue who really don't give a damn about the law, they just want to be proven right.

The Religion of Peace^TM.

bulldg4life: Weaver95: I make the mistake of assuming too much of people, that they'll approach issues in a calm and rational manner.

I keep forgetting that 'calm and rational' really means 'weak and defenseless' to every special interest group on the internet.

For someone that makes broad generalized statements from time to time and then refuses to explain themselves when called out on errors in their impeccable logic by resorting to "going to lunch" or "focusing on work" or "not wasting the time to explain things"...that's a funny statement.

one might think that the topic of discussion in this thread might have a bearing on my previous statements along those lines....

Nah. i'm sure that's got NOTHING to do with it.

Procedural Texture: Weaver95: Try saying something like that in a gay marriage thread.

I respect people's right to express their opinion against gay marriage; even though I disagree with them.
I do not have any time for people who express hatred of homosexuals. Such people go on my ignore list.

What, any homosexuals? Because there are a couple on my "would be vastly improved by a bit of a beating" list.

But yeah, obvious jokes aside, Weaver has kind of a vauge point on this one. Anyone opposed to gay marriage, for instance, gets automatically labelled a bigot, which is kind of a low bar for "hate". Not that it seriously bothers anyone, low bars and purposeful misinterpretation of statements is what the internet is all about.

Anyway, I disagree with the assertion that Hate Speech is something special and distinct that needs to be hunted down and exterminated by an alien in an invisibility cloak. Everyone has a different opinion on constitutes it, and those opinions convneniently line up with the speaker's political agenda far too often for it to be anything like a legitimate category.

Explicitly advocating violence? Yeah, that's a threat. Expressing dislike (or even hatred) and general animosity? Yeah, sorry, we get to do that in the US.

Weaver95: Because I think it's more than possible to write a bad law, and that if we aren't extremely careful and considerate, we'll end up causing no end of headaches over who can and can't get married to whom. But we aren't permitted to make that sort of observation, because it's a hot button issue for two sides of an issue who really don't give a damn about the law, they just want to be proven right.

How? Who are you worried about getting married? "There could be paperwork problems!" is your reason for denying people their rights? Sure, that doesn't make you sound anti-gay at all.

/Being against gay marriage makes you a bigot just as much as being against interracial marriage makes you a bigot
//How is that not obvious?

DemonEater
So wait...

The west is becoming increasingly atheistic and hostile to religion, but it's also suppressing free speech so that religions won't be offended?

How does THAT work exactly?

Don't worry. When Jesus comes back, he'll explain everything.

Weaver95: Because I think it's more than possible to write a bad law, and that if we aren't extremely careful and considerate, we'll end up causing no end of headaches over who can and can't get married to whom.

How so?

What type of law that says two consenting adults can get married regardless of sexual orientation would cause neverending headaches?

What, exactly, would be the headaches that you refer to that say homosexuality cannot be discriminated against within the guidelines set forth by the 14th amendment?

Weaver95: one might think that the topic of discussion in this thread might have a bearing on my previous statements along those lines....

Nah. i'm sure that's got NOTHING to do with it.

No idea what this means.

Jim_Callahan: But yeah, obvious jokes aside, Weaver has kind of a vauge point on this one. Anyone opposed to gay marriage, for instance, gets automatically labelled a bigot, which is kind of a low bar for "hate". Not that it seriously bothers anyone, low bars and purposeful misinterpretation of statements is what the internet is all about.

Everyone who is against gay marriage IS a bigot. Just as everyone who was against desegregation was a bigot. How is this not absolutely obvious? You are for withholding rights from a minority group, right which hurt no one and will not affect you in any way. How is that not bigoted?

/Note: I'm using the general "you" I do not mean to imply you are against gay marriage and thus a bigot.

Although, laws like this in the US *would* put Fred Phelps and company to prison (and grand Karmic retribution)....

Hmmm.

/First Amendment or short-term reward.... First Amendment or short-term reward....

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: It is our duty to point out the sinfulness of Christianity to the people of the world who do not have the luxury of free speach. We all know it is wrong, and it is our duty to speak out. Every day that the Christians deny access to the afterlife to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Agnostics, Gays, Atheists, Shintoists, and Longshoreman is a slap in the face to free religious expression around the world. Every time a Christian woman is allowed to walk around uncovered it is a slap in the face to women around the world.

/We have to speak up, it is our duty as free people

theoryofrelativity

Weaver95: Because I think it's more than possible to write a bad law, and that if we aren't extremely careful and considerate, we'll end up causing no end of headaches over who can and can't get married to whom.

How would this complicate the current situation? Person A cannot marry person B iff

* A and B are too closely related (specifics vary state-to-state, but are already in place)
* either A or B is already married to another party
* either A or B is under the age of legal majority.

You're gonna have to work to convince me that you're not being disingenuous here.

give me doughnuts 2009-04-12 02:55:24 PM
FTA: In May 2008, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with a cartoon that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who meet at an anti-gay rally and want to marry.

Actually, he was prosecuted for insulting Muslims. There was no charge of insulting Christians.

It is almost never Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity that is "offended." It is almost always Muslims that were offended (and it was by someone telling the truth about Islam, or just asking uncomfortable questions about Islam).

Yup. And regardless of House of Tards comments about the comedienne insulting the Catholic church: the only reason you remember it is that it is the ONLY time it has happened.

Muslims are p*ssies about Islam.
If they were sooooooo sure they had it right they wouldn't get upset when its' b.s. is pointed out, such as the father arranging the marriage of his EIGHT YEAR OLD DAUGHTER to a man, 47, to cover a debt.

But after all, it is 'the religion of peace'.

RemyDuron: Weaver95: Because I think it's more than possible to write a bad law, and that if we aren't extremely careful and considerate, we'll end up causing no end of headaches over who can and can't get married to whom. But we aren't permitted to make that sort of observation, because it's a hot button issue for two sides of an issue who really don't give a damn about the law, they just want to be proven right.

How? Who are you worried about getting married? "There could be paperwork problems!" is your reason for denying people their rights? Sure, that doesn't make you sound anti-gay at all.

/Being against gay marriage makes you a bigot just as much as being against interracial marriage makes you a bigot
//How is that not obvious?

I was unaware of the fact that "gay" was now considered a race. Thank you for enlightening me, RemyDuron.

the_vegetarian_cannibal: The Religion of PeaceTM.

It's only the Religion of Peace™ if you're a Muslin, too.

Also, I support the prosecution of people whose speech offends others. EVERY Christian who has ever tried to convert anybody or spoken badly about homosexuals would be in jail.

the_vegetarian_cannibal: I was unaware of the fact that "gay" was now considered a race. Thank you for enlightening me, RemyDuron.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

RemyDuron: /Being against gay marriage makes you a bigot just as much as being against interracial marriage makes you a bigot
//How is that not obvious?

so the possiblity of a poorly worded law (written by a special interest group with no real interest in the common good) causing problems further on down the line NEVER crossed your mind?

of course not. Anyone who thinks that we should carefully consider new laws and their impact is a 'homophobe'.

And by the way, thanks for making my point for me. the topic under discussion was how we've become less tolerant of differing viewpoints and you provided ample proof of THAT concept!

the_vegetarian_cannibal: RemyDuron: Weaver95: Because I think it's more than possible to write a bad law, and that if we aren't extremely careful and considerate, we'll end up causing no end of headaches over who can and can't get married to whom. But we aren't permitted to make that sort of observation, because it's a hot button issue for two sides of an issue who really don't give a damn about the law, they just want to be proven right.

How? Who are you worried about getting married? "There could be paperwork problems!" is your reason for denying people their rights? Sure, that doesn't make you sound anti-gay at all.

/Being against gay marriage makes you a bigot just as much as being against interracial marriage makes you a bigot
//How is that not obvious?

I was unaware of the fact that "gay" was now considered a race. Thank you for enlightening me, RemyDuron.

Bigot != racist.

Durrr.

FTFA:

She recently denounced Mohammad as a pedophile for his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha, which was consummated when she was 9.

The actual ages may have been younger than that, based on the lunar calendar in use at the time.

Anyway, even though I get offended at some of the swipes taken at my religion, some are valid, some are BS, and some are worthwhile discussing and possibly informing/educating someone about an area they may be in error about. Free speech is worthwhile defending. To those overly insensitive? Get over it.

the_vegetarian_cannibal: I was unaware of the fact that "gay" was now considered a race. Thank you for enlightening me, RemyDuron.

What? What do you even mean-

Oh, I see. I made an "analogy." Those require a degree of abstract thought.

In what was is gay marriage not analogous to interracial marriage? Because, to me, it's using traditional bigotry to deny consenting adults the right to marry. The rhetoric is the same. "You are doing something slightly different than what my grandparents did, that's wrong!"

drsteel: the_vegetarian_cannibal: The Religion of PeaceTM.

It's only the Religion of Peace™ if you're a Muslin, too.

Also, I support the prosecution of people whose speech offends others. EVERY Christian who has ever tried to convert anybody or spoken badly about homosexuals would be in jail.

That's a bad thing?

/Yeah, I know it actually is