The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Cafť => Topic started by: StaffyStar on February 06, 2006, 06:24:26 pm



Title: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on February 06, 2006, 06:24:26 pm
Hello everybody!

Pardon me for my english

This hasnt anything to do with starcontrol, but since the forum name is called "of topic" i thought i might give it a try. This is also the only forum I know about with non-swedes in it
Scandinavian(swedish,finnish,danish norweigan icelandic)  newspapers recently printed some caricatures of the muslim prophet muhammed.

After that  here has been alot of attacks from muslim people around the world who wants the scandinavian goverments to apologise for this.

 But the governments hasnt done anything!
 It was the newspapers that did it! Why should then the governments have to apologise to this!
I would like to know what american people thinks (if they even heard about this...), since their government took the pictures into rejection, wanting the scandinavian governments to apologise. Dont you think that freedom of speech is more important than that?

So what if Mohammed was holy to some people, the people that doesnt think so should be able to express themselves!!!

It feels like we asked the muslims about the androsynths too many times...


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: guesst on February 06, 2006, 06:40:33 pm
okay, cutting through the quagmire of engrish, I think my answer would be:\

1) few people if anyone in America heard about this.

2) Depending on your demographic, some Americans would be begging for more.

3) I'd have to see the caractures to make a judgement on how offensive the artist was trying to be, but in general I don't care to because as an American I'm well practiced in ignoring offensive people/images.

4) If the Muslim population is going to get up in arms about this, literally or figurativly, they need to pour themselves a tall glass of chill-out juice. People gonna destroy the world with a temper like that.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Shiver on February 06, 2006, 08:28:58 pm
I've heard about that and I looked up the offending images on the internet. Yes, it's rude. No, I don't have any sympathy for religious fundamentalists.

Quote
4) If the Muslim population is going to get up in arms about this, literally or figurativly, they need to pour themselves a tall glass of chill-out juice. People gonna destroy the world with a temper like that.

Which is why they don't get to have nukes.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on February 06, 2006, 09:12:44 pm
They have already burned some ambassades for this, and without beeing a racist... that pisses me off!!


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 06, 2006, 10:39:49 pm
"I would like to know what american people thinks (if they even heard about this...), since their government took the pictures into rejection, wanting the scandinavian governments to apologise. Dont you think that freedom of speech is more important than that?"

Yes, it has been on our news channels for many days, we've seen embassies burning, and riots as far away as Indonesia.

What does the US government think? They don't care, in Iraq, they made some photos of their own, but oddly enough, they were not met with as much critism as the muhbombhead picture. And they are probably thrilled that Europe's somewhat high and mighty ideology has come burning down along side their own short sighted methods (the Iraq quagmire.) Europe has spent so much time taking the side of poor muslim countries and now they're being payed back in full. Crazy.

What do the US people think? We probably think those pictures are funny and the riots are shockingly crazy. There's a lot of Christians in this country, but when someone slams Jesus (and he gets slammed a lot,) embassies are not burned to the ground by mobs. Sure, we have our crazies, but not in such massive, organized quantities.

What do I think? I think this is all somewhat hillarious. Living proof of just how insane a place the world has become. No matter how nuts you are, this stuff makes you feel like you're one of the few normal people left on the planet. And I do by the way, DO stand behind you, Scandinavian countries and their defense of freedom of speech, and anybody else who feels you have the right to take shots at any religion, no matter how obnoxious the method, because it can't be worse than violence over some stupid cartoons.

To put it in a simplistic, perhaps riot worthy way, there is a sort of natural balance of world cultures that has worked itself out: Europe hates America, America hates Islam, Islam hates Europe. ;p

No wait I didn't mean it. . .Ahhh, my house is on fire! Hehehe.


"Which is why they don't get to have nukes."

Pakistan? Iran?

Dr. Strangelove's Super Shades and Smilex brand SPF 60,000,000 for sale today for the amazingly low price of just 5,000,000 dollars (US)!!! Special offer, ends doomsday!


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Shiver on February 06, 2006, 11:15:46 pm
Pakistan?
Shit.

Quote
Iran?
Trust me, they ain't gettin' any.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Death 999 on February 07, 2006, 05:42:18 pm
Oh, we in the states heard about it pretty quickly. I feel sorry for the embassy folks.

I understand that some of the Imams were going out in the streets trying to calm the people down, but it wasn't working. So who was working them up like that? I wonder if the Imams are going to find out and crack down ...


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: guesst on February 07, 2006, 07:55:48 pm
Since my original reply to this I have heard about it. My original post still stands.


Title: For Muhbombhead !!!
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 07, 2006, 09:25:41 pm
"So who was working them up like that? I wonder if the Imams are going to find out and crack down ..."

If there were really leaders that can just "work them up," then it seems they have become more powerful than the Imams or Mullahs. If anyone, they'll be the ones doing the cracking down on their "traitorous" relatively moderate predecessors.


"Since my original reply to this I have heard about it."

This has been in the headlines for many days in the US. Where do you get your news from, the Cartoon Network? :P


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on February 08, 2006, 02:51:59 am
Hello from Canada. Yes, we've heard about. It's been
around. No, no one here cares. We have a small
Islam population here. Now, if the papers had
printed offensive cartoons of Jesus, that would
have been another story. People would have
been pretty upset, especially those who don't
know where Europe is.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: JonoPorter on February 08, 2006, 04:16:54 am
Yea I donít really care and Iím not surprised something like this happened. It not like this kind of stuff has never happened before though. America still has (though some think it is extinct) a group of intolerant bigoted morons just like those protesters who use to go around demanding blood of anyone who crossed them (and usually got it).  They also cover their heads with cloth. Iím talking about the KKK. And Europe had the Spanish inquisition. Iím just glad the morons in the Middle East are in no position to impose their religious views upon us.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on February 08, 2006, 08:35:04 am
There is people in Canada that doesnt know where europe is?

Grown ups?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on February 09, 2006, 02:22:41 am
Sure there are. Some of them are college graduates.
There is no such thing as a lowest common denomintor
here.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: guesst on February 09, 2006, 05:58:59 am
Ya know what cracks me up? They make this drawing of muhamid with a missle for a turbne implying that Islam tends towards violence, and how does the Islamic community respond?

WITH VIOLENCE.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Halleck on February 09, 2006, 06:38:38 am
Indeed. People like these rioters are the ones that give Islam a bad name in the first place. Thus, the vicious cycle continues...


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Audal on February 09, 2006, 06:53:17 pm
The official position of the Freethought Communist Party regarding this issue is as follows:

The riots need to stop. While there would be no problem with a national apology, it should definitely not be required. And no government should enact any laws regarding expression in order to appease the rioters.

There is absolutely no reason for these riots. The rioters need to stop and ask themselves, "What would Mohammed do?". I am not religious, but I have read the Q'uran and I don't see this as justified based on my reading.

It is of interest to note that the cartoons responsible for the uproar are from Sept. 2005. The delayed reaction is because the cartoons were only recently brought to attention, when they would otherwise have faded into obscurity. Why is this? It would seem that Iran and Syria have decided that the time is right to start some trouble. Government propaganda broadcasts have been whipping the local population into a frenzy, and the message spreads.

If anything, these people are being sickly manipulated for political gain. Disgusting.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: communist on February 10, 2006, 08:42:24 am
And the requirement to become a communist is still that you must have less than 60 in IQ?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on February 10, 2006, 01:04:39 pm
Was that realy neccessary to say to him?



Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 10, 2006, 04:41:42 pm
"Was that realy neccessary to say to him?"

I didn't say that, but it seems to me that what was said was done out of the desire to state a fact (and maybe for some entertainment value.) Anyone who thinks outsourcing MORE power to their government will give them more freedom, needs a mental exam. Personal Power = Personal Freedom, Pinkos! (Okay, I just had to say that, I added BZ1 to my super game archive a short while ago.)

If there are any commie riots as a result of this thread, just remember that I am only a republisher.

Go Tribalism!


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on February 11, 2006, 01:49:17 am
There are a lot of different forms of Communism. Some
of them appear to work fairly well, especially
on the small scale. Taking random, uninformed
shots at people who support the communion
idea are telling us a lot more about themselves than
their targets.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 11, 2006, 06:15:26 am
"There are a lot of different forms of Communism."

I don't think so, from what I've read, Communism is opposite Capitalism, with Fascism and Socialism in between the two (Socialism being more capitalist and Fascism being closer to communism, if I recall.)


"Taking random, uninformed shots at people who support the communion idea. . ."

I personally am not taking shots at the "communion idea," whatever that phrase means to you. I probably would not attack "air theory" either, because that is just too vague- there are many theories one could have about air. I don't hate anything that's not every man, woman, and child for his/her/it/whatever's self. But from what I have seen of Communism, it just seems to trade a lesser evil for a greater one. The only system it really won against, were the old birth class systems, where you could not advance in rank or power, no matter how resourceful you were. Communism is mostly the same way, but at least then the people are treated maybe a little better in the beginning. The bottom line is though, compared to most systems, Communism puts the power (resources) in the hands of a few, and just expects them to be very moral with it. The people, without ownership of weapons, finances, land, food, etc., do not have that much they can do to correct a government that no longer aims to serve them.

There's not a whole lot that anyone can inform you of that you shouldn't already know. The success and failure of different concepts has been well illustrated throughout history. Communism over known time and space has not done real great, especially when compared to the significantly older Capitalism and Tribalism.

But then again, with 6 billion of us often emotional people out here, there might not be any good form of government that can really completely successfully handle our world's problems anymore. And of course, all the new natural disasters are uncontrollable.


"are telling us a lot more about themselves than their targets. "

Hopefully I didn't accidentally give away my social security number or anything. Blasted, capitalist identity thief pigs! :)


From Religion to Riots, Political Orders to Natural Disasters, you can't find any more doomsday in one thread!


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Krulle on February 11, 2006, 06:02:50 pm
Well, to say it Magritte style: here (http://www.johnandjohn.nl/write/cecinestpasmohammed.jpg).

Basically: just because someone draws a picture of some arab-looking guy with a moustache and a turban, it still is only a picture.
The problem is somewhere else:
In Europe, a lot of newspapers have started to censor themselves, just because it's topic is something about islam and/or near-east. It even went so far, that a childs-book author did not find someone who was willing to illustrate a childs book (about mohammeds life) (it became a very cute book, btw).
So, Jyllands-Posten published an article about free-speech and self-censorship, and asked over 40 caricaturists to draw something. Only 12 of them sent a drawing to JP (out of fear, the others did not answer the request). The article was about loosing the hard-earning right of freedom of speech out of fear for retaliation.
And the article was published in september '05.

All this fuss about cold coffee...

The cultural misunderstanding happens, because the people in the near-east countries cannot understand, that the governments cannot influence newspapers here.
For them, it is basics of life, that any newspaper must have everything they publish be sanctioned by the government.
There, a lot of misunderstandings happen.
One is, that the JP is owned by the government. To clarify: it is NOT owned by any political party or institution.

Freedom of speech is, what the JP wanted to discuss about. And the problems of fear-inflicted self-censorship. Nothing else, nothing less.

CU,
 Krulle


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Shiver on February 11, 2006, 08:21:16 pm
"Taking random, uninformed shots at people who support the communion idea. . ."

Sounds like you are. I pretty much agree that communism = teh stinkest turd, but you're hijacking the topic to get on a soapbox and ramble because someone hinted in one line of text that they were some weird variation of communist.


Title: Muslim Caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 11, 2006, 09:36:24 pm
"but you're hijacking the topic to get on a soapbox and ramble because someone hinted in one line of text that they were some weird variation of communist."

No. I didn't hijack the thread, a number of other posters started talking about communism after the muslim cartoon topic had mostly concluded. Then I semi seriously added to the new topic, since I thought it was funny that anyone would get offended at communism getting verbally attacked (since you know, the cold war has been over for a while.) Then I was accused of making uninformed shots, so I had to back up or "ramble" a little to try and describe where I was coming from.

But I don't mind getting out of the way of this thread's original topic, if there are those who wish to continue on the subject. So BOT- does anybody think there will be terrorism on european soil as a result of this cartoon? I think it would be unlikely, but then again, I never expected the French muslim riots, nor the current Muhbombhead ones.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on February 12, 2006, 09:27:27 pm
Now the government of Sweden recently closed the site of the swedish nationalist party. Obviously we dont have freedom of speech anymore!

I know that they are an extremist party, and even if I dont like their views im ready to fight for their rights to express them!

I party closing the internet site of another party! Thats SCARY!

They swedish government blamed this for beeing for the safety of their people.
(the nationalist party was going to show them pictures)

The same argument was used by the people who build the berlin wall...







Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on February 13, 2006, 04:26:46 am
Quote
(Socialism being more capitalist and Fascism being closer to communism, if I recall.)

Generally, socialism is considered a middle of the road approach,
being slightly "left wing". Fascism is extreme "right-wing" while
communism (as a form of government) is extreme left-wing.
The capitalist system is generally viewed as a traditional liberial
or right-wing concept.

Of course, the left/right scale is overly simplified. In practice, the
spectrum usually loops around, bringing extreme left or right
ideas closer together.

When I refered to different types of communism, I was trying to
point out there is a huge difference between Marx theory,
Stalin-ism, Lenin-ism and Mao-ism. These are all large scale,
government approaches to communism. Which, as you
stated, have largely failed. Smaller scale communism has been
more successful, but it's not something the western media
likes to talk about. As North Americans, we are, after all,
encouraged to be capitalists.

So, if we're going to talk about communism and the IQs of
people who like communism, perhaps we should narrow
our focus to a particular type/implementation of the idea.


Title: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 13, 2006, 05:01:36 am
"Now the government of Sweden recently closed the site of the swedish nationalist party. Obviously we dont have freedom of speech anymore!"

You'll have to fill us in on what the swedish nationalist party is and what their goals are/were. I wouldn't worry about it too much either way though, because sweden is a smaller nation, and thus easier to manage. Plus it is heavily tied in to the rest of Europe. I don't think it is in danger of going down too dark a road (wasn't it ranked one of the five best places to live in the world?)


"Smaller scale communism has been
more successful, but it's not something the western media
likes to talk about."

I wouldn't think so, the media being made up of capitalist organizations. I still think it beats state media. And of course there's always the internet.

I have heard bits about small scale communism, but hey, like I mentioned earlier, it is easy to run smaller, less powerful nations. Power corrupts. They would probably run better under a capitalist, functioning system, if history be any guide. But if it is small scale, why not just dump communism and go for tribalism. It has quite a track record.


My theory, is that having too much of something in one place leads to trouble. Too much power in one place and shit happens, too many people in one place and shit happens. Right now, there are a lot of people and power (technology) out there, more so than has ever been recorded in history. I think the riots that were the focus of this thread, display a symptom of this imbalance.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: staffyStar on February 13, 2006, 05:14:29 pm
yes actually the best place to live in :) Funny that someone outside of Sweden heard about that...

Now I even have the guts to admit to you Americans that our government is Socialistic....
And yes.... its a middle way.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Arne on February 13, 2006, 05:25:36 pm
Re: swedish party site
Yeah, you can't have some sort of arbitrary [these_guys_sucks_anyways] threshold value where freedom of speech ends.... like... oh, these guys get 7.892 on the we_don't_like_them scale, and 7.5 is the limit for freedom of speech... but the communist party only get 7.429, so they're okay!

I tried to get to the 'swedish security police' site (who shut down the party site) but it was down too, I wonder if that was just a coincidence or an attack.


In any way, this kind off censorship and right deprivement is like... bending over and failing to adress the real problem. This whole thing feels like some Trekkies going berserk over some Worf fanart where his forehead was drawn wrong, then the media suddenly has to be PC and sides with the Trekkies because their fictional character deserves respect too!



Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: staffyStar on February 13, 2006, 05:27:15 pm
kommunism 
(Everbody equal)
Cuba
Soviet union
North Korea

Socialism
(A little bit of giving to the poor)
Sweden
Denmark

Liberal
(Everybody should have equal possibilities in life)
Germany
Great Britain
Belgium
The Netherlands

Conservative
(The parents you have might be critical for how long you can live, and what kind of education you get.)
USA

Me myself is liberal. However I think both Socialism and Conservative is OK systems.
If I lived in the USA Im sure I would be a Conservative like u all. Because Im not an extremist.
The people that's liberal in  the US now would problaby be communists if they moved to europe. :)




Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 14, 2006, 01:13:26 am
"yes actually the best place to live in Funny that someone outside of Sweden heard about that..."

Yes, I remember reading about that in the economist (a non-north american capitalist pig newspaper :) .) I don't think any of the main security council nations were very high up there, and neither were many/any former imperials. I suppose living in a super power isn't as cool as some might believe.


"The people that's liberal in  the US now would probably be communists if they moved to europe."

I always thought (modern) europe tended to lean more left than the usa.


"kommunism (Everbody equal)"

Well, that's what they say anyway, but I think party members provide somewhat better treatment for themselves.


Would you like to join the *Party* and become a *Comrade*.
You are a *Silly Pig*, no more capitalist stories!


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on February 14, 2006, 09:26:06 am
yes well that's what I meant. At least thats what the people that like the ideology say about it. But of course you're right.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on February 14, 2006, 03:14:50 pm
kommunism 
(Everbody equal)
Cuba
Soviet union
North Korea

I'd like to take a moment to point out that Cuba is not
a communist country. Their nationalist movement resulted
in a more equality geared society, but they never went commie.

Canada, where I am, is socialist, but we're leaning more
toward a liberial/right-wing approach.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 14, 2006, 03:22:43 pm
Yea, I heard you just elected a more right wing prime minister.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Death 999 on February 14, 2006, 05:35:52 pm
Re: swedish party site
Yeah, you can't have some sort of arbitrary [these_guys_sucks_anyways] threshold value where freedom of speech ends.... like... oh, these guys get 7.892 on the we_don't_like_them scale, and 7.5 is the limit for freedom of speech... but the communist party only get 7.429, so they're okay!

Not all speech should be protected. If the Swedish nationalist web site was inciting violence, it it proper for it to have been shut down.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Arne on February 15, 2006, 10:26:33 am
Not all speech should be protected. If the Swedish nationalist web site was inciting violence, it it proper for it to have been shut down.

But in this case they posted a picture of Spock acting emotional and a couple of trekkies got upset about the mistreatment of their fictional character.

You can't treat the trekkies as if they're a force of nature without any free will, but then say the publisher of the offending Spock images have a free will and thus is the one to blame. Either both have a free will or none do.

You could of course say both are to blame, but then you're saying that it's illegal to slander a fictional character, and that would be dangerous. Then it would become illegal to draw pics of Xenu with a funny hat because "maybe Tom Cruise will totally freak out, again".  It would be to give in to the demands of terrorists, otherwise you're inciting their violence!

Nor can you adapt an entire society after the (probably conflicting) wishes of various religious groups. For example, imagine a religion where they believe "Muhammed must be drawn every day, or else we go postal". Who are you going to satisfy then?


Inciting violence would be something along the lines of "Hey trekkies, you suck, come and bomb us!" not posting an image of a happy Spock, which could very well have been done because the image was of public intrest.

I do realize the cartoons were intended to tease, but so was Piss-Christ and TONS of art. Are you going to make special laws for the groups that tend to get more upset than the others?


Edit: It seems the ISP was merely "recommended" to shut down the site, whatever that means.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on February 15, 2006, 01:49:39 pm
Yea, I heard you just elected a more right wing prime minister.

In a matter of speaking. The Conservative party got a minority
of the votes (about 1/3) from the voting population. About 40%
voted. So it's a minority of a minority party. Our government
is a bit backward that way. More people voted against the
Conservative party than for it. More people chose not
to vote rather than vote for them, yet they won. What
a system.

But, yes, Canada is now an offical red neck country.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 15, 2006, 04:14:28 pm
"You can't treat the trekkies as if they're a force of nature without any free will, but then say the publisher of the offending Spock images have a free will and thus is the one to blame. Either both have a free will or none do."

Yea, it may be too easy to just blame whatever the "source" is that is "inciting" a conflict. People (even stupid ones) are not natural phenomenon, if they riot, they are responsible. What about sports riots? Should the stadiums or teams be held accountable?


"Then it would become illegal to draw pics of Xenu with a funny hat because "maybe Tom Cruise will totally freak out, again"."

Slightly off topic:

http://tcruiseko.ytmnd.com/


"It would be to give in to the demands of terrorists, otherwise you're inciting their violence!"

Two subway cars were bombed in downtown stockholm today, an act authorities believe to be the work of the United Federations of Planets Underground. Two of the red shirted culprits were shot dead as they tried to flee the scene, but the senior officers are said to have escaped using a phased antimatter modulated tachyon plasmatic pulse transporter.


"posting an image of a happy Spock, which could very well have been done because the image was of public intrest."

I was like twelve when I watched through TOS, but wasn't spock happy in a number of episodes, including one where he's not drugged up or anything but is just happy and surprised to see kirk is alive (forgot the details of that episode, but I think he somehow felt or was semi responsible.)


"The Conservative party got a minority
of the votes (about 1/3) from the voting population. About 40%
voted. So it's a minority of a minority party. Our government
is a bit backward that way."

Well, the USA only has two real parties and yet each only ever wins on a small percentage of citizen's votes. Most don't vote at all. This of course, is no shock to us. Our very colonial independence was supported by only one third of the populace, opposed to a third that were loyalist to Britain and another third that just didn't give a damn either way.


"But, yes, Canada is now an offical red neck country."

Hehe, welcome to Jesus Land !


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Matticus on February 16, 2006, 12:31:23 am
Not all speech should be protected.
Do you mean in the US? What are you basing this on? I'm asking because it seems to directly contradict the text of the First Amendment. Perhaps you can point out to me where it says free speech is good except for when it might hurt or offend people. I mean, I'm reviewing the text over and over again and I just can't find that part, please advise.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Arne on February 16, 2006, 08:24:34 pm
Some random article on inciting violence (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fear-that-law-changes-will-curb-free-speech/2005/09/08/1125772641106.html). I'm not sure what the legal status is in the US or Sweden.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Death 999 on February 16, 2006, 09:26:34 pm
Not all speech should be protected.
Do you mean in the US? What are you basing this on? I'm asking because it seems to directly contradict the text of the First Amendment. Perhaps you can point out to me where it says free speech is good except for when it might hurt or offend people. I mean, I'm reviewing the text over and over again and I just can't find that part, please advise.

OMG your sarcasm has cut me to the quick!  ::)

Seriously, the classic example is yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded space with limited access to exits.
Another kind of non-protected speech is false advertisement. Libel/slander, too. Oh, and how about impersonating a police officer, lawyer, doctor, public accountant, officer of the armed forces, etc.? Death threats are sometimes considered a form of assault. Last superbowl resulted in fines for something that could conceivably have been construed as free speech.


I am not saying that THESE CARTOONS should not be protected speech, nor even that the default setting for speech should not be 'permitted', just pointing out that not ALL speech unquestioningly gets protected.

Oh, and BTW: The US constitution has little to do with what goes on in Sweden.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Novus on February 16, 2006, 09:27:44 pm
Not all speech should be protected.
Do you mean in the US? What are you basing this on? I'm asking because it seems to directly contradict the text of the First Amendment. Perhaps you can point out to me where it says free speech is good except for when it might hurt or offend people. I mean, I'm reviewing the text over and over again and I just can't find that part, please advise.
Just because a patch to the constitution of some country somewhere protects the right to incite lynch mobs (and I'm not sure it does that), it doesn't mean that it's a good idea nor that it's allowed. I'm neither a lawyer nor from Sweden, but as far as I can tell, inciting violence is explicitly forbidden by Swedish law (Brottsbalk (1962:700), 16. kap.) and we were talking about Swedish nationalists here.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on February 17, 2006, 11:41:47 pm
I think it's probably safe to assume that
freedom of speech doesn't translate to mean,
exactly, say anything you want. I think it was
designed and intended to allow people to
protest against their boss/government/culture
without being sent to jail or killed. As was already
pointed out, yelling "fire" in a theature or threating
to kill someone (in Canada) is forbotten. However, I
can stand on the corner and say "I don't like the way
our Prime Minister is running the country."

Freedom to say what you wish is a right which is
often pushed too far under the idea that "freedom"
gives one the right to do anything they wish.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 18, 2006, 01:56:12 am
Well, then the definition of "Freedom of Speech" can pretty much mean anything (or nothing.) Basically, the phrase "Freedom of Speech" instead of meaning "you're free to say what you want" just means "you're free to say what you want unless it is illegal or else we throw you in the fun house."

That's just stupid. Obviously, even in the most rigid societies, there are always things for you to say that are not illegal. So "Freedom of Speech" means nothing more than "you can freely say a few more things that you wouldn't be able to say someplace else while staying out of jail."

I'm not saying you should be able to say whatever you want, just that you shouldn't be able to claim you provide "Freedom of Speech" if you're not really doing that. Perhaps it should be called something like "Freedom to verbally bash the government."

BTW, I'd prefer that somebody warns me by saying "I'm gonna kill ya," thus giving me the opportunity to kick the living shit out of him before he tries to kill me. I really hate the getting killed part a lot more than the threat.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Amscray on February 18, 2006, 02:58:20 am
Do you mean in the US? What are you basing this on? I'm asking because it seems to directly contradict the text of the First Amendment. Perhaps you can point out to me where it says free speech is good except for when it might hurt or offend people. I mean, I'm reviewing the text over and over again and I just can't find that part, please advise.

Would it help to provide you with citations to Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment? 

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the Supreme Court held:

Quote
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words ó those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Id. at 571-72.  In Chaplinsky the court held that calling a police officer a "goddamn racketeer" constituted fighting words.  FWIW, the doctrine has never been applied since.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Court held that the state can forbid advocacy of violence "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Id. at 447.

The "intentional infliction of emotional distress," by words, can be made tortious by the state so long as:

(1) The words are false, if the victim is not a public figure and it is not a matter of public concern.
(2) The words are false and it was at least negligent to say them, if the victim is not a public figure and it *is* a matter of public concern.
(3) The words are false and the speaker knew they were false or recklessly disregarded the truth in saying them, if the victim is a public figure.

See generally Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).  "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" requires that the speaker knowingly say something outside the bounds of decency, etc.

In Watts v. United States, 394 US 705 (1969), the Court held that "true threats" are not protected by the Constitution.

So, there are a few areas in which speech is restricted "when it might hurt or offend people."  Don't get me wrong, it's pretty clear that the cartoons are totally and entirely protected under the First Amendment for purposes of American law.  European countries have a lot more restrictions, though, so I can't opine.  I've written elsewhere on what I think about the cartoons, but basically I think it's pretty clear that the riots have little or nothing to do with the cartoons (which are just a pretext), that kowtowing to the mob is a terrible idea for the West, that offending people for the sake of offending them is bad, that however it might not be a bad idea for the West to demonstrate that outrageous calumnies are a two-way street, and if Muslim nations want to disparage Jews, Christians, Europeans, and Americans, they should be able to take it back, etc.  But all that aside, you're just wrong on the constitutional law point, and, being somewhat qualified to correct you (J.D., Harvard, magna cum laude, and fancy clerkships), I figured I should point it out.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Halleck on February 21, 2006, 05:03:53 am
In matters of freedom and free speech, I tend to agree with the famous quote, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." The problem with this whole cartoon fiasco is- where does the other man's nose begin, and who gets to decide?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: HalfShadow on February 21, 2006, 05:46:25 am
I was like twelve when I watched through TOS, but wasn't spock happy in a number of episodes, including one where he's not drugged up or anything but is just happy and surprised to see kirk is alive (forgot the details of that episode, but I think he somehow felt or was semi responsible.)

Amok Time. Spock thought he'd killed Kirk. McCoy just drugged him so he'd drop after a while and it'd look like Spock killed him.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on February 22, 2006, 05:54:57 pm
It's very interesting if you read the topic and the last message (well not last anymore) Amasing how subjects can change like that is't it? Well it doesnt matter to me since I now know what i wanted to know  ;D


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Shiver on February 22, 2006, 11:37:06 pm
Oh great. Now they've done it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AkjZMKAihsw.h0I8qDQGimGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Quote
Protesters in Najaf, Kut and Baghdad's Shiite slum of Sadr City also marched through the streets by the thousands, many shouting anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans and burning those nations' flags.

Notice the typical muslim response to something neither we nor Israel were responsible for. Whoever's making flags out in the middle east must be on the verge of eclipsing Bill Gates at this point.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on February 23, 2006, 12:45:57 am
That's one thing I often wonder about. If many of these
people are really so oppressed and have trouble buying
food, where do they buy all the $%%^! flags? I have
to look around to find a store that sells _my_ flag. I don't
think I could find a store in this city that would sell
a flag for a middle east, European or Asian country.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 23, 2006, 01:15:26 am
"If many of these people are really so oppressed and have trouble buying food, where do they buy all the $%%^! flags?"

You just buy in bulk. :)


"Notice the typical muslim response to something neither we nor Israel were responsible for."

"Hello, I am Abdullah Al Muhammed, owner of Flammable Flags 'R Us of Mecca, and I am here to bring you this amazing offer, Ala willing. We have all had one of those days when a great insult to the glories of Islam appears on Al Jazeera, but when we look in our burnable flag closet, there are no flags of the right nationallity to burn! Well not anymore, because no matter what part of the west offends the great unillustratible profit muhammed, you'll have flags to set ablaze! Using the latest in heavenly guidance, we at Flammable Flags have created the ultimate in flag torching- The American/Israeli dual high burner. On one side is printed the great satan, and on the other is the six pointed abomination. Each kit comes with sixty ounces of quick start lighter fluid. The first one hundred callers will get a free, yes FREE, detonation jacket- great for those weekend excursions to martyrdom and paradise!"


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: staffystar on February 23, 2006, 09:47:22 am
When the average muslim look at europe and america they just see one big nation that's against islam. And with all right. Because when I look at the muslim countries I only see one big muslim extremist country. Yes I know that's not a very nice thing to say, but thats sadly how I feel right now. Im only beeing honst. I belive more in talking about conflicts then trying to ignore them,


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Death 999 on February 23, 2006, 08:35:17 pm
I don't think I could find a store in this city that would sell a flag for a middle east, European or Asian country.

Except the Libyan flag and the flag of Dubai, you could probably find those :)

However, I can see what they're getting at with burning OUR flag over the mosque bombings: we went in and destabilized the place, so we as occupiers are supposed to be keeping the peace, but we are failing. if it hadn't been for the US, that mosque and many many people would still be whole.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela_stuck_outside on February 23, 2006, 10:54:22 pm
However, I can see what they're getting at with burning OUR flag over the mosque bombings: we went in and destabilized the place, so we as occupiers are supposed to be keeping the peace, but we are failing. if it hadn't been for the US, that mosque and many many people would still be whole.

I see your point, but I disagree in principle. While I can understand muslims being angry with Denmark because a danish  paper printed offensive comics1, I see little logic in blaming the US for sunni extremists blowing up shiite shrines. Sure, as many of us stated from the beginning, Iraq has become very unstable. Sure, if the US ahd not gone in none of this would be happening2. However, any extremist group that makes the choice to blow up a civilian building is responsible for their own actions. The US destabilized the area, but  "the Sunni Whatever Liberation" chose to blow up a shrine important to their faith. I'd love to see demonstrations all over the arab world against the actual perpetrators of this atrocious act of sacrilege, rather than blaming "the usual guys that are obviously responsible for every bad thing that happens"TM

1As has been stated earleir, the right to demonstrate, and protest, not to burn embassies and go berserk.

2This however isn't really the issue at debate here. If anyone really wants to flog this dead horse, I recommend they first dig up old threads pertaining to the subject and read through them, and then create a new thread where any willing participants can debate if it was wise or not to enter Iraq, and wether it was sound/right/good/whatever.

OT, when I try to log in the board tells me that the security system has been revamped, and then refuses to let me enter. Why is this?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 24, 2006, 04:40:01 am
"OT, when I try to log in the board tells me that the security system has been revamped, and then refuses to let me enter. Why is this?"

Obviously, since you are a grave security threat to this board and all users thereof. :)

Welcome back, by the way.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Death 999 on February 24, 2006, 05:02:55 pm
Hey, Luki!

I didn't say I AGREE. I said that I can see where they're coming from.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: JonoPorter on February 27, 2006, 09:13:09 am
They should stop burning flags and start burning themselves in protest. It would definitely get the attention of the media.
I can see the headlines now:

Quote
Protester lights himself on fire in protest!
Guard mistakes flaming protester for suicide bomber and shoots him!

Would he qualify for the large number of virgins they claim a martyr gets?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on February 27, 2006, 09:12:38 pm
LOlLsilly protesters should burn themselves!

Yes, well done. Really added another dimension to the whole "understanding another culture" concept there.

Quote

Hey, Luki!

I didn't say I AGREE. I said that I can see where they're coming from.

What's up D-man? Long time no see.

Sorry, my misread. Still, I can't even stretch far enough to see where they are coming from. I mean, sure, there are a LOT of things in Iraq that you can (mindset willing) blame the americans for.  Tons of stuff really.  But, anti-american groups that bomb muslim targets? Not really, I don't even get a faintest connection there.

While were on the subject though, I have  to give full props to the finnish muslim community. Not only did they arrange a peaceful protest against Denmark because of the caricatures, they also arranged a peaceful protest against al-Quaida and the likes after the recent mosque bombing. That's what I call consistency. It really mirrors a double standard to burn danish flags when JP offends your religion, yet not move a muscle when someone blows up one fo your holiest shrines.

Quote
Obviously, since you are a grave security threat to this board and all users thereof. Smiley

Welcome back, by the way.

Apparently, my password has changed since I was here last. which is fairly odd. Still, I managed to guess it.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: JonoPorter on February 27, 2006, 11:11:53 pm
LOlLsilly protesters should burn themselves!

Yes, well done. Really added another dimension to the whole "understanding another culture" concept there.
Congratulations! You've leveled up in your misquoting skill.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on February 28, 2006, 07:56:20 am
Paraphrasing. And unless you want to pretend that your statement  was meant as a serious suggestion I'd say my quote catches the spirit of your message quite well.

Quote
Except the Libyan flag and the flag of Dubai, you could probably find those

I'm probably missing something here, but why those?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: JonoPorter on February 28, 2006, 08:26:10 am
Paraphrasing.
So thatís what they are calling misquoting now?

Seriously why would I want to understand the thought process of people who automatically blame Israel and the west for anything and everything?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on February 28, 2006, 08:38:58 am
Quote
Paraphrasing is the act in which a statement or remark is explained in other words or another way ó as to clarify the meaning, or when a direct quotation is unavailable. Often, a paraphrase might substitute a euphemism for an actual statement, in order to avoid offense. As with a quotation, a paraphrase is introduced by a verbum dicendi, or disclaimer.

I'll concede that I didn't specifically state I was paraphrasing (no disclaimer), but as your post was right above mine, I really didn't think there was any risk someone would miss the fact that I wasn't using your exact words.  Tell you what, if someone does come in and misinterpret it that way, I'll stick up for you and explain that i misquoted you. Satisfied?

Quote
Seriously why would I want to understand the thought process of people who automatically blame Israel and the west for anything and everything?

Er..To know your enemy? To avoid broad generalizations? To foster understanding and peace? To find a solution?

You do realize that you could just as well be a muslim board member going "Seriously, why would I want to understand the thought processes of people who automatically blame my religion and geographic location for anything and everything?"

While nothing justifies violent attacks on embassies and suchlike, that doesn't mean that you can automatically assume that someone burning a flag is a violent embassiepillager. Unless I'm misinformed, people even burn flags in the US.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 28, 2006, 05:03:52 pm
(Middle Eastern violence pauses, as the long awaited return of both Bioslayer and Lukipela to the same dimension and forum sets the true stage for Armageddon.)


"Er..To know your enemy?"

Perhaps with a mutual and strict isolationist policy, the two sides (however you define them) wouldn't have to be enemies.


"To avoid broad generalizations?"

People who make broad generalizations about this, might be doing so because of the seeming broad scale of the very heated protesting (which would not be a bad thing necessarily, if it was not over cartoons, especially since they were made by Europeans, not Israelis or Americans.)


"To foster understanding and peace? To find a solution?"

These might just be the values of a minority. To be very general about it, one can very easily have total freedom and total peace and still be entirely miserable. This can apply to groups of people of like mind as well, be they religions, nations, radical fringe groups, retro gamers, etc.


"less I'm misinformed, people even burn flags in the US."

Yes, our own flag most of the time that it happens.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on February 28, 2006, 05:44:44 pm
(Middle Eastern violence pauses, as the long awaited return of both Bioslayer and Lukipela to the same dimension and forum sets the true stage for Armageddon.)

Armageddon? It's doubtful. Unless memory fails me, me and Bio have been on opposite sides of arguments before, and the world is still spinning. Just because you disagree with someone on certain issues doesn't mean you feel the need to be bloody enemies. Or so I would assume.

Quote
Perhaps with a mutual and strict isolationist policy, the two sides (however you define them) wouldn't have to be enemies.

The problem is that the west can't isolate itself, we need the oil. Also, isolation hasn't worked very well for any group that has tried it (US, China, Japan). You can't hide from the world.

Quote
People who make broad generalizations about this, might be doing so because of the seeming broad scale of the very heated protesting (which would not be a bad thing necessarily, if it was not over cartoons, especially since they were made by Europeans, not Israelis or Americans.)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. The protest were against Denmark, Norway, Austria and others to begin with. The demonstrations against the mosque bombing were against the US (which is completely illogical). Also, because something seems one way doesn't mean it's wise to assume it is so. I'm sure people hwo's only picture of the US is formed through sitcoms would have a pretty screwed up idea of how the states work. Just because it seems like a general thing doesn't mean it is. Same goes fro demonstrations. Not everyone demonstarted, and not all demonstrations became violent. And not all violent demonstartaions were necessarily really about cartoons or politics.

Quote
These might just be the values of a minority. To be very general about it, one can very easily have total freedom and total peace and still be entirely miserable. This can apply to groups of people of like mind as well, be they religions, nations, radical fringe groups, retro gamers, etc.

Again, I'm not sure what context this has to what you quote from me. sound principle though.

Quote
Yes, our own flag most of the time that it happens.

I've never quite gotten the jist behind burning any flag. When all is said and done, it's just a piece of fabric.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Death 999 on February 28, 2006, 05:51:01 pm
(Middle Eastern violence pauses, as the long awaited return of both Bioslayer and Lukipela to the same dimension and forum sets the true stage for Armageddon.)

Armageddon? It's doubtful. Unless memory fails me, me and Bio have been on opposite sides of arguments before, and the world is still spinning. Just because you disagree with someone on certain issues doesn't mean you feel the need to be bloody enemies. Or so I would assume.

I think it's just that you've been away for a while. He didn't mention which side you were on.

Quote
Yes, our own flag most of the time that it happens.

I've never quite gotten the jist behind burning any flag. When all is said and done, it's just a piece of fabric.

It's still extremely rare. Like, happens once every couple years somewhere in the country rare. Except for flag disposal. Burning the flag is what you're supposed to do with it when it's too worn out to fly.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 28, 2006, 06:44:09 pm
"The problem is that the west can't isolate itself, we need the oil."

Not exactly, we just prefer oil when it comes at a good price. It is no longer at a good price, so we now look towards getting our juice from grains. If we lose our addiction to oil, then the middle east will lose its one great supply of income, perhaps resulting in permanent poverty, until maybe the ice age makes the deserts green again.


"You can't hide from the world."

You can but it will hurt you some if you isolate from the Entire world.


"I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here."

The cartoon riots seemed to cover a very large area, many nations, and many people. This, plus the fact that is was about cartoons, plus the fact that they were drawn by Europeans who have usually stuck up for muslims, equals a lot of shock to secularists and other religions in the "west," however you define it. (Is Russia, Israel, or India the "West"?)


"Again, I'm not sure what context this has to what you quote from me."

You were talking about peace and a solution. I was saying that most people on all sides do not consider that to be a very high priority. Most would consider peace a respit before going back to accomplishing their long term goals (which often are not good for the other guy.)


"I've never quite gotten the jist behind burning any flag. When all is said and done, it's just a piece of fabric."

Nobody cares about that, but angry flag burning is sort of a prelude or symbol of coming violence against that nation. It is often a visual way of saying "I hate you, now die!"


"I think it's just that you've been away for a while. He didn't mention which side you were on."

You mean good or evil? The evil side is whichever you are not, and afterwards, whoever didn't survive. But I was thinking more of the four armies and massive destruction than good and bad. And of course, I was joking (I didn't think an emoticon was necessary.) And I don't mean to interfere either. A good forum battle that doesn't pit the world against myself, can add some life to an off topic section.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on February 28, 2006, 07:24:32 pm
Quote
Not exactly, we just prefer oil when it comes at a good price. It is no longer at a good price, so we now look towards getting our juice from grains. If we lose our addiction to oil, then the middle east will lose its one great supply of income, perhaps resulting in permanent poverty, until maybe the ice age makes the deserts green again.

I tihkn you are oversimplifying things a bit here. In principle I agree with you. Oil will be phased out, and when that day comes, the Middle east will lose all of it's leverage on the world, and recede to a poor underdeveloped region. But it's not like this shift is going to happen very quickly. Replacing oil in all of our consumer products, from fuel to plastics and lubricants, and in all industrial processes will take time and demand a massive refurbishment of the industrialized world. Until then, we are in fact dependent on the oil. It will also demand some technology that isn't really feasible yet. This is a problem that needs to be solved anyhow, but we're still a bit off. sure, in a century people will look back and shake their heads in wonder, but it's not like we can snap our fingers, isolate us and leave the rest of the world be right now.

Quote
You can but it will hurt you some if you isolate from the Entire world.

Globalisation brings the world much closer than you might like DS. Isolating ourselves at this stage (even after discovering an alternative to oil) is no easy feat.

Quote
The cartoon riots seemed to cover a very large area, many nations, and many people. This, plus the fact that is was about cartoons, plus the fact that they were drawn by Europeans who have usually stuck up for muslims, equals a lot of shock to secularists and other religions in the "west," however you define it. (Is Russia, Israel, or India the "West"?)

You keep saying "just cartoons". Different things matter differently to different people. Just because you find it silly doesn't mean everyone does. Just the same way that some might find abortion a unimportant subject, while others are ready to do battle over it. Don't underestimate what things can set people off. Demonstrating against something you dislike is very much "freedom of speech", as long as protests aren't violent. As I said earlier though, the riots didn't seem to have that much to do with the actual cartoons anyhow.

Quote
You were talking about peace and a solution. I was saying that most people on all sides do not consider that to be a very high priority. Most would consider peace a respit before going back to accomplishing their long term goals (which often are not good for the other guy.)

Is this really what you believe? I would be more inclined that most regular people, given the chance, would prefer to just live out their lives in peace and quiet.

Quote
A good forum battle that doesn't pit the world against myself, can add some life to an off topic section.

Just wait and see, you usually get yourself involved anyhow. For the record though, you did well on the whole gay debate ;)


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on February 28, 2006, 08:03:11 pm
I know things don't happen overnight, I'm not saying they do. Which is why peace on this issue is probably not real close at hand.


"Globalisation brings the world much closer than you might like DS."

I can't say that I'm a supporter of globalization, no. Too much dependence often leads to trouble. What do you think of it?


"Just the same way that some might find abortion a unimportant subject, while others are ready to do battle over it."

Abortion deals with lives, that I can understand. But cartoons? Sticks-and-Stones people, don't sweat it. If everyone were not so quick to be offended, how many conflicts like these could be prevented do you think?


"Is this really what you believe? I would be more inclined that most regular people, given the chance, would prefer to just live out their lives in peace and quiet."

Food, vengeance, money, relationships, survival, victory, heaven, games, gods, etc. These can all be priorities over peace. Peace is the paramount goal for a minority of people. But yes many would like peace, especially if it comes from their enemies being dust. :)


"Just wait and see, you usually get yourself involved anyhow. For the record though, you did well on the whole gay debate."

Aye, it is a curse. I don't mean to start major debates, but on some forums people get more upset about things than on others. Which in real life, is why we have lots of Wars! :)


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: JonoPorter on February 28, 2006, 10:07:30 pm
You know America could be an exporter of oil if the stupid ignorant environmentalist would stop being obstructionist. We have enough oil in America to put the Middle East to shame. We just are not allowed to drill it because environmentalists file frivolous law suites to stop anything that could be considered progress and people like senator Kerry who filibuster any thing related to this to death.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 01, 2006, 04:19:18 am
The problem is not drilling on parks, it is that oil companies often don't do so in a responsible way. Instead of Interstel, you often end up with Weyland-Yutani and Crimson Corporation leveling parks and dumping shit all over the place in the effort to out compete each other and send unholy profits to their top levels. If they maintained more reliable reputations, oil companies could theoretically mine without a major snafu. But they can't control themselves, so drilling only really takes place in deserts, on a large scale.

Another major bottle neck, is Russia's inability to keep its oil pirates under control. With proper development, their wells might out compete peaking saudi wells, regulated US wells, and the crumy Canadian oil rocks.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: JonoPorter on March 01, 2006, 05:29:40 am
So where did the situation you describe happen and when?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Death 999 on March 01, 2006, 03:58:25 pm
We have enough oil in America to put the Middle East to shame.

This, I have not heard. Where do we keep all of this oil? So far as I know, almost all of our oil reserves are in the form of oil shale, which is really awkward and expensive and slow to process.

As for ANWR, there isn't that much there.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 01, 2006, 04:08:13 pm
Well for starters, the oil tanker spills don't make real great press. Accidents happen, but with better ships, and safer but slower routes, these might have been avoidable. When the massive environmental damage this sort of thing causes makes the headlines, people lose trust in oil companies' competence or trustworthiness.

But I do think they could safely drill in alaska and other places, if they were careful and invested the resources into it. That would include setting aside funds to remove everything that they put there, once the oil is tapped out to a certain point where it no longer very profitable.


"As for ANWR, there isn't that much there."

I've heard that it only provides a years' worth of national full-out usage before it is really depleted. You almost think it should be preserved as a last resort for security reasons, though building the infrastructure up there would take a while.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on March 01, 2006, 08:02:04 pm
I can't say that I'm a supporter of globalization, no. Too much dependence often leads to trouble. What do you think of it?

I tihnk that uncontrolled globalization is a dangerous thing. Because of the  socioeconomical differences between countries and continents, wild globalization coupled with capitalism is troublesome to say the least. It gives you sweatshops instead of equal opportunity. Howver, in the long run it is really the only way to go. The world is much more tightly integrated than it was fifty years ago, so much that no single (industrial) country is anywhere near independent, resource-, productioncapacity-, or economicswise. We need eachother. And of course, ther's always the futture to look towards. space exploration, world peace, viable ecological enrgypolitics, these are all things that no country can do on their own. So we do need globalization. As I said, countrys that isolate themselves often end up regretting it. the same is probably true on a larger scale.

Quote
Abortion deals with lives, that I can understand. But cartoons? Sticks-and-Stones people, don't sweat it. If everyone were not so quick to be offended, how many conflicts like these could be prevented do you think?

To be technical, abortion deals with souls. You kill a lot of living cells everytime you pleasure yourself, and we kill lots of animals with no thought regarding to the morality of their situation. Abortion is conencted to morality and religion. Still, maybe it was a bad example. The problem with a discussion liek this is, there are no holy things in the western world. Well, maybe freedom of speech. Everyone seems to be up in arms about that, even though it's just a flawed concept.

Quote
Food, vengeance, money, relationships, survival, victory, heaven, games, gods, etc. These can all be priorities over peace. Peace is the paramount goal for a minority of people. But yes many would like peace, especially if it comes from their enemies being dust. :)

I think we'll just agree to disagree then. I believe that msot (not all) people wouuld prefer to just live their lifes in peace, ratehr than turn around and make up an enemy. Maybe I'm just naive.

As fotr the oil thing, maybe someone should open another topic to discuss that in? unless the original thread creator feels alright with this hijack?


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 01, 2006, 10:28:37 pm
"The world is much more tightly integrated than it was fifty years ago, so much that no single (industrial) country is anywhere near independent,"

Probably true, but that doesn't mean that with some time and careful restructuring, this could be reversed (given the motivation.)


"And of course, ther's always the futture to look towards. space exploration, world peace, viable ecological enrgypolitics, these are all things that no country can do on their own."

You're a treky? :)

Seriously though, I think it would be a lot safer if people didn't keep tying all these things together. If you built a powerful world government, you could (while gaining peace) give away the freedoms that most people today would consider to be their rights. Every super power in history has pretty much turned toward being a little oppressive. Power corrupts. If history is any guide, a world government of the future would be no peaceful federation of planets. The UN looks like a good example of peaceful, benevolent world government, because it is not, nor does it carry any real power. The burden and control of it rests on the security council. Why bother corrupting something that has no muscle anyway.


"To be technical, abortion deals with souls."

Well, technical for us maybe, but the scientific community probably would not agree on that. And I don't think religions completely understand the abortion issue, so I wouldn't want to weight the arguement to much towards unproven beliefs.

What I do understand though, from a more reason oriented approach, is that while early on you are dealing with simple cell clusters, you eventually end up with a human baby that is not yet outside. The idea that he/she is not sentient until the head or whatever has left the mother makes no sense to me. So murder or not, at that late stage, it is killing a child. And I can see how that would upset people. Just as many people don't see the horrors of war on their TV, they don't see this kind of death either.

But don't get me wrong, I know that both war and abortion, meat eating (I only eat seafood) all have their place, along with volcanos and the tsunamies they sometimes cause, hurricanes, wildfires, etc. Just don't gloss over them, they exist and they are part of this world and part of any reaonable morale guide you wish to form.

Damn, no one goes off topic like me. :)


"The problem with a discussion liek this is, there are no holy things in the western world."

Then lets expect this from those we deal with. They can create counter cartoons that attack jesus, the holocaust, and everything else that they were planning to do in retaliation. Just don't use violence in return for cartoons, unless peace and/or unity are not what you seek.


"Well, maybe freedom of speech. Everyone seems to be up in arms about that, even though it's just a flawed concept."

Agreed, there are plenty of things we can't say despite the great "freedom of speech" that we are supposed to possess. I learned the hard way. :(


"I think we'll just agree to disagree then. I believe that msot (not all) people wouuld prefer to just live their lifes in peace, ratehr than turn around and make up an enemy."

That's fine, but don't get me wrong- I don't think most people want war for war's sake. They just have things that sometimes they can get through war and sometimes they can get through during peace. I'm just saying it is not a simple equation.


"unless the original thread creator feels alright with this hijack?"

Well, he didn't mind a debate on the true definition of "paraphrasing" ;).

Seriously though, I don't want to take over a thread. If StaffyStar wants me to get back on topic, then that is what I will do. (Though staying there will be the hard part.) :)


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 02, 2006, 12:35:35 am
BTW, having unintentionally come over issues like evil world governments, souls, and abortion, I'd just like to state that I am an agnostic. I have no real religious agenda as I have no gods or profits, save my super natural cat who is this world's only glimmer of light, in a world of evil sinners! :)


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: JonoPorter on March 02, 2006, 02:52:28 am
Oil spills are bad, but they donít do any permanent damage, just like forest fires.

I agree that abortion is about murder and when does it become illegal. It also deals with whole ďME ME MEĒ and entitlement culture that has sprung up.

would your cat be related to this cat?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/05/03 (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/05/03)



Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 02, 2006, 04:30:55 am
AHHH! You have illustrated the GREAT CAT!!!

Now you must die- your eternal soul burned to ashes over the fires of universal suffering! But first, I and the followers of Catrianity must burn your flag, your embassies, and. . .um. . .the flag of Monico, in protest.


"ME ME MEĒ and entitlement culture that has sprung up."

It is quickly evolving into an "EAT EAT EAT" culture in the US.


On abortion, I'm not going to pass judgement by calling it "murder," just that if you support abortion regardless of the stage it takes place (IOW, even when it is a baby that can be born and cry, and that suffers fear and pain when injured) don't lecture on the evils of capital punishment or war. The choice is yours, but you can't have it both ways.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on March 03, 2006, 11:53:42 am
Wow, we are so OT it's not even funny. Still, unless Staffy wishes us to resume this in another thread, I'll just go ahead.

Probably true, but that doesn't mean that with some time and careful restructuring, this could be reversed (given the motivation.)

Mayhap so, but that restructuring would probably mean a drastic cut in living standards and technology. And since it'd lead to units that are self-dependent it might not be the best thing to do. A lot of cultures have come crashing down after exhausting some vital resource, even some that seemed inexhaustible.

Quote
You're a treky? :)

Not really. I just realise the fact that the Earth isn't a very hospitable place. Sooner or later another ice age, or a meteor will arrive. We might survive it, we might not. And even if we survive the first, there is no guarantee we will survive the second. Even if we do, natural resources will grow slimmer with the years, eventually forcing us to recede to low-tech huts and sit around and wait for the sun to go "boom". I'd much rather our entire history meant a little bit more than just "stupid apes who got themselves killed". And any attempt to get off this godforsaken rock will need a LOT of resources and coordination. More than any one country can sustain in the long run.


Quote
Seriously though, I think it would be a lot safer if people didn't keep tying all these things together. If you built a powerful world government, you could (while gaining peace) give away the freedoms that most people today would consider to be their rights. Every super power in history has pretty much turned toward being a little oppressive. Power corrupts. If history is any guide, a world government of the future would be no peaceful federation of planets. The UN looks like a good example of peaceful, benevolent world government, because it is not, nor does it carry any real power. The burden and control of it rests on the security council. Why bother corrupting something that has no muscle anyway.

What freedoms would you have to give away if your goverment controlled not only your country, but all other countries? Power does corrupt, but the idea with republics and democracy is to limit the power any one person can have. With that reasoning,  the US should be thoroughly corrupt and supremely opressive, just because China and Russia are.

Quote
Well, technical for us maybe, but the scientific community probably would not agree on that. And I don't think religions completely understand the abortion issue, so I wouldn't want to weight the arguement to much towards unproven beliefs.

What I do understand though, from a more reason oriented approach, is that while early on you are dealing with simple cell clusters, you eventually end up with a human baby that is not yet outside. The idea that he/she is not sentient until the head or whatever has left the mother makes no sense to me. So murder or not, at that late stage, it is killing a child. And I can see how that would upset people. Just as many people don't see the horrors of war on their TV, they don't see this kind of death either.

And there you just made a moral call, wether you are an atheist or not. I mentioned earlier on that we kill animals every day1. Yet for most humans killing an animal and killing a human are completely diffrent thing. On a biological level, we all have extremly similar makeup. While you can debate how sentient animals truely are, you at least have to credit them with being alive, and aware. Yet you make the moral decision that killing one is ok, and killing another is horrendous.  To you this is completely natural, and as Bio's post shows, he finds it evil and reprehensible to abort. Yet if someone isn't following the same moral guidlines as you, they may find the killing of any living being horrendous2. Or they might be fine with killing both kinds. However, both sides might see your position as silly, or alien. Where I'm trying to go with this is that it is a question of perception. To you, eating dead animals (fish) is something natural. To some people, you are a murderer. To you, cartoons violating religious dogma is silly, yet others will find it horrendous.

Quote
Then lets expect this from those we deal with. They can create counter cartoons that attack jesus, the holocaust, and everything else that they were planning to do in retaliation. Just don't use violence in return for cartoons, unless peace and/or unity are not what you seek.

This is like saying "I eat only fish, therefore I expect it from everyone I come into contact with". You are simply assuming that your stance is superior, and that others should do as you do3. How is this different from someone saying "I expect everyone to show the utmost of respect for Allah, because we do".

As a OT2 holding nothing holy isn't necessarily a good thing. The large increase of sects, cults and new-age religions clearly show that most people need something to believe in, something to fill that void they feel. If nothing is holy, then they try and make something holy.  Once again, even if some people do not need religion, or spirituality, many do. Assuming one way is superior is a bit arrogant.

Quote
Agreed, there are plenty of things we can't say despite the great "freedom of speech" that we are supposed to possess. I learned the hard way. :(
That's because you are too literal. Just like communism, total freedom of speech doesn't work because people are bastards.

1 Please note I'm not trying to make the argument that animals and humans are equal. I'm simply pointing out that we all (well most of us) make this call from our own view of the world, i.e it's a question of moral, and ultimately a question of believing that we are superior.

2 On one side  you have certain religions that do their dmandest to avoid even stepping on an ant. Onm the other hand you have serial killers that value no life whatsoever. Your right in the middle between the two extremes.

3 I do agree that tolerance is a desirable trait IMO. I'm just pointing out that the "What I don't consider important isn't important" opinion works both ways.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 03, 2006, 05:28:02 pm
"And any attempt to get off this godforsaken rock"

Rock? My home this is.

Okay, you have a point with the asteroids and such, but I think this particular run at human civilization may not make it as far as colonizing the stars and refueling our sun. We're not scoring too well, and there's probably not that much time before the next ice age cold period (the Reset Button.)

I wonder how future civs will evolve without having the oil to start themselves off, that we did. Maybe they'll go to ethanol right off the bat. :)


"With that reasoning, the US should be thoroughly corrupt and supremely opressive, just because China and Russia are."

There are quite a lot of people who do feel that way about the US. I don't agree with them, believing that the US might be the friendliest giant in recorded history, but it is nearly impossible to get anything done here anymore. Corporate interests, Foreign Lobbyists, Voting Blocks, Pork Bringers, etc. Each one of us semi normal people is a very small voice in a sea of selfish groups. Unthinking mass voters and money bag wavers win the day. Perhaps not so to the same extent in Finland- a much smaller nation with less power that various interests would want to tap, and where each vote is a larger part of a smaller whole.


"To you, cartoons violating religious dogma is silly, yet others will find it horrendous."

I don't think you can make a good deal with a bad guy. So if someone is a sociopath, or feels that taking your life is not as bad as a drawing a cartoon of the great cat, you will probably be very sorry if you deal with this person some day.


"This is like saying 'I eat only fish, therefore I expect it from everyone I come into contact with'. You are simply assuming that your stance is superior, and that others should do as you do3."

No, I am a human, so it is much safer for me to deal with someone who is not okay with just killing people for fun, or that won't go monkey shit over cartoons, and try to kill me. In return, I will not kill him for fun, and I will not get offended by images or ideas to the point where I kill him.

To roughly paraphrase (hehe) Arne's point- What if christians decided that anybody who refers to the great Jesus in anyway must be killed? Jesus' character would have to be removed from every Koran (which is not supposed to be altered I'm sure) and there would be a war over it.


"The large increase of sects, cults and new-age religions clearly show that most people need something to believe in, something to fill that void they feel."

I think that is more because people's long term relationships are disappearing in modern society. To put it in a cold, biological sense, we are meant to live in small packs with people we will know our entire lives. Instead we are given thousands of strangers, who we will only know for a relatively short span of time. Some turn to religion, and some turn to food, to fill this void.

Yes, I have accidentally created another sub-topic! If the scope of this thread continues to grow at this pace, we will have all the answers to the universe by the time it is finished! :)


"Once again, even if some people do not need religion, or spirituality, many do."

Fine, but if somebody says that reincarnation sucks, or that we will come back as pigs, I don't think either of us is going to get that upset. I, personally, expect this kind of not-going-to-kill-you-for-it attitude in return.


"That's because you are too literal. Just like communism, total freedom of speech doesn't work because people are bastards."

No, I'm just saying that since there is no real definition, you can farely say that even the worst dictatorships have freedom of speech, because even they allow you to say somethings. They usually just don't want you to say bad things about the state.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on March 03, 2006, 08:27:40 pm
Wow, we are so OT it's not even funny. Still, unless Staffy wishes us to resume this in another thread, I'll just go ahead.

I think Staffy left the thread a while ago, so I don't think he minds.
Then again it's been a while since I gave these boards a good look so I might be mistaken.
Anyway OT's are fun! Unless it someone REALLY wants to discuss the given topic, and only it, I think it's fascinating how one topic can lead to another, and finally it ends up in a pillow fight ;)

Quote
As a OT2 holding nothing holy isn't necessarily a good thing. The large increase of sects, cults and new-age religions clearly show that most people need something to believe in, something to fill that void they feel. If nothing is holy, then they try and make something holy.  Once again, even if some people do not need religion, or spirituality, many do. Assuming one way is superior is a bit arrogant.

I think you still failed to show that holding nothing holy is not always a good thing.
You just showed that many people need to hold something holy.
I also don't think that the increase in sects and new-agey cults has as much to do with people throwing away all holy things, and trying to find something to replace them later, as m it has with people disagreeing or becoming bored  with the traditional religion of the land and trying to find something new that better suits them.


Oh, I have a question for you Luki, and it's back on topic so you'll be able to relax a bit ;)
I see you make a lot of effeort not to judge anyone's religous beliefs/morality/any kind of rules.
But let's take a more pragmatic approach to this caricature affair.
Suppose you're the Prime Minister/President/King and Queen of Denmark all in one person.
Considering how Danes would act, how Muslims would act, and how the rest of the world would act, what do you think should be done?
Do you think you, as the head of the statem should apologise?
Should you say that you won't apologise?
Or should you ignore it alltogather?
Or maybe you see another way out of it?

Note that this isn't a "if you're such a smartass, then what would you do?" kind of question.
I'm just interested in you opinion.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on March 04, 2006, 12:30:56 pm
Hello everybody!
Is very interesting discussion you have here. No i dont mind it. I left the muslim caricatures behind now. Havent heard about it for over a week.

Here is a link to the so called doomsday argument that could be interesting in the current discussion on how long the human race is going to exist.
I think it's a very scary thing if you understand it and you should not read it if you're an atheist that easily falls into depression. Because if youre an atheist and easily understands logic, then you might find that you understand the doomsday argument....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument



Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on March 04, 2006, 01:35:50 pm
I think it's a very scary thing if you understand it and you should not read it if you're an atheist that easily falls into depression. Because if youre an atheist and easily understands logic, then you might find that you understand the doomsday argument....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument

Well... I'm an atheist, I understand the argument, and I find it silly.
To make it short, iot misapplies the Copernican Principle, which, as a philosphical principle, isn't too useful to make a statement about reality.
Secondly even if we accept this application, it shows that the people that made up this argument don't have a too big understanding of statistics.

Another way to look at it is that humanity will die sooner or later, and while I agree I'd rather see it later rather the sooner, I don't understand all this drama about our extinction.
We're less significant to the universe then a microbe is to us, and our collective lifespan will be shorter then a fraction of a blink of an eye.
No matter how much we want to be Something More, we are just slightly smarter monkeys. And that's a lot, because monkeys are really smart critters.

This whole buisness of looking for the Meaning Of Life or looking for some Purpose in the universe always seemed quite arrogant to me.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 04, 2006, 04:08:50 pm
"Is very interesting discussion you have here. No i dont mind it."

Alrighty, glad you enjoy its now universal scope. :)


"I think it's a very scary thing if you understand it and you should not read it if you're an atheist that easily falls into depression. Because if youre an atheist and easily understands logic, then you might find that you understand the doomsday argument...."

Actually, an atheist is usually someone who believes no god exists. I know I am the only god in the universe, but I don't believe in myself because I am so depressed, so I don't believe in any god and am therefore an agnostic. :)

Anywho, you can not believe in any god(s) (as I do) but still believe in stuff you can't prove or reason out. Religion usually just means you have a or a bunch of dieties at the heart of it. My personal philosophy is that we are some indestructible (like energy or matter) entities that can sort of take over biological vessels or whatever. I feel that everyone will have an infinite number of biological lifetimes, and that we even get to pick them (though you make these decisions without a brain [you are in between brains].) None of this can be proven through mathematical science, I don't think (though I'm sure there will be some who try.)

Getting back on topic, that theory sounds bogus to me. Why would there be a preset number of human births that are possible?

I am of the opinion, that scientists, like religious figures, can sometimes get totally lost in their own theories.

And last but not least, on the subject of doom and gloom, I think nature and ourselves will continue to trash human civilizations over and over, until the ice age finally ends in however many millions of years, and then we shall reach out to the stars and become slightly less insignificant brain monkeys. :)


"And that's a lot, because monkeys are really smart critters."

Along with crows, I also really like monkeys. So nobody hurt either of the sacred animals, or else your ass is ash!


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: StaffyStar on March 05, 2006, 12:09:12 am
When human civilisation 18 is over human civilisation 19 will start!

Haha well forget the doomsday argument. It works if there is a natural number of humans that ever exist. But I cant debate it because my english isnt good enough... Ivan ivanov seems to have some good arguments but I cant understand them :)


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: HalfShadow on March 05, 2006, 05:41:53 am
I consider religion to be like triginometry: it serves no purpose to me and thus is of no real value, but I understand that some people use it and consider it valuable.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Zeep-Eeep on March 05, 2006, 08:05:40 am
Amen to that.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on March 05, 2006, 11:22:54 am
I wonder how future civs will evolve without having the oil to start themselves off, that we did. Maybe they'll go to ethanol right off the bat. :)

Or you could ask yourself what easy source of energy the previous civilisation used up ;) Deep time can bury a lot.

Quote
There are quite a lot of people who do feel that way about the US. I don't agree with them, believing that the US might be the friendliest giant in recorded history, but it is nearly impossible to get anything done here anymore. Corporate interests, Foreign Lobbyists, Voting Blocks, Pork Bringers, etc. Each one of us semi normal people is a very small voice in a sea of selfish groups. Unthinking mass voters and money bag wavers win the day. Perhaps not so to the same extent in Finland- a much smaller nation with less power that various interests would want to tap, and where each vote is a larger part of a smaller whole.

People are selfish. But a sea of selfish groups competing is still much better than one small selfish group running the show. The US is an acievement in itself. While by no means perfect, it is an example of what we all can strive to accomplish. A large, strong and (mostly) fair  society. So I ask you again. If the UN was organized like the US is now, and covered the entire world, what rights are you afraid of losing?

Quote
I don't think you can make a good deal with a bad guy. So if someone is a sociopath, or feels that taking your life is not as bad as a drawing a cartoon of the great cat, you will probably be very sorry if you deal with this person some day.

No, I am a human, so it is much safer for me to deal with someone who is not okay with just killing people for fun, or that won't go monkey shit over cartoons, and try to kill me. In return, I will not kill him for fun, and I will not get offended by images or ideas to the point where I kill him.

Again, you latch on to the position were you are morally superior. Try to remember, I'm not advocating dealing with "bad guys". I'm simply trying to point out that just beacause you think something is silly, doesn't mean that it isn't important to other people, or that you are automatically correct. I gave two examples, try to approach the other one.  What if the people who hold all life holy demand that you stop eating fish because it's against their principle "freedom of life"? I'm not saying it's right for someone to force their religious beliefs on others. But neither am I too fond of someone trying to impose their moral beliefs on another (which is exactly what you are doing). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a moral relativist. But I dislike hypocrisy.

Or, perhaps, a better example. Look at BioSlayer. In this thread, he has stated that he would be fine with drilling for oil in Alaska. Yet there are several enviromentalist groups that would oppose him quite vehemently on them. Both positions are alien to eachother. Howvever, that doesn't mean one side is silly and "it's just nature", or that the other side is silly and "it's just oil".

This whole part of the OT has, as I stated in the beginning not been about wether or not we should have to compromise with people who burn embassies. At no point have I condoned violence, nor stated that any such means are necessary. I've not said that you have to deal with the "bad guy". What I have been trying to do (unsuccessfully it seems) is to point out that even if you don't understand someones motivations, that doesn't make them any less real. As you stated in the beginning, people always view themselves as the good guys. But ignoring all other points of view because of your own assumed supremacy doesn't make these points of view any less real. That something is just a cartoon to you, or just some icy fields to Bio, doesn't mean it's not a slight to someone elses innermost beliefs, or a violation of someone elses endangered beauty.

Quote
To roughly paraphrase (hehe) Arne's point- What if christians decided that anybody who refers to the great Jesus in anyway must be killed? Jesus' character would have to be removed from every Koran (which is not supposed to be altered I'm sure) and there would be a war over it.

Again as I stated earlier, that you respect and understand someones point of view doesn't necessarily mean you have to obey it. You just don't have to belittle it. Discussion will alwyas bring you further than arrogance.

Quote
I think that is more because people's long term relationships are disappearing in modern society. To put it in a cold, biological sense, we are meant to live in small packs with people we will know our entire lives. Instead we are given thousands of strangers, who we will only know for a relatively short span of time. Some turn to religion, and some turn to food, to fill this void.

And since you turn to neither, are you then less silly than these people? I was stating that I think people need spirituality, and you're not really disproving me. Food is a sort of cult as well, the one Bio brought up. It's part of the "ME ME ME" cult.

Quote
Fine, but if somebody says that reincarnation sucks, or that we will come back as pigs, I don't think either of us is going to get that upset. I, personally, expect this kind of not-going-to-kill-you-for-it attitude in return.

Again, that's because you're thinking form your point of view. If someone insults my beliefs, I will be offended. Just like muslims all over the world has ben. If I am offended, I have every right to voice my displeasure, arrange a boycott or a demonstration.  You are again immediately connecting "being offended" to "being violent". As I covered above, I am not trying to justify violence. I'm simply trying to point out  that muslims have every right to be offended, and that the fact that  you are not doesn't make their offense any less valid.

Quote
No, I'm just saying that since there is no real definition, you can farely say that even the worst dictatorships have freedom of speech, because even they allow you to say somethings. They usually just don't want you to say bad things about the state.

Actually, you can have total freedom of speech. Use either your computer, or your X-box  Live to log onto a multiplayer game of CounterStrike. spend an hour there. Then you will realise that while total freedom of speech has a real definition (being able to say anything), there is a very good reason that all states restrict this freedom in some way. And that reaon is that people are arrogant jerks.

Quote
I think you still failed to show that holding nothing holy is not always a good thing.
You just showed that many people need to hold something holy.
I also don't think that the increase in sects and new-agey cults has as much to do with people throwing away all holy things, and trying to find something to replace them later, as m it has with people disagreeing or becoming bored  with the traditional religion of the land and trying to find something new that better suits them.

Mayhap. The point I was trying to make was that our materialistic society seems to leave people looking for more. And as more and more people are brought up to demand personalized services, old and unchanging religions no longer fit their consumer need. So they turn to new religions, where they can pick and choose what parts fit them best. However, they do turn to new religions. Which implies, as you pointed out, that many people need to feel a greater presence, or belonging. And I am of the opinion that anything that makes you feel better, and helps you carry your burdens through life without harming someone else is a good thing.

It is one of my pet peeves when atheists1 decry religion on the basis that it is silly and illogical. Faith doesn't need to be logical. But just because something is not 100% logical doesn't mean it is undseirable. In that case, we ought to get rid of love while we are at it.

Quote
Oh, I have a question for you Luki, and it's back on topic so you'll be able to relax a bit Wink
I see you make a lot of effeort not to judge anyone's religous beliefs/morality/any kind of rules.

Actually, this isn't true. What I've been advocating is that it is unwise to dismiss someone elses arguments/feelings just because they don't fit your frame of thinking. We all judge according to our own moral rules, anything else leads to moral relativism2. As you can see further up in this post, I do judge any muslim who violently expresses his faith, as I believe that violence isn't a solution. However, that doesn't mean that I can't understand their arguments, or that I feel the need to dismiss them because they have other prioritties than I have. There is a difference between judging and understanding. As humans, we ought to do both, but far to many people just do the frist without bothering with the second.

Quote
But let's take a more pragmatic approach to this caricature affair.
Suppose you're the Prime Minister/President/King and Queen of Denmark all in one person.
Considering how Danes would act, how Muslims would act, and how the rest of the world would act, what do you think should be done?
Do you think you, as the head of the statem should apologise?
Should you say that you won't apologise?
Or should you ignore it alltogather?
Or maybe you see another way out of it?

First of all, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it makes you  look extremely comptent ;). Still, while there are some things that I believe could have been done better, on the whole I think the Danes did the best they could. I would probably have met with the ambassadors the first time around, and tried to make the point that while Denmark is in no way attempting to offend muslims, the Danish goverment really is powerless to curb the free media. Just telling the ambassadors this from the outset, rahter than not even meeting them could have cooled things down a bit.  Of course, one could also have reminded the ambassadors that they all hail from countries who dislike foreign forces meddling in their internal affairs, and advised them in turn not to try and meddle in the internal affairs of others. But that would have been tricky to bring forward in a polite way :)

But the real linchpin were the danish Imams, setting out on a rabblerousing tour. The Danes couldn't really do much about that. After all, several comics had been printed in Egypt before this, and noone really cared. But the Danish Imams unresponsible acting, and the fact that they played right into several groupings desire to cause a distraction from nuclear weapons and suchlike really set the whole thing off. In the end, even with better play in the beginning, I suspect the end  result would have been the same.

1 Not pointing out anyone here, but I run into a lot of people like this at Uni.
2 Which ends up with supporting the Holocaust, female circumcision and the likes.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on March 05, 2006, 12:31:33 pm
Mayhap. The point I was trying to make was that our materialistic society seems to leave people looking for more.

Agreed, but what is wrong with that?
People in a materialistic society can still look for whatever spiritual enlightment they want. Nothing and no one is stopping them.
On the other hand, would a spiritual society return the favor to people who have no spiritual needs?

Quote
And as more and more people are brought up to demand personalized services, old and unchanging religions no longer fit their consumer need. So they turn to new religions, where they can pick and choose what parts fit them best.

Well, I think this is actually a good thing.
I think people have a right to pick and choose and the biggest beef I have with religion (note: religion is not really the same as faith), is that it tries to force people to live a certain way.
To quote a certain non-existant messiah that got cruciefied "look we're all individuals!".
I just can't stand the thought that some people want others to conform to some kind of template, from an outdated book.

Quote
However, they do turn to new religions. Which implies, as you pointed out, that many people need to feel a greater presence, or belonging. And I am of the opinion that anything that makes you feel better, and helps you carry your burdens through life without harming someone else is a good thing.

Yes. Of course. Glad we agree.

Quote
It is one of my pet peeves when atheists1 decry religion on the basis that it is silly and illogical. Faith doesn't need to be logical. But just because something is not 100% logical doesn't mean it is undseirable. In that case, we ought to get rid of love while we are at it.

Now now, that's not a fair comparison. Love may not be rational, but I'm not aware of it violating any laws of logic.
Faith in and of itself isn't illogical also, but beliving two or more mutually exclusive things is. And many religions do have many contradictions making the illogical.

But really, this is kind of silly, religion beeing illogical/irrational is the least improtant reason why I don't like it, it's not really a reason at all.Like you said, it would be inhumane to expect people to act rationally all the time.

Quote
Actually, this isn't true. What I've been advocating is that it is unwise to dismiss someone elses arguments/feelings just because they don't fit your frame of thinking.

Right. Sorry for misunderstanding you, I got lost in the dialogue between you and Deus.

Quote
However, that doesn't mean that I can't understand their arguments, or that I feel the need to dismiss them because they have other prioritties than I have. There is a difference between judging and understanding. As humans, we ought to do both, but far to many people just do the frist without bothering with the second.

Couldn't agree with you more, but it's not as easy as it sounds.
The amount of people that I've met that are willing to make the effort to understand someone's position/opinion/action before judging it can be counted on the fingers of a blind butcher's hand.

I won't even try to pretend I'm one of them, even tough I'm an atheist I have this "Burn Infidels" attitude. I onlt act on it when someone tries to shove his ideology down my throat, but it's still there.
On the other hand there are people who go out of their way to understand everyone and forget to judge. It's like they are so busy tolerating everybody's opinions that they forget to form their own.

Quote
First of all, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it makes you  look extremely comptent ;). Still, while there are some things that I believe could have been done better, on the whole I think the Danes did the best they could. I would probably have met with the ambassadors the first time around, and tried to make the point that while Denmark is in no way attempting to offend muslims, the Danish goverment really is powerless to curb the free media. Just telling the ambassadors this from the outset, rahter than not even meeting them could have cooled things down a bit.  Of course, one could also have reminded the ambassadors that they all hail from countries who dislike foreign forces meddling in their internal affairs, and advised them in turn not to try and meddle in the internal affairs of others. But that would have been tricky to bring forward in a polite way :)

Right-o.
Hm... now it seems I could have concluded that from your earlier posts, but like I've said I misunderstod them at first, sorry 'bout that.

Quote
But the real linchpin were the danish Imams, setting out on a rabblerousing tour. The Danes couldn't really do much about that. After all, several comics had been printed in Egypt before this, and noone really cared. But the Danish Imams unresponsible acting, and the fact that they played right into several groupings desire to cause a distraction from nuclear weapons and suchlike really set the whole thing off. In the end, even with better play in the beginning, I suspect the end  result would have been the same.

Yeah, that's what pissed me off so much.
It's obvious that it's a political game, and European heads of state have played right into it.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on March 05, 2006, 04:29:13 pm

Agreed, but what is wrong with that?
People in a materialistic society can still look for whatever spiritual enlightment they want. Nothing and no one is stopping them.
On the other hand, would a spiritual society return the favor to people who have no spiritual needs?

Nothing. I was attempting to point out to DS that for most people it's not as clear-cut as "faith sucks, it makes people do /care about stupid things". Faith can be a great inspiration, and that you take your faith seriously does not necessarily make you any worse than anyone else. Nor does necessarily it make you any better. My point was simply that DS opinion that "everythigg would be better if people didn't have faith and take things seriously" isn't really something I agree with. Ratehr the opposite, I believe faith can be a great  thing to have in your life, and that even if you do not have it, you shouldnt dismiss people who have it as silly.

Quote
Well, I think this is actually a good thing.
I think people have a right to pick and choose and the biggest beef I have with religion (note: religion is not really the same as faith), is that it tries to force people to live a certain way.
To quote a certain non-existant messiah that got cruciefied "look we're all individuals!".
I just can't stand the thought that some people want others to conform to some kind of template, from an outdated book.

Again, I din't imply that this was a bad thing, I simply stated it as a (IMO) fact. The difference between faith and religion is huge, which unfortunately is something our dear old state religions do not understand.

Quote
Yes. Of course. Glad we agree.

You could have just left this part and that would have been enough. ;) As far as I can tell, me agree on the entire subject.

Quote
Now now, that's not a fair comparison. Love may not be rational, but I'm not aware of it violating any laws of logic.
Faith in and of itself isn't illogical also, but beliving two or more mutually exclusive things is. And many religions do have many contradictions making the illogical.

No? Many people are ready to die for the one they love, just as for their religion. They will move away from secure surroundings, and take great risks to be with the one they love. They will give up their dreams. They will do some tremendously stupid stuff. Perhaps we define illogical in different ways, but I fail to see how this differs from people doing the same thing for their faith.

All faith is illogical, as it cannot be proven right in any tangible way. But religions only fall into your classification of illogical if you follow the scripture by letter.

Quote
Couldn't agree with you more, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

I agree. And the more personal something becomes, the harder it is. But at least accordign to my moral rules, it's what one has to do. Or at least try to do.

Quote
On the other hand there are people who go out of their way to understand everyone and forget to judge. It's like they are so busy tolerating everybody's opinions that they forget to form their own.

I've always thought of such people as cowards. We all judge, every day. Almost every decision we make is based on our own moral concepts. Everyone we meet, we judge according to our standards. People who tolerate everyone and everything simply withold their judgement for one reason or other. Maybe they are afraid to take stand. Maybe they think it would be rude. Maybe, as you say, they are too busy pleasing people. But that is a bad road to walk. In fact, it is a way to get walked over by anyone you meet. Empathy and understanding are important, more so now than ever before. But everyone has to make a decision as to where they stand on matters.

Quote
Yeah, that's what pissed me off so much.
It's obvious that it's a political game, and European heads of state have played right into it.

European heads of state naively think that extremists divide the west into Europe and America. They see themselves as more liberal, more open, and more helpful. Thus they have a hard time realising that islamic extremists want to disconnect from all things western, not just the US. After all, they are the "good guys" :)

And DS, enough with your cat already, as it's not bringing any point forward.

Yes, if you truly believed that your cat (or all cats) was holy, I would see no problem in you demonstarting against artists who draw cats. You could boycott the company who prints Garfield. If enough people joined your cult, you might actually manage to affect things. For all I care, you can post a violent protest everytime someone writes the word cat. I'd be interesting to hear your reasoning, and I would do my best to understand your faith. As I've stated earlier though, this doesn't mean you would eb able to limit me in any way though.

To give you an alternative insight into why people feel so strangly about pictures, send me a picture of your mother. Or betetr yet, send me several. I'll then photoshop her into various hardcore pornography photos, as well into some parodies which make her look fat, stupid, ugly and drunk. After that, I'll host them on the internet, spamming them everywhere. Maybe I'll even manage to find out where you live and put a few up in your local store. Now, would these be just "silly pictures" that neither you nor your mother gave a damn about? Basically, if I did this I could then tell you that they are just pictures, because I don't care about your family.  And before you tell me that that would be a different thing, and peronal, let me remind you that faith is a personal matter to many people. even if you dont have a personal faith, that doesn't mean noone can have a personal faith.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on March 05, 2006, 05:42:08 pm
No? Many people are ready to die for the one they love, just as for their religion. They will move away from secure surroundings, and take great risks to be with the one they love. They will give up their dreams. They will do some tremendously stupid stuff. Perhaps we define illogical in different ways, but I fail to see how this differs from people doing the same thing for their faith.

The examples you gave is what I meant by saying love is not rational, that is guided by emotion rather then reason.
Illogical in my opinion means nothing more then beeing self-contradictory, or when a conclusion doesn't follow from whatever argument proceeding it.
I understand that people can do crazy stuff for their  faith, which can be a feeling just like love. In such a case, again, it is irrational but not illogical

Quote
All faith is illogical, as it cannot be proven right in any tangible way.

The fact that it canot be proven doesn't mean that it's illogical, only that it cannot be proven.
As long as you don't hold any self-contradictory or mutually exclusive beliefs your faith is logical, tough until you have evidence for it, it's not rational.

Quote
But religions only fall into your classification of illogical if you follow the scripture by letter.

I always saw this as a bit unfair.
When people ask me what I see as wrong in, say, the Bible, and I say "such and such", they answer "But such and such is not to be taken literally! If you interpret it in a certain way it makes perfect sense!"
Yeah, sure, but then you could interpret anything to make perfect sense.
And besides, how do you know what is meant to be taken literally and what is not?

EDIT:
oh, forgot about this litle thingy

Quote
My point was simply that DS opinion that "everythigg would be better if people didn't have faith and take things seriously" isn't really something I agree with. Ratehr the opposite, I believe faith can be a great  thing to have in your life, and that even if you do not have it, you shouldnt dismiss people who have it as silly.

While I agree that thinking the world would be a better place without faith is naive and silly, I do think people take themselves way too seriously.
If we could see how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things, and that some things that we get really upset about are just as insignificant when compared to the whole of our lives, we could get over them quickly, forget and forgive, and move on.
Then the world would be a much better place.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on March 05, 2006, 06:12:11 pm

The examples you gave is what I meant by saying love is not rational, that is guided by emotion rather then reason.
Illogical in my opinion means nothing more then beeing self-contradictory, or when a conclusion doesn't follow from whatever argument proceeding it.
I understand that people can do crazy stuff for their  faith, which can be a feeling just like love. In such a case, again, it is irrational but not illogical

Fair enough, maybe I've gotten my definitions mixed up. So faith, as love, is irrational then.

Quote
I always saw this as a bit unfair.
When people ask me what I see as wrong in, say, the Bible, and I say "such and such", they answer "But such and such is not to be taken literally! If you interpret it in a certain way it makes perfect sense!"
Yeah, sure, but then you could interpret anything to make perfect sense.
And besides, how do you know what is meant to be taken literally and what is not?

Indeed. Which is why following a book (any book) is rather pointless. To me, religion is alive in those who practice it and study it. Priests are what define a religion, because they are the ones who decide what scriptures are important, and what scriptures aren't. The very idea of organized religion is that some people are more qualified to uinderstand what god means than others. You either accept that priests (somehow) know more and are closer to god, or you choose a religion where you yourself have a bigger say in what is important.

On the whole though, I've always viewed the bible as more of historical document filled with educational anecdotes/stories than the absolute truth. And because anecdotes are dependent on the society where they are created, much of it no longer makes sense.  So instead of following literally, you apply your own moral standards on it (you judge the bible, if you will), and find confirmation for what you believe in there. So diferent people will find different things in it, but everyone can find some sort of guidance. Perhaps not as much as a practicioner could give you, but some guidance nonetheless.

Quote
If we could see how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things, and that some things that we get really upset about are just as insignificant when compared to the whole of our lives, we could get over them quickly, forget and forgive, and move on.
Then the world would be a much better place.

Or we could just realise,that seeing as we're so insignificant,  there's really no point. We'll die anyway, so why prolong a insignificant meaningless existence.

Or we could realise, that since nothing matters in the long run, why shouldn't we rob that store and rape the girl next door.

Or we could realise that in a thousand years noone will remember us. So why contribute to society, when much more fun can be had from just watching porn in your room til you starve to death.

And so on and so forth. what happens when someone realises that they don't matter on a grand scale varies, depending on who the person is. To assume that everyone will become peaceful and laid back, that everyone would start to forget and forgive is a tad naive.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on March 05, 2006, 06:28:47 pm
Or we could just realise,that seeing as we're so insignificant,  there's really no point. We'll die anyway, so why prolong a insignificant meaningless existence.

That would be hard.
There's this thing called the self-preservation instinct that is very hard to overcome.
Secondly there are lots of things that will make you feel good during you life. Why end it, when you can have some fun while it lasts?

Quote
Or we could realise, that since nothing matters in the long run, why shouldn't we rob that store and rape the girl next door.

How many people actually want to rob and rape and do all sorts of nastyness?
Weren't you the one to say that all people want is to live their lives in peace?

Quote
Or we could realise that in a thousand years noone will remember us. So why contribute to society, when much more fun can be had from just watching porn in your room til you starve to death.

And some do just that. Others find greater pleasure in contributing to society. Either way people watching pron until they starve wouldn't hurt anyone, would they?

Quote
And so on and so forth. what happens when someone realises that they don't matter on a grand scale varies, depending on who the person is. To assume that everyone will become peaceful and laid back, that everyone would start to forget and forgive is a tad naive.

Right, got me there.
What I said was a bit exagerated version of what I actually think, tough.
I just wanted to say that people should try to distance themsleves from... theselves.
Not too much of course.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 05, 2006, 07:32:24 pm
(Edited for a reasonable size and a clearer message.)


"People are selfish."

Now who is generalizing?

If we are all very selfish, then I don't think we can expect to get much else from our government, if it is composed of us- the selfish people.


"So I ask you again. If the UN was organized like the US is now, and covered the entire world, what rights are you afraid of losing?"

Any number of types of these abstract things called "rights." Is breathing a right? Is saying whatever you want a right? Is having as many kids as you please a right? There is an infinite number of them.

Different countries and peoples come up with various different ideas in this area. But if you crammed us all under one government, how could everybody be satisfied?

Also, if you have a world government that becomes really corrupt, whatever it says you do, you will proabably have to do, no matter where you are. There's no fleeing to another country (even if it is a bad solution, anyway.) There's no superpower to counter balance it. There's no way to set up trade taxes to protect your region's people. Whatever you want, you have to fight to get in an enormous, complicated, free-for-all at the top, that nobody can really completely understand. What if there is one really large or politically powerful group that decides to impose its ways on you through the government that it legitimately countrols through sheer voting power or laws? They want you to pray to their god by jumping up and down 87 times every hour, on the hour. Anyone who cannot or will not do this goes to a death camp. History has shown time and again that regions of the world sometimes just seem to go nuts. The good news is that if they don't have sway over you, where you live, then it is not as big of a problem. But if the entire world came under bad leadership, you'd better have a starship fueled and ready to go.

A multinational world is a segmented one- it is more flexible. We don't have to run our lives the way someone else wants to. Country A allows you to say whatever you want, Country B will fine you for saying mean things, Country C will cut off you hands if you steal. We don't have to put up with the other guys "rights" or lack there of.


"But neither am I too fond of someone trying to impose their moral beliefs on another (which is exactly what you are doing)."

What specifically am I trying to impose and how? The right to free speech or the right to not get physically harmed for supposed blasphemy?


"You just don't have to belittle it. Discussion will alwyas bring you further than arrogance."

If I "belittle" someone, that doesn't mean that I'm arrogant. I haven't said anything about myself (unless it is myself that I'm belittling.) To put it plainly though, I do not feel especially wise. But getting fired up over the image of a long dead stranger seems like the opposite of wisdom to me, a biased and foolish opinion though you may think it.


"And since you turn to neither, are you then less silly than these people?"

If I said I was, that would only be my opinion- one not shared by too many. But, I will most likely be healthier than the people who's lives revolve entirely around excessive eating. I will be able to maybe avoid certain disasters if I do not lie to myself by saying "it is the will of god." If a disaster destroyed my house, let's say, I would be better off coming to the conclusion that I would be safer, rebuilding in a less stormy area, than going to church more stringently.


"I was stating that I think people need spirituality, and you're not really disproving me."

I do not think people need it, just as many other species seem to go without it.

Personally I might be depressed if I thought I was on my way to oblivion, but many others would not. They would continue on with their lives, short as they might perceive them to be.

So now I ask you, if people in general needed sprituallity, then how do you explain all those people who do not believe any of it?


"Actually, you can have total freedom of speech. Use either your computer, or your X-box  Live to log onto a multiplayer game of CounterStrike. spend an hour there. Then you will realise that while total freedom of speech has a real definition (being able to say anything), there is a very good reason that all states restrict this freedom in some way. And that reaon is that people are arrogant jerks."

Ah, if I am a hypocrite, then I am not alone. Who are you to judge what people believe and say on the Counter Strike online games? Who are you to Impose what you believe on them?

And not everybody is an arrogant jerk, I don't think.


"It is one of my pet peeves when atheists1 decry religion on the basis that it is silly and illogical. Faith doesn't need to be logical. But just because something is not 100% logical doesn't mean it is undseirable. In that case, we ought to get rid of love while we are at it."

Who here wants to get rid of faith, altogether? I don't, so who are you talking to? Faith can mean many things- faith someone you trust, faith in logic and reason, or faith in that there is no god, nor souls, nor the internet.


"Right. Sorry for misunderstanding you, I got lost in the dialogue between you and Deus."

You are not alone, the sheer volume of various arguements in the last posts of this thread have lost me a few times today.


"My point was simply that DS opinion that "everythigg would be better if people didn't have faith and take things seriously" isn't really something I agree with."

No, that is not really any of my points. I personally have faith in some things like love, the power of gravity, that I will not burn in hell. I take types of life and death situations seriously, as well as innumerable things like freeware/open-source game projects or agriculture.

But taking something seriously does not mean you have to protect its concepts from passing insults, that cannot really harm it, using more than just words of your own.


"Many people are ready to die for the one they love, just as for their religion. They will move away from secure surroundings, and take great risks to be with the one they love. They will give up their dreams. They will do some tremendously stupid stuff. Perhaps we define illogical in different ways, but I fail to see how this differs from people doing the same thing for their faith."

I'll just say that there is something more universal about this than religion. Species that many consider inferior, that have no religions, will protect those they care about, sometimes at great risk to themselves. Also, people are not so invisible and non-responsive as are gods. Our actions are very real, you don't just have to read about us in a holy book.


"And DS, enough with your cat already, as it's not bringing any point forward."

Ah, I can see that you have come to fear the great cat, as you should. The great cat will surely torture your immortal soul for eternity, which is why I need take no action. MY god is so powerful, that he does not need a mere mortal like me to act on his behalf. Who else has a god as powerful as mine, that they do not feel a need to insult his power, by taking deadly actions of their own, because they don't think HE is capable of action?


"As I've stated earlier though, this doesn't mean you would eb able to limit me in any way though."

Why would I want to? Did I say I wanted to?

If you want someone who would like to impose their beliefs on you, look no further than the protesters and rioters against the of the muhbombhead pictures. Those pictures were made in denmark, for denmark. If people in a nation like iran or pakistan want to control how things are run in denmark, aren't THEY imposing on others beliefs? They want to print Koran's telling of how infidels (like secularists) will burn in hell, yet when someone in another country makes a picture that lampoons their beliefs, that cannot be tolerated.


Think about it another way, you want a system that is not hypocritical, that is even handed, right? Well maybe the only way to do that is to allow people to say what they want about other faiths or religions or whatever. There are an infinite number of things people can get upset about, so maybe the only way to accomadate everything fairly, is to just not intervene at all. Anything else is just us Imposing our opinions of what we think is good or bad.

It also unfairly gives credit to organized religion. Why should not picture of muhammed by made, but not those of the great cat? Because there are not enough cat followers you say? Because they are not organized enough? Or because they are not a threat?


I hope you are not taking this conversation too personally. As much of an insulting hypocrite that I may be, I do not hold your opinions on such abstract things against you as a person. And remember, it is not like the world listens to us, anyway. :)


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on March 06, 2006, 03:54:31 pm
Now who is generalizing?

If we are all very selfish, then I don't think we can expect to get much else from our government, if it is composed of us- the selfish people.

Unfortunately I seem to have failed my proofreading. I meant to say "Most people are selfish".

As for the goverment, a democratic goverment (IMO) is built so that every selfish group strives for supremacy, yet this very struggle ensures that no group gets an upper hand. So even if most people involved in the political machine are looking out for themselves, the system itself evens these selfish interests out. Do you get my meaning?


Quote
Any number of types of these abstract things called "rights." Is breathing a right? Is saying whatever you want a right? Is having as many kids as you please a right? There is an infinite number of them.

Different countries and peoples come up with various different ideas in this area. But if you crammed us all under one government, how could everybody be satisfied?

You were the one claiming that we'd lose rights, so I asked which rights. Now suddenly, you're not even sure what rights are? A tad contradictory there. As for everybody being satisfied, do you think that is the case right now?

Quote
Also, if you have a world government that becomes really corrupt, whatever it says you do, you will proabably have to do, no matter where you are. There's no fleeing to another country (even if it is a bad solution, anyway.)

Good point, I hadn't considered that point of view.

Quote
There's no superpower to counter balance it. There's no way to set up trade taxes to protect your region's people.

So every state in the US is at total mercy of the US goverment? You don't have any power at all to decide what happens? Any state-speciffic legislation? Any representatives in the goverment?

Quote
Whatever you want, you have to fight to get in an enormous, complicated, free-for-all at the top, that nobody can really completely understand. What if there is one really large or politically powerful group that decides to impose its ways on you through the government that it legitimately countrols through sheer voting power or laws?

Sounds like a fairly accurate description of democracy to me. If someone can impose their ways through voting power, then they are obviously a majority.  Tough luck for the minority, but thats the way it works.

Quote
They want you to pray to their god by jumping up and down 87 times every hour, on the hour. Anyone who cannot or will not do this goes to a death camp. History has shown time and again that regions of the world sometimes just seem to go nuts. The good news is that if they don't have sway over you, where you live, then it is not as big of a problem. But if the entire world came under bad leadership, you'd better have a starship fueled and ready to go.

Separation of church and state? You have a point though, if a religious group has enough followers, they can change the laws. But that is how democracy works. Also, I doubt any religion will spread across the globe, and hold all but a few brave souls hostage.

Quote
A multinational world is a segmented one- it is more flexible. We don't have to run our lives the way someone else wants to. Country A allows you to say whatever you want, Country B will fine you for saying mean things, Country C will cut off you hands if you steal. We don't have to put up with the other guys "rights" or lack there of.

Which is completely different from State A allowing you to drive at 15, State B not allowing you an abortion, and State C wanting to build a wall at the border to keep people out. All these things can work inside a large system just as well as they do inside, er, a large system.

Quote
What specifically am I trying to impose and how? The right to free speech or the right to not get physically harmed for supposed blasphemy?

You are imposing your right to express yourself through the breaking of someone elses taboos over their right to keeping those taboos untouched1.

[/quote]
If I "belittle" someone, that doesn't mean that I'm arrogant. I haven't said anything about myself (unless it is myself that I'm belittling.) To put it plainly though, I do not feel especially wise. But getting fired up over the image of a long dead stranger seems like the opposite of wisdom to me, a biased and foolish opinion though you may think it.
[/quote]

And this is where you tell muslims that they are the opposite of wise, because you don't agree with it. You also give their holiest person the title "long dead starnger". That would fall under the term belittling their beliefs. What you could do instead is say, "Fine, if they want to believe, they have every right to do so. But I don't".


Quote
I do not think people need it, just as many other species seem to go without it.

Er sorry, what species are you referring to, and how have you established that they have no spirituality, assuming they are sentient enough to understand the concept?

Quote
So now I ask you, if people in general needed sprituallity, then how do you explain all those people who do not believe any of it?

I said most people need it. Trying to avoid generalizing ;) I don't see your logic here. If I said most people said that they feel the need to eat meat, would you then ask me to explain vegans?

Quote
Ah, if I am a hypocrite, then I am not alone. Who are you to judge what people believe and say on the Counter Strike online games? Who are you to Impose what you believe on them?

Why, I'm glad you asked! To make myself  clearer, I'll answer you with a question of my own:

Quote
the seeming broad scale of the very heated protesting (which would not be a bad thing necessarily, if it was not over cartoons

Who are you to judge wether it is a bad thing or not to heatedly protest over cartoons?

See what I did there? If you go back a few posts up, and read my reply to Ivan, you'll find that I stated that we all judge all the time. This entire debate started with you making the judgement that rioting over cartoons is unneccessary, and me making the judgement that your opinion was simplistic and one-sided. Since then, we have both been trying to impose our own view on the other side, through rational argument. I am not implying that you are a hypocrite because you judge people. This has never been my intent, and if it has come across like that, I am truly sorry. Of course you are in your full right to judge people any way you see fit.  Just as I can judge your judgement, and you can judge my judgement of your judgement and so on.

The reason I think you are being a tad hypocritical is rather that you are demanding certain rights for yourself, and not granting others the same. If you feel that papers should have the right to print caricatures of religions, that is certainly your right. In fact, it is somehting I agree with. However, anyone of that faith has an equal right to voice their opinion, be it through boycotts, demonstrations or angry letters. If we're all allowed freedom of expression, then everyone has an equal right to express themselves. However,  when a group you do not agree with excersise the same right that you are claiming, you simply close your eyes and decide that because you don't agree, they shouldn't be doing it.

Quote
And not everybody is an arrogant jerk, I don't think.

True, I'm once again guilty of generalization. However, in my experience, most of the "freedom of speech" you run into in such places amounts to "cockfag" and "camper whore". Which isn't exactly the point behind the principle.

Quote
Who here wants to get rid of faith, altogether? I don't, so who are you talking to? Faith can mean many things- faith someone you trust, faith in logic and reason, or faith in that there is no god, nor souls, nor the internet.

Read the footnote please.

Quote
You are not alone, the sheer volume of various arguements in the last posts of this thread have lost me a few times today.

Indeed, this is getting really messy. But still, as long as it is enjoyable. Though I wish you would use the quote function, I have trouble reading your text. Still, each to his own.

Quote
No, that is not really any of my points. I personally have faith in some things like love, the power of gravity, that I will not burn in hell. I take types of life and death situations seriously, as well as innumerable things like freeware/open-source game projects or agriculture.

With faith here, I am referring to faith in a higher being, as should be quite clear from the context it was in.

Quote
But taking something seriously does not mean you have to protect its concepts from passing insults, that cannot really harm it, using more than just words of your own.

Nor have I made that claim. For some reason, you seem to stubbornly insist that I am defending violence in the name of faith/religion. I am not. I am only advocating respect towards religions ,and the fact that religious people have every right to take their religion seriously. You stated that people take religion too seriosuly, and that they are offended by things that don't matter (long gone strangers face). I stated that it matters to them, and that we should respect that it does, even though we don't understand it. Respecting someones religion does not equal condoning violence in the name of said religion.

Quote
I'll just say that there is something more universal about this than religion. Species that many consider inferior, that have no religions, will protect those they care about, sometimes at great risk to themselves. Also, people are not so invisible and non-responsive as are gods. Our actions are very real, you don't just have to read about us in a holy book.

Well, I only read about you, and you seem real enough ;)

Quote
Ah, I can see that you have come to fear the great cat, as you should. The great cat will surely torture your immortal soul for eternity, which is why I need take no action. MY god is so powerful, that he does not need a mere mortal like me to act on his behalf. Who else has a god as powerful as mine, that they do not feel a need to insult his power, by taking deadly actions of their own, because they don't think HE is capable of action?

Apparently your cat has other priorities than most gods. Good for him. That doesn't mean you get to insult the way other people are fulfilling the will of their god though.

Quote
Why would I want to? Did I say I wanted to?

Quote
AHHH! You have illustrated the GREAT CAT!!!

Now you must die- your eternal soul burned to ashes over the fires of universal suffering! But first, I and the followers of Catrianity must burn your flag, your embassies, and. . .um. . .the flag of Monico, in protest.

Sounds to me like you don't want people illustrating your cat, and thus you are trying to limit them. While I respect your religion (as much as any other religion), and will support your right to demonstrate and boycott, that doesn't mean I wont draw cats (were I so inclined), nor that I would support your being violent. However, if Kalif_Deus_Al_Siddis from Pakistan told me that "It's just a cat", I would lecture him on the fact that just because he doesn't understand or care about it doesn't make it any less important to you and your followers. I would also tell him that just because he doesn't believe in cats that doesn't give him the right to simply dismiss your belief. At which point he would probably tell me that things would be a lot better if people didn't believe in cats.

Quote
If you want someone who would like to impose their beliefs on you, look no further than the protesters and rioters against the of the muhbombhead pictures.

Protesters and rioters are two different things. As I said fruther up, you can't demand freedom of speech for your own cause, and then try to deny others the right to the same thing.

Quote
Those pictures were made in denmark, for denmark. If people in a nation like iran or pakistan want to control how things are run in denmark, aren't THEY imposing on others beliefs? They want to print Koran's telling of how infidels (like secularists) will burn in hell, yet when someone in another country makes a picture that lampoons their beliefs, that cannot be tolerated.

And this is their opinion. they are free to try and reach their goal through demonstrations and boycotts, as long as they do not resort to violence. Otherwise you are denying them their right to not only freedom of speech, but their right to an opinion of their own. You and I do not agree with them, nor will we ever. But if we are to honour the system you are referring to so frequently, they have the right.

Otherwise, I suggest you stop talking about "freedom of speech" and start talking about "freedom to say things that I fully agree with".  I don't agree with anti-abortionists, biker-gangs, ultra-feminists or the likes either. But as long as they are expressing their opinions in a non-violent and legal way, they should be free to do so. Just because they are allowed to talk doesn't mean we have to agree with them. But if they aren't allowed to talk, neither are you under your own principle.

Quote
Think about it another way, you want a system that is not hypocritical, that is even handed, right? Well maybe the only way to do that is to allow people to say what they want about other faiths or religions or whatever. There are an infinite number of things people can get upset about, so maybe the only way to accomadate everything fairly, is to just not intervene at all. Anything else is just us Imposing our opinions of what we think is good or bad.

Very true. But in this system, you must still be allowed to become upset if somone offends you. No matter what it is that offends you, nor how silly it is. And you must be allowed to express your feelings in a non-violent way. Otherwise you're simply saying that people no longer have the right to their own opinions.

Quote
It also unfairly gives credit to organized religion. Why should not picture of muhammed by made, but not those of the great cat? Because there are not enough cat followers you say? Because they are not organized enough? Or because they are not a threat?

Because some religions have been around for a long time and are accepted as such, whereas you just made up the cat thing. If you think I'm being unfair, march over to your local tax office and demand a tax exemption because you are head of church.

Quote
I hope you are not taking this conversation too personally. As much of an insulting hypocrite that I may be, I do not hold your opinions on such abstract things against you as a person. And remember, it is not like the world listens to us, anyway. :)

Not at all, I am actually enjoying myself.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 06, 2006, 05:44:11 pm
"Unfortunately I seem to have failed my proofreading. I meant to say 'Most people are selfish'. "

Don't sweat it. My only point is that we all naturally speak in ways that sound like generalizations, especially when we are upset. But that doesn't mean that we are. Just don't nitpick my statements and say that I am generalizing (unless I use words like "all") and I will assume the same from your posts. Obviously, if every single living muslim was out protesting for as long as the protests took place, societies would collapse, as nobody would be moving resources like food, fuel, etc., into the cities of the protests.



"You were the one claiming that we'd lose rights, so I asked which rights. Now suddenly, you're not even sure what rights are? A tad contradictory there."

My point is there are an infinite number of things we take for granted that can be legally taken away from us. You said earlier that we could be hit by an asteroid, but you didn't say which one, right? You don't know which, and frankly, that kind of specifics makes no difference for this debate.



"Good point, I hadn't considered that point of view."

Then that is all I reallly wanted to get across on the world government idea. Just a heads up of what could happen if we go that route without thinking critically about it as we go. Still, it is my personal belief that things probably would not go that path, in a desirable way, from where we are now, but you disagree and I can respect this point (especially since we aren't making world policy makers here, anyway.) We'll just have to wait and see if our world becomes more or less united in the near future.



"So every state in the US is at total mercy of the US goverment? You don't have any power at all to decide what happens? Any state-speciffic legislation? Any representatives in the goverment?"

The Federal laws over-ride state laws, so ultimately, power resides at the top. Of course, this is how most everything works in the modern world, it is just a matter of scale, from my viewpoint.



"Tough luck for the minority, but thats the way it works."

But if that minority was contained within its own country, then it would be the majority, and they could get what they wanted. That is the appeal of a less united system.



"You are imposing your right to express yourself through the breaking of someone elses taboos over their right to keeping those taboos untouched1."

I impose nothing, I only offer my opinion, perhaps in a way that I find semi humorous. This is called Free Speech, and I allow others to do the same against myself, making fun of my personal errors and belief system. Imposing would be if I tried to have laws made that banned protesting.



"And this is where you tell muslims that they are the opposite of wise, because you don't agree with it. You also give their holiest person the title "long dead starnger". That would fall under the term belittling their beliefs."

And this, in turn, is after they say that I will burn forever in hell, for my beliefs. This too, would fall under the term "belittling my beliefs."



"What you could do instead is say, "Fine, if they want to believe, they have every right to do so. But I don't"."

And what they could say instead is "we don't know what happens to unbelievers of Islam when they die, nor do we care."



"Er sorry, what species are you referring to, and how have you established that they have no spirituality, assuming they are sentient enough to understand the concept?"

"Whether they are sentient enough to understand the concept," is not the question, it is whether they can live without it. But okay, let's take humans for one. There are people, like Ivan, who live fine without religion or spirituallity. Their very existence proves that at least some do not need these things. It might just be that some people do a little better when they feel a powerful god has got their back. The downside is, if he doesn't (perhaps because he may not exist,) then nobody is watching your back, not even yourself.



"For some reason, you seem to stubbornly insist that I am defending violence in the name of faith/religion."

This is not my belief, if I posted something that made it sound that way (somewhere in the piles of words and posts) then I apologize.



"Who are you to judge wether it is a bad thing or not to heatedly protest over cartoons?"

I think it is a stupid thing, but I would not force them to stop, if I had the power to. However, they want to oppress- they want to decide what we do in our own lands. This concept, I peacefully protest on this forum. Why should they get to say what they please about us over there, and we must do as they say over here? This is hypocrisy, is it not?



"Read the footnote please."

Oh no, not footnotes- everytime I try to find them, I lose my place in these monstrous posts. :'(



"Indeed, this is getting really messy. But still, as long as it is enjoyable. Though I wish you would use the quote function, I have trouble reading your text. Still, each to his own."

As I mentioned yesterday in the technical forum, the quote function doesn't like me so much. Still, I always use spacing to make things easier- one line between a quote and a response, two lines separating them from other topics. I will try adding more spacers. I also tried to only answer a topic only once, if there are somewhat redundant mini arguements nearby- thus saving reading time and cutting down on post fat.



"Well, I only read about you, and you seem real enough."

Yes, well there you go- I'm not real! (Don't feel bad though, you're not the only one to have believed I existed.) :) But unless you are a super hermit of somekind, I trust that you have met real people at some point in one of your lives. Have you ever met a god?



"Sounds to me like you don't want people illustrating your cat, and thus you are trying to limit them."

Actually, I posted that before converting to catism. And now, I having mailed all my money to the great cat, I have decided to start looking for a cheaper religion. But no, I never cared about stopping people from drawing or reprinting the cat pictures. I just thought I should warn them about his wrath. And of course, they can respond to my warnings, by telling me that I'm full of it.



"Very true. But in this system, you must still be allowed to become upset if somone offends you. No matter what it is that offends you, nor how silly it is. And you must be allowed to express your feelings in a non-violent way. Otherwise you're simply saying that people no longer have the right to their own opinions."

That's fine, but be prepared for counter protests. And don't clog up the works, by crowding or spamming places public places and obstructing those who do not wish to be involved (IOW spamming forums or getting in the way of storefronts and such.



"Because some religions have been around for a long time and are accepted as such, whereas you just made up the cat thing."

That doesn't make it any less worthy than an older religion, be it dead or alive. If you want a non-hypocrisy, you must not give special rights to religions based on size or age.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Lukipela on March 07, 2006, 08:26:34 am
My point is there are an infinite number of things we take for granted that can be legally taken away from us. You said earlier that we could be hit by an asteroid, but you didn't say which one, right? You don't know which, and frankly, that kind of specifics makes no difference for this debate.

And my point was, that if you start worrying about being stripped for rights, you should at least be able to give some indication of what rights you are afraid of losing, or even know what rights you legally have right now.

Quote
Then that is all I reallly wanted to get across on the world government idea. Just a heads up of what could happen if we go that route without thinking critically about it as we go. Still, it is my personal belief that things probably would not go that path, in a desirable way, from where we are now, but you disagree and I can respect this point (especially since we aren't making world policy makers here, anyway.) We'll just have to wait and see if our world becomes more or less united in the near future.

Actually, I meant that I hadn't considered that possibility for a opressive world goverment. That doesn't mean I haven't considered other possibilities, nor that I'm absenting myself of critical thought. I'm still of the opinion that you are way too worried about these things, and that size really doesn't mater that badly, seiing as we already have giants.  But as you said, we'll agree to disagree.

Quote
The Federal laws over-ride state laws, so ultimately, power resides at the top. Of course, this is how most everything works in the modern world, it is just a matter of scale, from my viewpoint.

Out of interest, who makes the federal laws? i was under the impression that they would have to get a green light fro myour senate, but I'm not very well versed in your system, so I might be wrong. But if IU am not, then surely that means all states have a say in what laws are made federal ones? I still think a system where one state can forbid abortion and another allow gay marriage shows that you can maintain some independency in a larger system.

Quote
But if that minority was contained within its own country, then it would be the majority, and they could get what they wanted. That is the appeal of a less united system.

Indeed. But how small are you willing to go with this principle? What minorities are allowed to have a country of their own? And what about smaller minorities within these minority regions? The smallest minority is always one person, and if you wish to cater to all minorities, then you end up with some severly small countries, unable to support themselves.  Besides, what about minorities that are spread over a large geographic area? Or minorities that demand rights but dont want to secede? Being in a minority isn't necessarily a problem (I should know, I am).

Quote
I impose nothing, I only offer my opinion, perhaps in a way that I find semi humorous. This is called Free Speech, and I allow others to do the same against myself, making fun of my personal errors and belief system. Imposing would be if I tried to have laws made that banned protesting.

And they impose nothing ,they only offer their opinion, in a way that they find acceptable. This is called protesting. Imposing would be if the protesters tried to have laws made that banned free speech.

Quote
And this, in turn, is after they say that I will burn forever in hell, for my beliefs. This too, would fall under the term "belittling my beliefs."

so because there is a minority of extremists that wish you deader than dead, you find that there is no point in respecting the religion of the majority? Remmeber, I'm in no way trying to defend the rights of rioters or terrorists here, I'm just saying that it's stupid to judge a religion on their extremists.

Quote
And what they could say instead is "we don't know what happens to unbelievers of Islam when they die, nor do we care."

Which is what most moderates will tell you. They know what they believe will happen, but acknowledge that they don't know any facts.

Quote
"Whether they are sentient enough to understand the concept," is not the question, it is whether they can live without it. But okay, let's take humans for one.

Alright. fine. If this is the way you tnik, I'll happily concede that everyone can live without anything except a rock, trap-making abilities, and the ability to construct shelter. However, to need something and to be unable to live without something are two separate things. I propose that we take a 1000 newborn children, and put them out in the woods. With luck, 10 or so might be taken in by wolves. We then observe if these children show any sign  of spirituality. If they do, we will have proven that even though they don't understand the concept, they can't live without spirituality. If not, they can.

Or we could just, you know, go back to where I say I believe that most people need spirituality, without making any claim that noone can survive witout it.

Quote
There are people, like Ivan, who live fine without religion or spirituallity. Their very existence proves that at least some do not need these things. It might just be that some people do a little better when they feel a powerful god has got their back. The downside is, if he doesn't (perhaps because he may not exist,) then nobody is watching your back, not even yourself.

Yes, Ivan doesn't need spirituality. He's not within the group "most people". Well done for proving what I said a few posts back.  Now please, show me another species where you can actually determine spirituality. And if you say Zerg I'm going to hit you. Please refrain from mixing the phrase "most people need" with the phrase "noone can live without" again.

Quote
This is not my belief, if I posted something that made it sound that way (somewhere in the piles of words and posts) then I apologize.

Mostly because every time I make any attempt to point out that people have the right to feel offended and to demonstarte, you automatically assume that I'm talking about the guys burning embassies and trying to impose their way of living on you. At least all your retorts connect to people trying to impose their wil lon you, and that being the reason why you don't feel obliged to respect them. But what about all the people who are offended, yet live with it?

Quote
I think it is a stupid thing, but I would not force them to stop, if I had the power to. However, they want to oppress- they want to decide what we do in our own lands. This concept, I peacefully protest on this forum. Why should they get to say what they please about us over there, and we must do as they say over here? This is hypocrisy, is it not?

Perfect example. Noone has said that we have to bow down to anyone just because they are getting offended. We don't have to do anything just because someone decided they want us to follow their religion. However, accepting that htey have differnet priorities, trying to understand their culture, and not dismissing their arguments offhand because we don't understand them does not equate bowing down to anyone. Ivan seems to have gotten the jist of what I am saying, try reading my replies to him further up.

the footonote said that I'm not referring to anyone here when I talk about my pet peeve.

Quote
As I mentioned yesterday in the technical forum, the quote function doesn't like me so much. Still, I always use spacing to make things easier- one line between a quote and a response, two lines separating them from other topics. I will try adding more spacers. I also tried to only answer a topic only once, if there are somewhat redundant mini arguements nearby- thus saving reading time and cutting down on post fat.

I don't udnerstand how quote tags can be that hard. Its the word quote. I nbrackets. The finishing one has a slash in fornt of the word. It's not rocket science.

Quote
Yes, well there you go- I'm not real! (Don't feel bad though, you're not the only one to have believed I existed.) :) But unless you are a super hermit of somekind, I trust that you have met real people at some point in one of your lives. Have you ever met a god?

Yes. I believe I have.

Quote
That's fine, but be prepared for counter protests. And don't clog up the works, by crowding or spamming places public places and obstructing those who do not wish to be involved (IOW spamming forums or getting in the way of storefronts and such.

Protests and counter protest are part of being able to express yourself. I repaet, s long as you are not doing anything illegal, you are free to exŚress yourself as you please..

Quote
That doesn't make it any less worthy than an older religion, be it dead or alive. If you want a non-hypocrisy, you must not give special rights to religions based on size or age.

I don't. But I'm not in charge. Also, without a large congregation and a history, you aren't a religion, you are a sect.


Title: Re: Muslim caricatures
Post by: Deus Siddis on March 07, 2006, 06:19:40 pm
Quote
And my point was, that if you start worrying about being stripped for rights, you should at least be able to give some indication of what rights you are afraid of losing, or even know what rights you legally have right now.

You are asking me to predict what laws I might find offensive, that may someday be produced by a government that exists only in our imaginations at this point. I am no prophet. The best you can do, when on new ground, is try to and look back at things that are similar and predict how they would work in this newer situation.

You seem to be using the modern US as a model for a world government. Every large scale nation (usually empires) before had things that you probably would not consider very acceptable, so this makes sense. What you don't seem to realize though, is the US is not very popular, and not very strong at all anymore. We are tired, exausted from both large debts, and the fact that our culture has evolved to a place where we are no longer super power material (60% of us are overweight or obese, many, even some very young, rely on a plethora of presciption drugs to keep their bodies functional.) It has been estimated by some, that my generation will be outlived by the previous. This will create major productivity and financial costs. In addition, playing world police has also been very expensive. We have drained ourselves by spreading too thin and trying to act as a pseudo world government.

And we did all this in half a century. Super power, after world war two, to elderly giant today. The USSR lasted even less time. It almost seems like this world eats large governments for breakfast.

So forgive my lack of imagination, but I don't see much to give a clue that the world government approach is very realistic, or would be very successful.


Quote
Actually, I meant that I hadn't considered that possibility for a opressive world goverment.

And that was simply what I wanted to suggest to you as a possibility to consider. Some days, it is good to have a row of tanks between you and the latest group of crazy people. Not have the crazy people in control of all the tanks. :)


Quote
I'm still of the opinion that you are way too worried about these things, and that size really doesn't mater that badly, seiing as we already have giants.

I'm not as worried as you think. As stated above, I don't think a world government would last long in today's world. And I don't think we have any giants at the moment, right now the world is sort of running itself. :o


Quote
Out of interest, who makes the federal laws?

An excellent question, is it the congress or the supreme court? We have got a sort of imbalance of power.


Quote
I still think a system where one state can forbid abortion and another allow gay marriage shows that you can maintain some independency in a larger system.

Federal decisions override state ones. These are just temporary plays. The idea is that these laws are fought all the way up to the Supreme Court, where it is decided, on a federal level. But, it doesn't just stop there, as the Supreme Court can also "interpret" federal laws made by the congress, in any way they see fit. Better still, the Justices do not have to run for office (they are there until they decide to retire, pretty much,) and they are not elected by the people.


Quote
Indeed. But how small are you willing to go with this principle?

Me personally? I wouldn't mind the tribal level myself, but that wouldn't work on a world scale with today's population and setup. Of course, if one of your disasters takes place soon, then that may not be an issue. :(


Quote
so because there is a minority of extremists that wish you deader than dead, you find that there is no point in respecting the religion of the majority?

The religion of the extremists is that they should take matters into their own hands. The religion of the Koran is that the merciful Ala will burn us in hell for our ignorance and sin. I don't find this very respectful. So lets stop making cartoons when the production of Korans stops, or it is amended with "Who knows what happens to the unbelievers" or "Ala is nice to the unbelievers."


Quote
Or we could just, you know, go back to where I say I believe that most people need spirituality, without making any claim that noone can survive witout it.

I could agree with "Most people want spirituallity."


Quote
Now please, show me another species where you can actually determine spirituality.

Again, it is irrelevant. The question was can they live without it, not do they understand it. If someone was raised by wolves, and taught nothing spiritual by them, but they still lived without it, then they have all survived without it, and thus do not need it. But with non-humans, you could say that rocks have a religion and I would have no way to disprove you, because I can't talk to rocks. Nor can I communicate abstract concepts back and forth with any other species. I don't speak dolphin, so you can count this as a victory if you want.


Quote
And if you say Zerg I'm going to hit you.

You must have a very long arm. Unless you're somekind of infested ghost, and you can telepathically command a burrowed Zergling waiting over here, to do it for you. :P


Quote
But what about all the people who are offended, yet live with it?

Uh. . .they live with it? Perhaps they are like me in that they realize that they sometimes insult others and are also insulted by others, but that does not mean that much when you look at the big picture. Perhaps they don't care because we'll get ours when we burn in hell anyway.


Quote
I don't udnerstand how quote tags can be that hard. Its the word quote. I nbrackets. The finishing one has a slash in fornt of the word. It's not rocket science.

It is not using the html that was/is the problem, just that at least on the old board, it never worked on my machine. I'm trying it again now though, perhaps it isn't a problem anymore. (Crosses Fingers)


Quote
Yes. I believe I have.

Wow, meeting a real god in person. You must feel pretty lucky. . .or holy. :)


Quote
Protests and counter protest are part of being able to express yourself.

Which is all you can do on a message board, anyway. Real life laws and bans are not made here.


Quote
Also, without a large congregation and a history, you aren't a religion, you are a sect.

Not sure about that, I thought a religion is a belief system that centers around, or at least has super natural beings and universal creators. A sect is a small religion, or a part of a larger one. Sort of like a frigate is a smaller ship, but it is still a ship.