|
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Muslim caricatures (Read 26659 times)
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
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
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.
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
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 05, 2006, 05:57:30 pm by Ivan Ivanov »
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 05, 2006, 06:14:08 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
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?
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?
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?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
(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. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 06, 2006, 02:35:27 am by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Why would I want to? Did I say I wanted to?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 06, 2006, 04:03:53 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 exåress yourself as you please..
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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. 
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."
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."
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.
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. 
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.
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)
Yes. I believe I have.
Wow, meeting a real god in person. You must feel pretty lucky. . .or holy.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 07, 2006, 06:31:56 pm by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
|
|
|
|
|
