|
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Muslim caricatures (Read 27137 times)
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
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! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
Oil spills are bad, but they don’t 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 “ME ME ME” and entitlement culture that has sprung up.
would your cat be related to this cat?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/05/03
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
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 ME” 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 03, 2006, 12:23:59 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
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 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
StaffyStar
Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
StaffyStar
Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 05, 2006, 11:40:34 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 296
Internet Piracy
|
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 05, 2006, 04:39:30 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
|
|
|
|
|
