Religion

[wufongtan.]

My brother inlaw is from india. He has a "swastika" tattooed on the webbing on his hand. I asked why do you have that, you a nazi or something? He said "no, it is a sathio. and its a hindu thing blah blah" Or something i tuned out. As he likes to ramble. Any way if you have a look. You will see the arms on the swastika and sathio face opposite directions. Sort of like a mirror image.

[BookZombie]

Greetings

I see your point, but again, the issue is that it is likely to result in public unrest. Being homosexual, if I were to see somebody with a placard telling all queers to go to hell, I'd probably get fairly pissed and start an argument. Whilst I'm aware there's a difference between holding a placard and wearing a symbol, to some they will have the same effect. Arguments, fights, street brawls and perhaps even deaths could ensue.

I am bisexual and I to do take offense at statements such as gays to to hell, however I also see that it is an individual's right to hate. If they for example want to wear a tshirt with such a message I would think that they where complete idiots, but I would tolerate their views. I do not think that the way to change people's minds away from bigotry is to outlaw them from expressing their views. I mean they can turn right back and say, well I think it is offense to see two gays kiss, and then in addition to the hate that is already there they get a feeling of resentment as they feel unfairly treated. However by letting them have their views but working against such ignorance that way one can change minds.

It's a fine line between exercising your right to free speech and inciting a riot. If some moron decides to preach white supremacy in the middle of Harlem, he's going to cause big trouble that will inevitably involve the police. That sounds like inciting violence to me.

There is a fine line, however what crime an idiot preaching white supremacy Harlem is doing is not that he preach his views, it is that by action of doing it exactly there he is insulting people beyond just expressing personal views. I mean that if someone walk around with a I love bacon tshirt that might offend some Muslims and PETA, however they will just have to accept that. Going into a Mosque or for that matter PETA's yearly meet up however with said tshirt that I would say is begging for trouble and is far less acceptable.

I don't know the story behind banning the swastika in Norway, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that every time some fool decides to wear one, he gets his butt kicked and has to be rescued by the cops. Maybe they got sick and tired of all the trouble it was causing.

It was outlawed after WW2 because it was the symbol of the Nazi, no other reason than that.

I wonder who the God of the horror cult is? Satan or Bruce Campbell?

I would say it would be fear itself, after all that is what we are searching for is to be scared so the God of horror have to be fear.

[TheWickerFan]

This seemed relevant to the debate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...hrist-religion

[ferretchucker]

Originally Posted by BookZombie

Greetings



I am bisexual and I to do take offense at statements such as gays to to hell, however I also see that it is an individual's right to hate. If they for example want to wear a tshirt with such a message I would think that they where complete idiots, but I would tolerate their views. I do not think that the way to change people's minds away from bigotry is to outlaw them from expressing their views. I mean they can turn right back and say, well I think it is offense to see two gays kiss, and then in addition to the hate that is already there they get a feeling of resentment as they feel unfairly treated. However by letting them have their views but working against such ignorance that way one can change minds.

In the example of them getting offended by seeing two gays kiss, the difference in the nature of the stimulus must be noted.

• Being offended by a person with hate filled placards and spouting their anger is caused by the fact that said person is displaying hatred. Their views are negative and as such, people react negatively.
• Two gays kissing is - like anybody kissing - caused by attraction. It's a positive emotion and whilst many feel uneasy about it, it is not inherently a negative thing.

I completely understand your arguments, but I'm sticking to my guns that when freedom of speech is likely to result in such an overwhelmingly negative emotional response and is attached to historic events which many would like to forget -

• Stastika when linked to neo-nazis - WW2 and Holocaust
• Anti-Semetism - Years of oppression and pogroms for the Jews
• Racism - The slave trade, segregation and continual animosity

it is sometimes better to control it. For societies' sake.

[BookZombie]

* Two gays kissing is - like anybody kissing - caused by attraction. It's a positive emotion and whilst many feel uneasy about it, it is not inherently a negative thing.

Off course it is not a negative thing not to me and you at least, but to many people this is offensive and is as in your face as someone wearing a hateful sign. I do not understand such a reaction to it, it is two people kissing but still it can generate just as negative a response as a hateful sign.

I completely understand your arguments, but I'm sticking to my guns that when freedom of speech is likely to result in such an overwhelmingly negative emotional response and is attached to historic events which many would like to forget -

I do see your point, however my problem with it is, 50 years ago a black man in USA wearing a tshirt that said my kid have as much the right to a good eduction as your kid, could cause just as much overwhelming negative response. My hubby had a teacher who was a sailor in the 1950's, one time he was in USA and he saw that blacks and whites could not sit in the same place on the buss. Now this sailor said fuck this, it is not fair and sat down in the black section. As a result he was beaten up but a gang of white men who was offended that he had sympathies with the black population, today men like this sailor is the heroes, however if he and the others of any race who thought segregation where bullshit had considered, oh, well I should not express myself in a way that could lead to overwhelming negative emotional responses then there might still be a black and a white part off the buss.

One have to tolerate idiots using the freedom of speech and freedom of expression because one day one might need that right to fight for what is just and right but which might not be accepted by mainstream society. The protection of the freedom of expression have never been about protecting popular expressions, but rather it is about everyone having the right to express their views, no matter what those views might be.

it is sometimes better to control it. For societies' sake.

I do not mean to offend, however there is allot of people today that say the same about gays expressing themselves in public, or gays that fight for equal rights. And I am quite sure there where many that said the same about those that expressed their views that segregation where bull to. It is never best to control freedom of speech for society's sake, for then it is not the freedom of speech anymore, it is the freedom to say whatever is popular and accepted.

[cheebacheeba]

I do not mean to offend, however there is allot of people today that say the same about gays expressing themselves in public, or gays that fight for equal rights. And I am quite sure there where many that said the same about those that expressed their views that segregation where bull to.

Religion is a choice, being homosexual (I don't call them gays any more than you'd like to be called "prays") or black is not.
Bringing this up doesn't really validate or further back up your point.
Just saying.
It's like comparing apples and paperclips...

[ferretchucker]

Originally Posted by BookZombie

Off course it is not a negative thing not to me and you at least, but to many people this is offensive and is as in your face as someone wearing a hateful sign.

I do see your point, however my problem with it is, 50 years ago a black man in USA wearing a tshirt that said my kid have as much the right to a good eduction as your kid, could cause just as much overwhelming negative response. My hubby had a teacher who was a sailor in the 1950's, one time he was in USA and he saw that blacks and whites could not sit in the same place on the buss. Now this sailor said fuck this, it is not fair and sat down in the black section. As a result he was beaten up but a gang of white men who was offended that he had sympathies with the black population, today men like this sailor is the heroes, however if he and the others of any race who thought segregation where bullshit had considered, oh, well I should not express myself in a way that could lead to overwhelming negative emotional responses then there might still be a black and a white part off the buss.

I do not mean to offend, however there is allot of people today that say the same about gays expressing themselves in public, or gays that fight for equal rights. And I am quite sure there where many that said the same about those that expressed their views that segregation where bull to. It is never best to control freedom of speech for society's sake, for then it is not the freedom of speech anymore, it is the freedom to say whatever is popular and accepted.

But in these examples - the homosexuals kissing, the black man wanting his children to have an education and the sympathetic white man on the bus - whilst their actions cause offense, that was not their initial intention. Their personal intentions were positive - acts of love and kinship. However a racist baring their symbol does so with intent of showing others their hatred towards a group of people. Both stimuli cause offense - however it is the intention behind them that makes the racist's case weaker when it comes to their freedom.

[Ferox13]

Originally Posted by BookZombie

I do not mean to offend, however there is allot of people today that say the same about gays expressing themselves in public, or gays that fight for equal rights. And I am quite sure there where many that said the same about those that expressed their views that segregation where bull to. It is never best to control freedom of speech for society's sake, for then it is not the freedom of speech anymore, it is the freedom to say whatever is popular and accepted.

How do ppl feel about political direct action and 'no platform for fascists'.
Meaning that you nip these people in the bud by anyways necessary. Think of it as if you heard Hitler preaching in the beerhalls would you have liked to stop his freedom of speech?

[cheebacheeba]

I don't really like to see anyone making out in public...irks me...too much of a pronunciation of ownership or insecurity if you ask me. Not saying it is in all cases but yeah sometimes you look and just think "For fucks sake you two, get over yourselves".

Yeah, hatred based rants and behaviour ought to be kept in check...
I don't personally hate religion as such, I don't really approve of how a lot of people handle it though.

[BookZombie]

Religion is a choice, being homosexual (I don't call them gays any more than you'd like to be called "prays") or black is not.

I agree. I am bisexual and humosexuality is something one is born as. However I do not share your idea that gay is a bad word. And also if you want to call me a pray then go ahead, though as I am Pagan I would thing paggy might fit better.

Bringing this up doesn't really validate or further back up your point.
Just saying.
It's like comparing apples and paperclips...

Really? How do bringing up one activity which some people find offensive not relate to discussing if one should disallow things which people find offensive?

But in these examples - the homosexuals kissing, the black man wanting his children to have an education and the sympathetic white man on the bus - whilst their actions cause offense, that was not their initial intention.

I get your point here, however let me take another example. Not long ago Facebook took down a picture of two men kissing. Allot of other facebook users, myself included posted the article and picture of this on our pages in outrage. Now reposting this picture was done in a way offend Facebook to show support to the user that had his picture taken down, however with the hope that with enough people doing this Facebook would see how ridiculous their policy was.

Their personal intentions were positive - acts of love and kinship.

Who is going to judge if someone's intentions are positive? Many of those that fight gay rights do so thinking they are loving and positive protecting marriage or whatever they are doing, not that I understand how denying gays to marry protects marriage but that is another debate. Like they say the path to hell is often paved with good intentions, so who devides what is good and positive?

However a racist baring their symbol does so with intent of showing others their hatred towards a group of people.

In their world view showing off Nazi symbols can be a way to do good, to protect what they believe in. Remember it might be twisted but hardly do someone think their own actions are evil. Let me make an example, in Norway during WW2 many Norwegians secretly wore symbols that showed their hatred for the Germans, some even wore them openly and died for it. Now today we see them as brave and I agree, I am on their side I am just playing devils advocate her, racists and new Nazis might think just the same way, they are bravely displaying the symbols of their cause,and while I think their cause is bullshit, who is going to sit and judge? I mean the Germans in WW2 took great offense to the anti Nazi pins and symbols that Norwegians wore, where those Norwegians wrong to?

Both stimuli cause offense - however it is the intention behind them that makes the racist's case weaker when it comes to their freedom

I do agree that intention play into it, and that when one express oneself with the intention to cause offense one have a weaker case when it comes to the freedom of expression than when one do not wish to cause offense. However I have a example about this, could you tell me how you would judge in this.

Two years ago on May 8, women's day in Norway a Muslim woman who are a outspoken advocate for women's rights in Islam was hosting a demonstration. This demonstration would culminate in her coming onto the stage wearing a Abaya and then would rip it off, wearing Western clothing under it, and toss the Abaya into a fire.

Now this demonstration was off course meant to demonstrate disgust for the garment and the practice behind it, but it was also meant to offend and prove a point. Now there where a fair number of Muslims at the demonstration and they where working them self up into a frenzy. The Norwegian police came in and stopped the demonstration and told the hostess that no, she was offending the Muslims and she could not burn the Abaya. Do you think the police where right in their actions or should the hostess have been allowed to burn the garment and continued with the demonstration?

How do ppl feel about political direct action and 'no platform for fascists'.
Meaning that you nip these people in the bud by anyways necessary. Think of it as if you heard Hitler preaching in the beerhalls would you have liked to stop his freedom of speech?

Me personally would I have liked to stop him, yes. And had I stood there with knowledge of what came of his speech off course I would. However would I think it morally right to stop him from expressing his views, no. It is a slippery slope when one say freedom of speech will be denied one group as that make it far easier to deny it to someone else.

I don't really like to see anyone making out in public...irks me...too much of a pronunciation of ownership or insecurity if you ask me. Not saying it is in all cases but yeah sometimes you look and just think "For fucks sake you two, get over yourselves".

I actually agree on this, a little kiss to show affection not a problem, but when people are sucking on one another faces and their hands are everywhere and they are sticking their tongues down one another's throats then that irk me, I think they can take that at home no matter who they happens to be kissing. However I do not think one should outlaw this behavior just because I am not so fond of seeing it.