Customer Discussions > Science forum

Is appeasing religion more important to society than free speech?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 103 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:32:57 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
No, its called spamming the forums against the rules of the company providing the servers and maintaining the forums.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:34:08 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Truth is a defense in a libel suit, though the accused has the burden of proof (the plaintiff must prove damage)."

You are absolutely correct.

"Shall we agree that insults are protected if they are true, and use a "reasonable person" standard, or perhaps put the burden on the insulted? "

I'm pretty sure I can't agree to that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:40:12 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic."

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

Its clear that the neo-Nazis matching through Jewish neighborhoods a is done as an intimidation tactic, and it appears that the Westboro Baptist Church has similar goals with their protests.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:38:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 12:40:02 PM PDT
Bubba says:
You have to be careful using an Ajax All-Purpose Insult-o-Meter; models prior to 4-B are not able to withstand some of the insults encountered in in these forums and are likely to be severely damaged. Model 4-B and subsequent models incorporate a meter protection circuit and should be safe to use.

As has been found by some forum posters, Irony Meters have the same problem and they will burn out when subjected to some of the posts in these forums. Some of the later models of Irony Meters have meter protection circuits built into them, you will have to consult the manufacturer's information to see if the model you have has a meter protection circuit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:45:23 PM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
<<Some of the later models of Irony Meters have meter protection circuits built into them, you will have to consult the manufacturer's information to see if the model you have has a meter protection circuit. >>

i do NOT recommend Apple's iRony. those things overheat just from mild sarcasm.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 2:18:41 PM PDT
Let's reiterate that: it was a Halloween parade; Perce, the victim, was marching as part of an atheist organization; Elbayomy is a recent immigrant, probably not yet a naturalized citizen; there are at least three charges involved: Perce's charge against Elbayomy, Elbayomy's allegation of instigation against Perce, the police complaint against Elbayomy for harassment. Judge Martin dismissed the case against Elbayomy for lack of evidence (perhaps Perce's complaint was combined with the police complaint? it's not clear). There was no report on how or whether the court settled the other case(s).

The greater firestorm is over the judge's comments. This fellow is, I'll bet, no constitutional scholar but merely a court judge more involved with legal findings and precedents than with constitutional questions.

Posted on Jul 2, 2012 2:38:12 PM PDT
All,

Is it wrong to think of it as "appeasing" religion? Maybe the higher ground is to reach a level of mutual agreement. Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion as much as disentanglement of government and religion; it also means mutual respect and competition among religions. It's questionable to be deliberately provocative, just as it's questionable to physically attack someone who offends a personal belief. But, as has been frequently pointed out, we have the rights to be provocative and to be offended.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 4:14:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 5:45:38 PM PDT
Ashwood says:
Harry Marks says: How about the following - if the insult could not have made the same redeeming socially important point without being insulting, it is protected. This covers the case of the "simply stating the truth" and "supporting gay marriage" "expressing atheism" and "arguing for a carbon tax because of global warming," and perhaps "speaking of fails."

Is that a bright enough line for you?

Ash : The purpose of protesting is to call attention to your cause. If you must self-censor to keep it polite, stay within designated free speech zones, and be careful to frame it in the most inoffensive terms possible that makes it easy for the powers that be to ignore you. So the "sure, people are dying but that's no reason to be rude" argument isn't really going to work for me.

There is a reason Thich Quang Duc felt that setting himself on fire would do more for his cause than starting a letter writing campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjpAh4rqTv4

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 6:29:31 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
""Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech&quot;

"Hate speech" is an attempt to regulate speech based on what others _think_ the speaker was either _feeling_ when he spoke or what the speaker meant by whatever it is the speaker said.

It is a dangerous concept.

Define "vilifies". Then strictly define all the descriptive terms you have used so that no possible misunderstanding can occur.

What's left that is "safe"? Hmmm. How about, "See Spot run."? No, we can't say that because that might vilify someone who can't run. Or can't see.

Stick with actual free speech and let the consequences fall where they may when the bigots take _action._

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 6:30:58 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
THANK you for the warning. I just bought my model 4-B APIoM and so far it's held up well.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 6:31:37 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
HAhahahahaha! Snaps, Rev!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 6:32:52 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Understood, Charles.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:54:48 PM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Ashwood -

So, if "calling attention to your cause" is the redeeming social importance, why is it necessary to insult someone? If you can't accomplish it without someone taking offense, then you would be covered. If you can, why the insult?

I asked for a reason why insults are important enough to be covered by free speech protection. The answer seems to be, because some people take offense at important speech. I think I am asking that the person "speaking" consider whether the same point can be made without insulting anyone. If there is no reasonable way to do that, fine.

Of course, they could always set themselves on fire. It worked in Tunisia.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 3:34:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 4:08:04 AM PDT
Ashwood says:
Harry Marks says: So, if "calling attention to your cause" is the redeeming social importance, why is it necessary to insult someone? If you can't accomplish it without someone taking offense, then you would be covered. If you can, why the insult?

Ash : Firstly, there is a difference between doing something other people might find offensive and an insult. The Danish cartoons and dressing up as zombie Muhammad were criticisms of a belief system which is being used hypocritically not an insult aimed at a person. Zombie Pope was no big deal, so it's not a matter of Zombie Muhammad being beyond the pale, it is a matter of Muslims expecting their beliefs to be privileged above all others and using violence to enforce it.

Secondly, do you think everyone in this thread would have heard of the Parading Atheists of Central PA, if the guy hadn't been dressed up as zombie Muhammad? If not, then he couldn't have brought the same amount of attention to his cause without causing someone offense and was therefore "covered".

Compare and contrast...

Big Mouth Toys Funny Toilet Paper: Obama

with...

*Hamza Kashgari, a young Saudi writer, caused a firestorm when he posted a series of tweets on the birthday of Prophet Mohammad last week. In his tweets, Kashgari imagined a conversation with the Prophet in which he said they are equal, and that although he admires many of the Prophet's characteristics there are also others that he disliked.

Saudi users on Twitter erupted with outrage, posting nearly 30,000 tweets on the topic in less than 24 hours. Many people believed that he insulted the Prophet by addressing him and speaking about him like that. They accused Kashgari of blasphemy, atheism and apostasy. Many said he must be punished and some said he should be killed. Others even went as far as threatening to kill him or offer money for his head.* -http://saudijeans.org/2012/02/08/hamza-kashgari/

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 4:53:54 AM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Ashwood -

So let's see if I have this straight. Insulting is better than just stating criticism, because it draws attention. It draws attention because it upsets people. So it is important to protect the right to draw attention to a point by insulting people, so that people can have their attention drawn to important points. Does that sound like a fair summary?

Of course this suggests that people do not already consider it an important point, so that "raising it for discussion" is not sufficient. I suspect in this case their attention is unlikely to change their view on whether it is important, but at least they will recognize that it is important to someone else, because that person was willing to insult people to get the importance across.

Notice the Kashgari case is already "covered" since it is the viewpoint that drew the ire, not any insulting way in which he went about it (though choosing the birthday was probably an attention-getting device, and therefore suspect in my book). That is, since there was no way to express the viewpoint without "insulting" the otheres, I readily agree it is important to protect his right.

So I have several questions about this logic. First and most obviously, why is it not sufficient to require the insulter to seek other methods of drawing attention, which do not require insulting anyone? Act Up may not have completely avoided giving insult, but they developed attention-getting into a fine art, and in the process showed they cared much more effectively than picking a fight does.

Which raises the second question, that of heat vs. light. Do we really think it is important to privilege confrontation? I mean, does it capture your views well to say, it is important that someone who feels deeply about an issue be able safely to draw attention to it by upsetting other people, (when it is possible to draw attention to it by non-insulting means,) rather than just explaining why it is important to them? It strikes me as encouraging a certain kind of personality that rarely brings attention to the downtrodden, but often brings attention to themselves.

Some people confront the powerful so that they will not be allowed to just go on about their business, bulldozing the homes of Palestinians, creating nuclear waste, or whatever it is, without fear of challenge. But the whole idea there is to challenge the law by breaking the law. Penalties are an implication - if their actions are privileged, it is just another demonstration.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 6:20:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 6:22:44 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"So which kinds of insults are important to protect, and which kinds are not?"

All of them are important to protect, obviously. You keep looking for loopholes to censor at least SOME type of insulting speech, but there aren't any.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 9:06:46 AM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Obviously. Because insults are valuable speech. Everybody knows that.

Look, I am fine with our "sticks and stones" culture, in which insults don't count and assault does. But in practice, a person who sticks their fingers in the light socket is likely to get a shock. How much trouble do the rest of us need to go to, to protect a person from foolishness, if it isn't serving any purpose?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 11:01:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 11:09:04 AM PDT
Bubba says:
The iRony meters have a very sleek design, but the warranty on them specifically excludes damage from "excessive" irony. I would stick to the far more robust brands that include a protection circuit and have warranties that do not exclude damage for "excessive" irony.

ETA: One would think that a company that had a leader who wore black turtlenecks would have totally bulletproof Irony Meters.

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 7:04:00 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 4, 2012 7:27:37 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 1:58:45 PM PDT
TN says:
That was a Muslim judge. There lies the problem. He should be removed from American courts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 6:50:00 PM PDT
TN,

Where did you get that Martin, the judge, is Muslim? If that is true, on what grounds do you believe he should be removed from American courts?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:13:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 7:15:21 PM PDT
TN says:
A little googling can go a long way...

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-and-then/

He brought the Koran into his court and applied sharia! The last time I check, Pennsylvania is in the US.

It's not a surprise the majority of media deliberately hide the religion or ethnic of the offender when it comes to Muslims. In Europe they use the euphemism "youth".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:18:40 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
TN:'wnd'

Try a source, not a pathetic cry for help in being unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It's called World NUT Daily for many good reasons.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 8:37:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 8:39:01 PM PDT
TN,

A little more googling will clarify things. You seem to imply that merely because Martin brought a Koran into court and spoke knowledgeably about Islam and Muslim nations, that he must be a Muslim himself. Poppycock.

Judge Martin said, "If I were a Muslim, I'd find it offensive." This from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/pennsylvania-judge-musim-zombie-muhammad_n_1304764.html He could not use that phrase if he were, indeed, a Muslim.

How on earth do you think he "applied sharia"? Do you think Sharia Law somehow clings to the Koran like a mildew? Issues from it like a miasma and pollutes anyone nearby? You're being hysterical.

BTW, you should check your sources. Here's how Google describes WND: "WND.com Independent conservative news website with an emphasis on aggressive investigative reporting and gossip." In other words, you have to peel the conservative spin off of articles in this website before you get to something worth reading. They're assuming that Martin is Muslim simply to sell interest to their base.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 10:44:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 11:02:00 PM PDT
TN says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  103
Initial post:  Jun 29, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 12, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions