(November 7, 2010 at 11:15 am)Paul the Human Wrote: @Existentialist: No one has to 'be quiet'.

Good. It is nice when people support freedom of expression.

Quote:your responses (and your habit of redefining words) come across as emotional

I am human, I have emotions. Thanks for noticing.

Quote:You can hold and express any opinion you wish, but that doesn't make you right about what it takes to be considered a crime.

I think I'm right though. That's in the nature of an opinion. The opinion-holder thinks they're right.

(November 7, 2010 at 11:20 am)Existentialist Wrote: I think I'm right though. That's in the nature of an opinion. The opinion-holder thinks they're right.

Indeed. I never said any different. What I said, or was implying, was that you should stop letting your emotions rule your reactions and redefine your words. It is counter to productive discourse.

Of course you are free to disregard that advice, as I'm sure you will. I will have no emotional response, I promise.

(November 7, 2010 at 11:25 am)Paul the Human Wrote: I will have no emotional response, I promise.

The difference is I am proud of my emotional responses. They are part of what makes my opinions sound. People who claim to be wholly rational invariably hide strong emotions, which are easily spotted when an inconsistency appears in the rationale of their arguments - mostly not very far into the conversation. "Blasphemy is a victimless crime" contains such an inconsistency, because blasphemy isn't a crime, and there are no victims.

(November 7, 2010 at 11:32 am)Existentialist Wrote: "Blasphemy is a victimless crime" contains such an inconsistency, because blasphemy isn't a crime, and there are no victims.

And that is where you are wrong. If blasphemy is prohibited by law, then blasphemy is a crime within the jurisdiction of that law. Your opinion that it should not be designated as a crime, does not change the fact that, within that jurisdiction, it is one. Your strong, emotionally inspired opinion that blasphemy should not be a crime is causing you to imprint more (and incorrect) meaning to the word 'crime'.

I can't believe I'm arguing with you over another case of you redefining a word. From now on, words mean whatever you say they do. I'm finished trying to teach you the error of your ways. No offense to you personally, of course.

What a messy convoluted ball of twine you have in that head of yours Ex, I mean, your though is really confusing, I can't really make anything of your posts, mabe is just me that can't keep up with such advanced thoughts. You keep going and going around this notions of gay sex, blasphemy and adultery being a crime, despite the fact that almost everyone here agrees with you that they are not crimes. Or they shouldn't be crimes, because one thing is what we think and reality is a different thing, there are countries that still today have those laws, and the fact that you think, that you can even prove it is wrong to prosecute a person for those reasons you'd still be inprisioned and perhaps killed for those 'crimes'.

It seems to me, that you have a rough time dealing with reality, but guess what, that's what it is, we can hope to improve it, work in ending those ideas, but for the while we have to face it, no matter how ugly it is.

(November 7, 2010 at 9:43 am)Paul the Human Wrote: Hurt their feelings, yes. Actually hurt them, no. Having your feelings hurt does not make you a victim... unless it is directed at you. If, for example, I say that Muslims are all terrorist pedophiles... then I have insulted Muslims directly and they can claim they have been victimized. If, however, I blaspheme and say that Allah does not exist... then they may get upset that I have disparaged something they believe in, but not that I have victimized them directly. Those Muslims you mentioned took to the streets to stifle the freedom of thought and expression of others. They weren't victims. If anything... they were victimizing the rights of others to disagree with them openly.

Again, you still see things through your own point if view. That is wrong. These muslims WERE victims by their own standards. If you think insulting your God is insulting you and all you stand for personally, then you ARE a victim. It doesn't matter what the person insulting you feels about it. It is subjective considering of what is an assault to you or not. Just because you don't intend to offend or feel like it's enough to be offended, does not mean that they are not offended.

It's just a slogan guys. We can all calm down over it now, it's no big deal whether it is accurate/logical or not.

Yeah, first and formost its just that, a slogan, and in an atheist view, its correct. You dont Like it? Professor, please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw

(November 7, 2010 at 11:55 am)Rwandrall Wrote: Again, you still see things through your own point if view. That is wrong. These muslims WERE victims by their own standards. If you think insulting your God is insulting you and all you stand for personally, then you ARE a victim. It doesn't matter what the person insulting you feels about it. It is subjective considering of what is an assault to you or not. Just because you don't intend to offend or feel like it's enough to be offended, does not mean that they are not offended.

I disagree. They were not victims. They had been disagreed with and it displeased them, so they cried victim. Disagreeing with someone's views openly does not equate to victimization unless it inspires some sort of action against them directly, in which case it has only lead to victimization.

I just disagreed with something you believe. Do you feel victimized? Of course not. The scale may be different, but the concept remains the same.

As I said before; if you feel like a victim because someone disagreed with your views, you are at the height of arrogance. To feel victimised because of a difference of opinion means you feel that your opinion is higher than anyone else's, and is untouchable. I don't have any respect for people who think like that.