(December 27, 2015 at 10:26 am)abaris Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 10:03 am)Brian37 Wrote: I love my liberal atheists and theists but depending on individual, some get too over protective of religion.

And that's where you're wrong. It's got nothing to do with religion, but everything with choosing one's own path through life. I don't have to like what other people value, but in order to protect my own values I have to protect their freedom to do and believe whatever the fuck they want.

That's why I am as opposed to so called anti theists as I am against radical religious individuals. They all want to shove their opinions down everyone's throats.

Nope sorry, you are making the same mistake theists make. Nobody is disagreeing with the right to make any claim you want, nor am I advocating the forced end of religion. I agree if I value my rights I have to value the rights of others. Again, still a separate issue than the ability to demonstrate the credibility of any given claim, on any subject, not just religion. No politician, no business man, no holy person no one, is free from getting offended. 

I do call myself anti-theist, just like I am anti unicornist, anti flat earther. Now nowhere in that does it say "use government to force religion out of existence." I will defend someone's right to claim the Yankees won the Superbowl and I also have the right to say "bullshit, the Yankees play baseball".

If religion always got a pedestal and got to be free from being offended, blacks would still be slaves and women would not have the right to vote. I warn you not to hand the government tool of censorship, a loaded gun, to a theistic majority considering you are an atheist. 

I know your protecting sensitive people is well intended,but the idea of religion itself does not deserve a blind pedestal. Places that ban you from offending religion are not pleasant places for dissent or minorities of any kind. I am quite sure you are well aware of the stranglehold theocracy has on far too much of the Middle East.

If you cannot separate the right to make the claim, from the credibility of the claim, then you cannot understand why taboos are not a good thing. There are far worse things in the world than getting your claims picked on.

That is exactly right. Some people like to pretend they're fighting for some ideals sometimes, just to feel better about themselves, even though they don't make any sense. That's regressive liberalism for you, and abaris is hopelessly lost because of it.

(December 27, 2015 at 12:07 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: That is exactly right. Some people like to pretend they're fighting for some ideals sometimes, just to feel better about themselves, even though they don't make any sense. That's regressive liberalism for you, and abaris is hopelessly lost because of it.

 I think our species sensitivity is great, but the liberals, and I am both a social and economic liberal, some like I said, don't understand that the good intent of wanting to protect minorities ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, has the downside of giving cover to the right wing of any religion. 

I agree with the empathy, I simply don't agree with any form of blasphemy laws or taboos. There are ways to silence bigots or marginalize them without outright censorship. If a bigoted group calls for violence they can be arrested for doing so. They can also be sued in court.

My point is everything is case by case and blanket solutions are never a good idea.


The following speech no matter how offensive is legal as it should be. EXAMPLE ONLY

"Mohammed is a pedophile, fuck Mo"

"Jesus fucking Christ" many have seen that meme online.

"Atheists are immoral, they will only lead us to monsters like Hitler and Stalin, you will burn in hell fucking heathen".

Here is what is not legal AND NEVER SHOULD BE.......EXAMPLE ONLY


"Kill all Muslims"
"Kill all Christians"
"Kill all Atheists"

That would be no different being illegal as if you asked someone to murder your neighbor for screwing your wife.

The problem with making blanket solutions when it comes to speech is long term in the constantly shifting powers in "Who gets to decide". 

Calling for an outright ban on any word 100% of the time just in case it might offend someone, could hurt, not just the people who cuss, but also literature like Huckleberry Finn, artwork with nudity, political satire, comedic satire like SNL or South Park or the Simpsons.

It simply is more pragmatic rather than to ban offensive speech, to simply ban calls to violence or acts of violence. If we all got to silence people merely for offending  us, there is not one of us that couldn't think of things that we'd rather not hear.

Civility is not about never getting offended or offending, but what you do when you get offended.

Again, exactly right. Can you see what's happening across campuses in the West though? It's scary.

(December 27, 2015 at 12:29 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Again, exactly right. Can you see what's happening across campuses in the West though? It's scary.

Which ones? I think it is a myth that the majority of college students value blasphemy laws. I think right wing media likes to create a non existent controversy just like the fake war on Christmas.

(December 27, 2015 at 10:52 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't understand how you can protect everyone's freedom to do what they want, many people want to restrict other people's freedoms, for example with religious laws.

I've read Abaris's views long enough to fill in the blanks -- I'm pretty sure that the "freedom to do what they want" ends when that "freedom" inflicts itself on others.

(December 27, 2015 at 12:31 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 12:29 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Again, exactly right. Can you see what's happening across campuses in the West though? It's scary.

Which ones? I think it is a myth that the majority of college students value blasphemy laws. I think right wing media likes to create a non existent controversy just like the fake war on Christmas.

Here, take it from an academic who's actually witnessing this stuff in action.

(December 27, 2015 at 12:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 10:52 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't understand how you can protect everyone's freedom to do what they want, many people want to restrict other people's freedoms, for example with religious laws.

I've read Abaris's views long enough to fill in the blanks -- I'm pretty sure that the "freedom to do what they want" ends when that "freedom" inflicts itself on others.

Don't disagree with that at all. But that is not an either or or all or nothing. The balance is case by case and depends on context of situation. Speech stops at acts of violence or destruction of property you don't own, or calls to violence on others or their property.

Still a completely separate issue than the claim being valid. Humans have rights but the claim can be picked on ridiculed and even cussed out. 

Many in the right wing west, if they had their way, even without cussing, a website like this many would ban if they could. So if we value the rights of others, part of that is the ability to offend. 

You are never going to get all 7 billion humans to only say nice things about each other. But in the west we do a better job of insisting on common law.

(December 27, 2015 at 12:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 10:52 am)paulpablo Wrote: I don't understand how you can protect everyone's freedom to do what they want, many people want to restrict other people's freedoms, for example with religious laws.

I've read Abaris's views long enough to fill in the blanks -- I'm pretty sure that the "freedom to do what they want" ends when that "freedom" inflicts itself on others.

Well, ok, all that means is he's a little overzealous and preaching to the choir. Except, not only that, he also accuses some people of being borderline bigots sometimes.

(December 27, 2015 at 12:00 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If you cannot separate the right to make the claim, from the credibility of the claim, then you cannot understand why taboos are not a good thing. There are far worse things in the world than getting your claims picked on.

Oh, I do seperate the right to make the claim from the credibility. And you missed my point by about a million of miles. I do not protect religiion, as I already said. I protect the right to be religious, as I protect the right for any other worldview I may or may not agree with.

It's not about religion, as you make it seem in most posts you make. It's about some people wanting to determine how others have to live their lives. And I hold them all in the same contempt. Regardless if it's someone wanting to force their religious voodoo down everyone's throat or any other given ideology.