(February 1, 2016 at 5:08 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 5:02 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: No one in particular, all of us together. That's how democracy works, SC. I am for democracy, if that wasn't clear.

That's how strict democracy works, and that's also why no successful nation on Earth employs a strict democratic system.

If the majority gets to decide what's banned, atheists are fucked. In America, if the majority got to decide, we'd still have different water fountains and schools for black people.

It would still be illegal to be gay in most parts of the American South. Segregated housing would still be more rampant than it is in the major cities and the south.

I think we'll be fine, SC. And times change - so do systems of government. I don't believe strict democracy will be a problem in the future, but that's only once we'll educate virtually everyone.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:15 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I think we'll be fine, SC. And times change - so do systems of government. I don't believe strict democracy will be a problem in the future, but that's only once we'll educate virtually everyone.

Lol, you've clearly never been to America. We're proudly going the wrong way.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:14 am)Losty Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 5:09 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: I wouldn't cry if religion were to be banned. Though apart from it being impossible it may have results that legislators had not in mind, i.e. rekindling of religious fervor.

I wouldn't cry, but I would protest. I can't think of anything more important than the freedom of thought. Ever person in the world should be granted mental autonomy.

I think you should be allowed to be religious. I don't think you should be allowed to talk about certain aspects of it, namely the hateful parts of it that make you consider certain groups of people your enemy(in certain cases everyone who doesn't adhere to your religion). Can you reasonably tell me how that's wrong?

(February 1, 2016 at 5:18 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I think you should be allowed to be religious. I don't think you should be allowed to talk about certain aspects of it, namely the hateful parts of it that make you consider certain groups of people your enemy(in certain cases everyone who doesn't adhere to your religion). Can you reasonably tell me how that's wrong?

Because your subjective opinion about what's hateful is just that---hateful.

I would say that your idea that people's freedom of speech should be curtailed like this is hateful. In your scenario you are doing the same thing to religious people.

We counter hateful ideas with better words and ideas, not with force.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:18 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 5:14 am)Losty Wrote: I wouldn't cry, but I would protest. I can't think of anything more important than the freedom of thought. Ever person in the world should be granted mental autonomy.

I think you should be allowed to be religious. I don't think you should be allowed to talk about certain aspects of it, namely the hateful parts of it that make you consider certain groups of people your enemy(in certain cases everyone who doesn't adhere to your religion). Can you reasonably tell me how that's wrong?

I love freedom of speech. Also, it is actually already illegal to publically incite violence (I'm pretty sure. I probably should read that law again.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:18 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 5:15 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I think we'll be fine, SC. And times change - so do systems of government. I don't believe strict democracy will be a problem in the future, but that's only once we'll educate virtually everyone.

Lol, you've clearly never been to America. We're proudly going the wrong way.

Honestly, given how much power it has, it kind of concerns the rest of the world as well.

I was just talking the other day with my brother about this. Western Europe did well by its people, and people generally flourished, but it doesn't have as much unity or military power as it should, given certain realities about today's world.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:12 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Exactly. You want the third Great Awakening? Try 'banning' certain religious thoughts and ideas. That's a way to mobilize these knuckleheads with assault rifles. Y'allQaeda for real.

That would be highly probable result, though not every country is so armed as USA. Better solution would be church tax paid only by believers.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:14 am)Losty Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 5:09 am)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: I wouldn't cry if religion were to be banned. Though apart from it being impossible it may have results that legislators had not in mind, i.e. rekindling of religious fervor.

I wouldn't cry, but I would protest. I can't think of anything more important than the freedom of thought. Ever person in the world should be granted mental autonomy.

I can't honestly say that I would protest. Maybe or maybe not; I value freedom highly but freedom from religious oppression is rather higher on my list than freedom to oppress, indoctrinate and sell cure to imaginary illness.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:21 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 5:18 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I think you should be allowed to be religious. I don't think you should be allowed to talk about certain aspects of it, namely the hateful parts of it that make you consider certain groups of people your enemy(in certain cases everyone who doesn't adhere to your religion). Can you reasonably tell me how that's wrong?

Because your subjective opinion about what's hateful is just that---hateful.

I would say that your idea that people's freedom of speech should be curtailed like this is hateful. In your scenario you are doing the same thing to religious people.

We counter hateful ideas with better words and ideas, not with force.

I am ready to have my mind changed about that, it's not like it's set in stone. 

My thinking goes something like this. There are a lot of people out there you won't as yet reach with words and ideas. If that were the case, we wouldn't need the police or the military to protect us. We could all be pacifists. That is not the case - you'll agree, certainly. Therefore force does need to be applied at times. Of course, you only counter force with force, but disallowing people to promote hate speech for now, would simply be a matter of preventing crime, not so much of limiting free speech. I believe a statement like "kill all the jews" is wrong. You believe so as well, presumably. That some wouldn't agree with us, doesn't really matter. I support going to war with people who would continue killing jews for being jews, despite my thinking it's wrong to do so. And if the majority of the world thought this, I would actually side with the minority who thinks this is wrong and then go to war myself.

(February 1, 2016 at 5:29 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I believe a statement like "kill all the jews" is wrong. You believe so as well, presumably. That some wouldn't agree with us, doesn't really matter. I support going to war with people who would continue killing jews for being jews, despite my thinking it's wrong to do so. And if the majority of the world thought this, I would actually side with the minority who thinks this is wrong and then go to war myself.

Yes, to you and me that statement is wrong.

When people act on that statement, we can act against them.

If people vocalize that statement, they can be detained and questioned and present probable cause to be investigated, as genocide is against the law, and so is inciting mass violence.

That is a very different story than banning "homosexuality is a sin" or "abortionists are going to burn in hell."

(February 1, 2016 at 5:37 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 5:29 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I believe a statement like "kill all the jews" is wrong. You believe so as well, presumably. That some wouldn't agree with us, doesn't really matter. I support going to war with people who would continue killing jews for being jews, despite my thinking it's wrong to do so. And if the majority of the world thought this, I would actually side with the minority who thinks this is wrong and then go to war myself.

Yes, to you and me that statement is wrong.

When people act on that statement, we can act against them.

If people vocalize that statement, they can be detained and questioned and present probable cause to be investigated, as genocide is against the law, and so is inciting mass violence.

That is a very different story than banning "homosexuality is a sin" or "abortionists are going to burn in hell."

I totally agree with that. There seems to be a misunderstanding here.