(January 16, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 6:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes these secularists are trying to force their beliefs on anyone. They stated that you shouldn't be allowed to be offended by something that they don't agree with. They want to formalise their own identity as law.

Where are these statements, please? I've asked you for them before, lots of us have, but as always your problem is that you think you can just say things and that's sufficient for them to be believed. Most likely, you're just misinterpreting a statement along the lines of "nobody has the right not to be offended," in the least charitable way possible.

You have a right to be offended. What you don't have is a right to transmute that offense into practical law. I think the position, if anything, is that offense is not a rationale for censorship, nor is it a rebuttal.

He wont even give us credit if we say not even atheists have a right to decide what is or is not offensive.

It is not enough to simply be pissed at anything that might upset you. The common law is already in place that bans calls to violence and acts of violence.

The problem even PC liberal atheists forget is long term "who gets to decide". Both atheists and believers need to think carefully about using censorship as a tactic. Power shifts over time and no one should want their own ability to bitch about something to get hit by a future power that might not like what they have to say.

The only pragmatic thing anyone can do is agree to leave it at words and not get violent over getting pissed at something.

(January 16, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Where are these statements, please? I've asked you for them before, lots of us have, but as always your problem is that you think you can just say things and that's sufficient for them to be believed. Most likely, you're just misinterpreting a statement along the lines of "nobody has the right not to be offended," in the least charitable way possible.

You have a right to be offended. What you don't have is a right to transmute that offense into practical law. I think the position, if anything, is that offense is not a rationale for censorship, nor is it a rebuttal.

He wont even give us credit if we say not even atheists have a right to decide what is or is not offensive.

It is not enough to simply be pissed at anything that might upset you. The common law is already in place that bans calls to violence and acts of violence.

The problem even PC liberal atheists forget is long term "who gets to decide". Both atheists and believers need to think carefully about using censorship as a tactic. Power shifts over time and no one should want their own ability to bitch about something to get hit by a future power that might not like what they have to say.

The only pragmatic thing anyone can do is agree to leave it at words and not get violent over getting pissed at something.

Religion should give up its power they had it long enough and now look at how its abusing it. Religion doesn't need a voice in government, politics, and censorship. Because frankly look at what religion does to people and well religion should have its power stripped away.

(January 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Brian37 Wrote: He wont even give us credit if we say not even atheists have a right to decide what is or is not offensive.

It is not enough to simply be pissed at anything that might upset you. The common law is already in place that bans calls to violence and acts of violence.

The problem even PC liberal atheists forget is long term "who gets to decide". Both atheists and believers need to think carefully about using censorship as a tactic. Power shifts over time and no one should want their own ability to bitch about something to get hit by a future power that might not like what they have to say.

The only pragmatic thing anyone can do is agree to leave it at words and not get violent over getting pissed at something.

Religion should give up its power they had it long enough and now look at how its abusing it. Religion doesn't need a voice in government, politics, and censorship. Because frankly look at what religion does to people and well religion should have its power stripped away.

It should be intellectually brave, unfortunately that flaw is in our evolution. Humans lean to gap filling far more than fact finding. Our gap filling unfortunately does have the real benefit in safety in numbers. Problem is we have not in mass in large enough numbers, figured out that our species successes can be centered around very bad ideas.

Force is not an option for atheists, that would be as utopian as their designs. I do think however our modern pluralism and secular laws and increasing media, will make it harder for such absurdities to have safe havens from scrutiny.

There will never be a perfect world but we can seek to manage it better.

(January 15, 2015 at 7:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You don't censor content. You censor people because of their content. People have certainly been removed because of their bigotry or extreme language.

Name one.

Interestingly tan, the legal beagle on the same program made a great point about the impossibility of enforcing any law on speech crime.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 7:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You don't censor content. You censor people because of their content. People have certainly been removed because of their bigotry or extreme language.

Name one.

The tailor trash bigot from Florida. Forget the name. I could find it if I were on a computer. An atheist and not causing any offense (rules wise) besides her horrible opinions.

(January 16, 2015 at 2:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Interestingly tan, the legal beagle on the same program made a great point about the impossibility of enforcing any law on speech crime.

Nope, call it what you would really like to call it "thought crime".

Now once again, what you are not getting, is that even atheist pull this too. Humans always seem to be fine picking on the claims of others but scream bloody murder if that blasphemy is aimed at them.

No different than when Issac Hayes the voice of Chef on South Park had no problem picking on Jews and Catholics and gays and other minorities, but when they got to Scientology, he quit the show.

(January 16, 2015 at 2:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Name one.

The tailor trash bigot from Florida. Forget the name. I could find it if I were on a computer. An atheist and not causing any offense (rules wise) besides her horrible opinions.

I have no idea who you're talking about. Care to narrow it down, so I can attempt to substantiate or refute your accusations?

"Despite the staff attacks"?
You are aware that, on a Catholic forum, you would be long gone.

I've been researching secularism you'll be glad to hear

I'm constantly trying to recall the exact phrases the person on the radio was using that I took exception to. He was confronting a woman trying to defend the opinion of someone to be offended if the subject of their belief was insulted. He was saying that people could only be offended by insults to actual physical people. I'm convinced that he was introduced and identified as representing a secularist society. I could be wrong.

From my initial post on this thread I've attempted to foster reasonable discussion and would love to hear your take.

Cthulu, you're going to have to wait until I get to a PC to search. To me this isn't as big a deal as it seems to be to you guys. I appreciate that you're trying to do your best according to your own understanding. None of is can do better than that.

"Research" is not about a fishing expedition to find excuses to hold a position. If you intend on fact finding, you go where it leads, you don't cherry pick what you want to see.