What a picture. That reeks of WWII propaganda cartoons.

(January 30, 2015 at 1:09 am)Minimalist Wrote:

---

---

That's just stupid tho. Unnecessarily divisive and fascist-like. That's the kind of pictures I see on Northern League pamphlets. Sending people away won't solve anything; if anything, we'll just have more enemies and they will hate us even more.

(January 30, 2015 at 6:12 am)Lucanus Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 1:09 am)Minimalist Wrote:

---

---

That's just stupid tho. Unnecessarily divisive and fascist-like. That's the kind of pictures I see on Northern League pamphlets. Sending people away won't solve anything; if anything, we'll just have more enemies and they will hate us even more.

Well, since they came here they could have considered following the rules we have, at least.

But many of them do. Think about the muslim policeman who died in the wake of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Saying "let's kick them all out" is not going to help, and neither are those cartoons.

I agree, "let's kick them all out" is most definitely not going to help, I didn't mean it that way. I meant that the extremists who don't like free speech shoould either deal with it or leave. I have nothing against peaceful muslims. I just meant to state that if someone doesn't want to follow the rules, they should leave.

I can agree with that.

(January 30, 2015 at 6:17 am)Xeno Wrote: Well, since they came here they could have considered following the rules we have, at least.

Fair enough. I'm not sure what our rules are exactly.

Pope says expect a bloody nose if you insult my mother, or something like that. I am not a Pope fan but he may have a point. I think we try to avoid insulting people like that as a general rule, don't we? I mean...to avoid inducing a hostile, emotional reaction. That is what etiquette is all about, after all. Helps to stop us alienating others and getting into fights.

So what is the "rule" to apply when someone kicks someone else's sacred cow? I imagine to a devout religious person their god is just like a close family member or even more revered.

Just curious where to draw the line? In what circumstance does knowingly inducing a hostile emotional reaction in others become acceptable and in what circumstances is it not acceptable?

BTW I am not talking about the law. The law is an ass. I'm talking about what is reasonable and empathetic.

(January 30, 2015 at 7:50 am)Animated Earth Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 6:17 am)Xeno Wrote: Well, since they came here they could have considered following the rules we have, at least.

Fair enough. I'm not sure what our rules are exactly.

Pope says expect a bloody nose if you insult my mother, or something like that. I am not a Pope fan but he may have a point. I think we try to avoid insulting people like that as a general rule, don't we? I mean...to avoid inducing a hostile, emotional reaction. That is what etiquette is all about, after all. Helps to stop us alienating others and getting into fights.

So what is the "rule" to apply when someone kicks someone else's sacred cow? I imagine to a devout religious person their god is just like a close family member or even more revered.

Just curious where to draw the line? In what circumstance does knowingly inducing a hostile emotional reaction in others become acceptable and in what circumstances is it not acceptable?

BTW I am not talking about the law. The law is an ass. I'm talking about what is reasonable and empathetic.

By "the rules" I meant mostly free speech, I could've phrased that better.

In my personal opinion, it's the line between a hate crime and just satire. There's a thread about it already.

Making fun of someone's beliefs is OK, IMO. Saying that they should die or personally attacking them is not.

It's the believer's problem if he takes himself so seriously as to murder people for poking fun at his beliefs. That shows a disturbing insecurity about it. We make fun of everyone. It's how it works. As long as it's jokes and not some crazy fascist ideology, I don't see the problem.

My point is, there is a difference between insulting someone's mother and satirizing their beliefs. We make fun of politicians, but you don't see anyone going nuts and murdering people over it, do you? Believers seem to take their imaginary friends too seriously.

I say no way. If you can't say anything that might upset someone's beliefs, you literally cannot say anything at all. Religious beliefs are arbitrary and all equally stupid and meaningless. The mocking of ideas is all good by me. As usual, I'm talking about a non-intrusive, non harassing, non hate-inciting way. Good satire is just a way to make an argument in a different way. If they don't like it, they can ignore it, debate it or make a complaint. If their only response is violence they are fucking morons and we shouldn't bow down to their demands any more than we should stop talking about apples because I decide they are sacred. I'm very sad to see first Facebook and now this. Apparently England censors pictures of Mohammad too. It's not the way forward! We need to rip the piss out of it until they learn to deal with it like adults.

And kicking "Mohammad" out metaphorically is not at all the same as kicking out muslims. It's an attack on how stupid the whole character is, and people's irrational obsession with not having anyone insult it. If a Muslim cannot differentiate between Muhammad and themselves, then they are insane. It also proves that gods and god's kids are just extensions of people. That's why they take it personally.

If someone's biggest worry in life is that someone, somewhere might be drawing a picture of your imaginary friend and writing something funny on it, you really need to re-evaluate your priorities.

(January 30, 2015 at 7:59 am)Xeno Wrote: In my personal opinion, it's the line between a hate crime and just satire. There's a thread about it already.

I meant this one: http://atheistforums.org/thread-31305.html