'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' is utter arrogance

[Paul the Human]

Which people would those be? Who is whining like a baby and who is throwing stones? Your metaphor doesn't seem to clearly illustrate the point you are trying to make.

[Welsh cake]

isn't it obvious? if you can't find the message within that then that's your problem.

In other words, you screwed up and posted the wrong response in the wrong forum, and blamed us for your mistake.

[downbeatplumb]

If he doesnt like 'blasphemy is a victimless crime' he wont like............





Bugger I cant think of anything.

[Rhizomorph13]

it seems bizarre to me. SI have gained a fantastic reputation over the years for making the game as minimal and realistic as the current technology allows, holding back 3D for so many years in order to put full time and effort into the much more important feature of making a realistic game of football play out. it showed great integrity and modesty.

so why didn't they keep this philosophy for the player conversations? we are decades away from the kind of technology that can accurately replicate human interaction at anything like a realistic level. it is absolute folly to try it now! of course it is a failure. it would be fantastic to have a feature like this that worked well, but nowhere in the world has it been achieved: accurately portraying not just the depth and range of one human's emotions, but the whole spectrum!

SI have got a bit too big for their boots. the sooner they take this out the game the better.

Yeah well as Dave Chappelle says, "Some say the cucumbers taste better pickled!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVeb5d5S_e8

What?!

[Rwandrall]

No, it isn't. It may be perceived that way by the members of said religion, but that is a sign of their own arrogance and insecurities. Not my problem -or- my fault


Oh noes! I have insulted a fictional character. I also think Jack Sparrow's hair is disgusting. I hope he isn't too upset about my saying so.


I understand it just fine. I simply disagree, and there is nothing either of us can do about that. Heheh.

Yes, it is their own arrogance and insecurities. Doesn't change the fact that blasphemy does hurt them.
Also if you think insulting a fictional character doesn't hurt anyone, try telling a Team Edward teenager that robin whatshisface is a bad actor... you'll see what i mean
But more seriously, just look at all the uproar the Da Vinci Code caused...it's silly to us, but not to them.

In our eyes, and in the eyes of the Law, blasphemy is not a crime. In their eyes, it is. I'm not saying that it should be illegal, far from it, i just explain their point of view.

Also, look at all the threads around here: atheists offended by Bibles in Hotel Rooms, or "god saves the queen", or people saying "god bless america"...it's EXACTLY the same behaviour. Only difference is that atheists don't stone people to death for it.

[theVOID]

Being offended =/= being victimised.

[Tiberius]

The point is Rwandrall, somebody being hurt by what someone has said isn't grounds for labelling them a "victim" in the criminal sense of the word. If someone makes up a story about a famous celebrity, that celebrity has the right to sue them for libel, since their image has been hurt. However, it doesn't give any of their fans the right to seek damages, even if they were hurt by what was said. The same applies to blasphemy; any number of God's "fans" can be hurt by blasphemy, but they aren't the victims of it...God is.

[theVOID]

Precisely Adrian

That's why the banner doesn't read "Blasphemy doesn't offend anyone"

[Autumnlicious]

If someone makes up a story about a famous celebrity, that celebrity has the right to sue them for libel, since their image has been hurt.

The celebrity, when their image is hurt, may sure for libel but may not stone or call for any murderous action against their critics.

Unlike the murderous man child god.

[theVOID]

Relevant how?