Fuck Indonesia!

[StatCrux]

It seems to me that this whole issue revolves around the "right" for people to be able to upset and annoy other people as much as they like, claiming that the person upset is the one with the problem. For example, "Hey, if we wanna fuck in the supermarket while waiting in the checkout we will! Its the fucking prudes in the line who got the problem!" attitude. It becomes a matter of where the line is drawn within each society. If american/europeans are quite happy to have semi naked, attention seeking, deliberately provocative halfwits filling a culture void in teenage youth that's fine, but we should respect countries who don't want that.

Difference is that a couple fucking in the supermarket would be forcing their debauchery on others. A concert is an event you can choose to attend. Anybody who doesn't want to see it doesn't have to.

So, if a society allowed the staging of gladiatorial tournaments would it not be complicit in the event? In the same way a society allowing semi naked, attention seeking, deliberately provocative halfwits is complicit.

[Adjusted Sanity]

Difference is that a couple fucking in the supermarket would be forcing their debauchery on others. A concert is an event you can choose to attend. Anybody who doesn't want to see it doesn't have to.

So, if a society allowed the staging of gladiatorial tournaments would it not be complicit in the event? In the same way a society allowing semi naked, attention seeking, deliberately provocative halfwits is complicit.

As long as the gladiators weren't forced to participate, I wouldn't have a problem. It all comes down to if participation in debauchery is voluntary or forced. Forced is bad. Voluntary is good.
Also there is a big gap between killing for sport and showing a little skin.

[StatCrux]

So, if a society allowed the staging of gladiatorial tournaments would it not be complicit in the event? In the same way a society allowing semi naked, attention seeking, deliberately provocative halfwits is complicit.

As long as the gladiators weren't forced to participate, I wouldn't have a problem. It all comes down to if participation in debauchery is voluntary or forced. Forced is bad. Voluntary is good.
Also there is a big gap between killing for sport and showing a little skin.

So you have no value or moral considerations other than whether it is voluntary or forced? All individual voluntary behavior should be acceptable to society in general? careful now, once you change your mind and say "oh but it can't harm others" you're introducing levels of "censorship"

[Cato]

So, if a society allowed the staging of gladiatorial tournaments would it not be complicit in the event? In the same way a society allowing semi naked, attention seeking, deliberately provocative halfwits is complicit.

Sounds like the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). As a percentage of skin area, these people are much more than half naked. The WWE has gross revenues averaging almost half a billion dollars each year for the last five. I would call this societal acceptance.

Society also allows other, fully clothed, attention seeking halfwits. What of the million dollar 'pastors' that heal people of serious medical affliction on the spot. Jim Bakker's back on TV collecting 'love gifts'. Anyone need a green prayer cloth? Have you had your palm read? Deepak Chopra makes a mint off the gullible.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It seems to me that this whole issue revolves around the "right" for people to be able to upset and annoy other people as much as they like,

Well yes,they pretty much do have that legal right, it's called "free speech". In the US, it's protected by the First Amendment. EG the US Supreme court has confirmed Fred Phelps' right to be a hateful, homophobic bigot.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amend...nstitution

[genkaus]

So you have no value or moral considerations other than whether it is voluntary or forced?

Moral - yes, legal - no.

All individual voluntary behavior should be acceptable to society in general?

As long as it is not forcing anything involuntary on another's part - yes.

careful now, once you change your mind and say "oh but it can't harm others" you're introducing levels of "censorship"

No, harming others should be allowed if they voluntarily want to be harmed - cue the BDSM queens.

[StatCrux]

It seems to me that this whole issue revolves around the "right" for people to be able to upset and annoy other people as much as they like,

Well yes,they pretty much do have that legal right, it's called "free speech". In the US, it's protected by the First Amendment. EG the US Supreme court has confirmed Fred Phelps' right to be a hateful, homophobic bigot.

It's only free speech as long as you toe the government line as to what is acceptable "free speech". In the UK we have laws that stop anyone "inciting hate" etc so it's not free speech. Another point is that I want to hear the arguments of Islamists, so I can judge who is telling the truth, but you never get to hear their argument in the western media, it just labels them as "fanatics" or "terrorists". One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. What has just went on in Libya was appalling, insurgent groups trained and coordinated by British special forces to overthrow another country!

[Brian37]

In the UK we have laws that stop anyone "inciting hate" etc so it's not free speech.

I hate that as a concept for law. You cant legislate people's emotions, you can react to there words and actions, yes, but you cannot force people to only say nice things about you.

We are in the states starting to get infected with that blasphemy "don't offend me" mindset.

Look, it is a bad idea to have government trying to force anyone to like you or me or ANYONE. Common law already says you cannot call for violence or act out in violence. But the mere act of offending someone should NEVER be illegal. The problem with calling any law a "hate" law, is that of "who gets to decide".

The powers that be may not always agree with you, and since power shifts over long periods of time I think it is a bad idea to have government play thought police. I do understand the intent of "can't we all just get along", and we should as a diverse pluralistic west, but "hate laws" are not t the way to do it.

If anyone thinks laws censoring blasphemy of others is good, Iran is political correctness on steroids. Women and non-Shiites have no opportunity to speak out about their government.

It is one thing to have laws preventing violence, but there is a way to do it, and a way not to do it. The way you do it is to apply the law equally with the concept of "Dont physically harm others and don't call for the physical harm of others".

That where it has to be left. As an atheist living in a theist society saying all the things I know offend them here, I would be jack shit stupid to hand the loaded gun of censorship over to the government that is supposed to protect dissent an minorities. There would be plenty of people, if given the power, who would shut this website down and some even would have us arrested for merely being open atheists.

I think over there and even here, when laws like this are written, I think no matter what point in history you are talking about, you are playing with fire.

[WhatIfGodWasJustAMyth]

[frankiej]

Yeah, the laws over here are a bit shit. I want free speech.