(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.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code:
<iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>