God, a Nothing Special Author

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Post Reply
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:03 pm

By the way I have noticed that you have dodged my political questions.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:10 am

Here is a popular comedian looking at a piece of recent news and expressing a libertarian position on free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0
What do you think?

searchengineguy
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by searchengineguy » Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:23 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:26 pm
searchengineguy wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:57 pm
So are you saying that Chomsky would happily accede to the rights of the advocates of hate speech to speak unrestrained in public, but you wouldn't?
No, I am saying nothing like that. I don't see any indication Chomsky was happy with hate speech.
I didn't say that. I'm asking you whether Chomsky would happily accede to the rights of the advocates of hate speech to speak unrestrained in public. You can get rid of 'happily' if you like. If he is it seems that you wouldn't go that far if it impinges on the safety of the recipients of hate speech but he is standing up for the rights of the hate mongers with scant regard of who it affects.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by searchengineguy » Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:34 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:03 pm
By the way I have noticed that you have dodged my political questions.
As you know it's not my forte. I did do some research on it but I wasn't confident of putting up good arguments. Which ones in particular and I'll have a go?
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by searchengineguy » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:40 am

You ARE making me think more about politics btw. I'm really not keen on freedom of speech if it is at the expense of vulnerable people. Hate speech should be closed down quickly if it is aimed at those types of people.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:53 pm

searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:23 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:26 pm
searchengineguy wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:57 pm
So are you saying that Chomsky would happily accede to the rights of the advocates of hate speech to speak unrestrained in public, but you wouldn't?
No, I am saying nothing like that. I don't see any indication Chomsky was happy with hate speech.
I didn't say that. I'm asking you whether Chomsky would happily accede to the rights of the advocates of hate speech to speak unrestrained in public. You can get rid of 'happily' if you like. If he is it seems that you wouldn't go that far if it impinges on the safety of the recipients of hate speech but he is standing up for the rights of the hate mongers with scant regard of who it affects.
If you are going to ban people from speaking on the basis of who they harm then Chomsky would say there is a big queue, he would argue that the proponents of free market ideology, something which you are either in favour of or indifferent to, do far more harm than proponents of hate speech. I would say we can attempt to limit hate speech but it is a difficult road to go down. For example you have advocated views that I think would be massively harmful and destructive. I am speaking particularly of your view that we should torment the families of terrorists if they are Muslims. Now I think this is wrong and hateful, and could easilly be classed as hate speech since it is singling out a religious minority and attacking people for acts for which they are not directly responsible. But I don't want to see you in jail for this; rather I hope to persuade you that you are mistaken. On the whole I think this is the best approach. The danger of banning hate speech is that you drive these attitudes underground and the rise of Trump, for example, can be seen as a response to liberals making certain views impossible to express. As Jonathan Pie put it 'I want my racists out in the open.' But I can see a case for banning hate speech when this speech in itself can be seen as violating people's basic rights. But it's a complex issue.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:56 pm

searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:34 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:03 pm
By the way I have noticed that you have dodged my political questions.
As you know it's not my forte. I did do some research on it but I wasn't confident of putting up good arguments. Which ones in particular and I'll have a go?
I asked what you meant by moderate, whether this meant taking a centrist, neoliberal position where you advocate a liberal ideology on rights but also advocate the primacy of markets, limits on government spending and the privitisation of essential services like fuel, postage and transport.

searchengineguy
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by searchengineguy » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:42 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:56 pm
searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:34 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:03 pm
By the way I have noticed that you have dodged my political questions.
As you know it's not my forte. I did do some research on it but I wasn't confident of putting up good arguments. Which ones in particular and I'll have a go?
I asked what you meant by moderate, whether this meant taking a centrist, neoliberal position where you advocate a liberal ideology on rights but also advocate the primacy of markets, limits on government spending and the privitisation of essential services like fuel, postage and transport.
No, I was speaking as someone that doesn't take on board extreme left or right wing views. I don't think moderates have any ideologies or platforms.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by searchengineguy » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:16 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:53 pm
searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:23 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:26 pm

No, I am saying nothing like that. I don't see any indication Chomsky was happy with hate speech.
I didn't say that. I'm asking you whether Chomsky would happily accede to the rights of the advocates of hate speech to speak unrestrained in public. You can get rid of 'happily' if you like. If he is it seems that you wouldn't go that far if it impinges on the safety of the recipients of hate speech but he is standing up for the rights of the hate mongers with scant regard of who it affects.
If you are going to ban people from speaking on the basis of who they harm then Chomsky would say there is a big queue, he would argue that the proponents of free market ideology, something which you are either in favour of or indifferent to, do far more harm than proponents of hate speech. I would say we can attempt to limit hate speech but it is a difficult road to go down. For example you have advocated views that I think would be massively harmful and destructive. I am speaking particularly of your view that we should torment the families of terrorists if they are Muslims. Now I think this is wrong and hateful, and could easilly be classed as hate speech since it is singling out a religious minority and attacking people for acts for which they are not directly responsible. But I don't want to see you in jail for this; rather I hope to persuade you that you are mistaken. On the whole I think this is the best approach. The danger of banning hate speech is that you drive these attitudes underground and the rise of Trump, for example, can be seen as a response to liberals making certain views impossible to express. As Jonathan Pie put it 'I want my racists out in the open.' But I can see a case for banning hate speech when this speech in itself can be seen as violating people's basic rights. But it's a complex issue.
I still think shaming terrorists is a powerful tactic, rather than rewarding them in the afterlife or by financial benefits given to their families (yes, it happens). I also see your point about not attacking their families. See:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/ ... istianity/
More Muslim leaders refuse funeral prayers for London attackers

Statement from imams and others to deter extremists says: ‘You’re not welcome in our community either in life or in death’

Harriet Sherwood Religion correspondent


Scores more imams and Muslim religious leaders have said they will not perform funeral prayers for the perpetrators of the London Bridge attack, bringing the number of signatories to a statement to more than 200.

The grassroots, cross-denominational initiative from imams, teachers, chaplains and other religious figures is intended to send a strong message to extremists considering acts of terror in the name of Islam.

“We decided we needed to make a public statement, to send a strong message – effectively, you’re not welcome in our community either in life or in death,” said Qari Asim, imam at the Makkah mosque in Leeds.

“This decision was not taken lightly. One of the last things you offer to the deceased is to seek forgiveness for them from God. By not performing the funeral prayer, we are not asking for forgiveness.

“The gravity of the crime is such that we feel it should be clear to young people that we cannot offer the prayer, though it is up to God to judge [the attackers]

Yunus Dudhwala, the head of chaplaincy at St Bartholomew’s hospital in central London, said it was unprecedented for so many imams and religious leaders to unite around such a statement. “Down on the ground, we have the ear of the community, and people know these killers have nothing to do with Islam,” he said.

“It is written as one of the rules [of Islam] that funeral prayers should be performed. In cases where people have perpetrated heinous crimes against humanity, there are precedents were religious leaders decline to say prayers. But it is rare.”

The imams’ statement did not rule out funeral services being held for the perpetrators, he added. “The families could do a private funeral. But these people don’t deserve our prayers.”

The statement was intended to deter extremists who believe that acts of jihad will be rewarded in the hereafter, said Rehanah Sadiq, an Islamic teacher. “We want to make it clear this is not the case. If these people know that imams and teachers are not going to pray or ask forgiveness for them, they might question what they are about to do.”

She added that it was an Islamic duty to care for the families of the attackers. “The families should not be ostracised – that would be sinful or wrong from an Islamic perspective. Every individual is accountable for his or her deeds. No one else is responsible. This must be incredibly painful for the families.”

Asim said the attackers were “not martyrs but criminals. These so-called jihadists are not fighting a holy war.” Jihad means struggle, which could be personal, social or political, he added.

“Jihad is a religious term misused by terrorists and misunderstood by the wider public. Terrorists are using the term to destroy our values in society.”
Last edited by searchengineguy on Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God, a Nothing Special Author

Post by searchengineguy » Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:20 pm

This article is poignant regarding the current London bridge attacks. How do they allow terrorists like this enter into early release arrangements?
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

Post Reply