South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 23, 2018, 19:28:52 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Censorship in the defense of free speech.

 (Read 6878 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2015, 12:51:56 PM »

But it doesn’t say, “There is no such thing as Islamophobia.”  When I sorta squint a ju-u-u-u-ust right, the caption looks to me like it actually says the following:
Quote
People have rights.                                                                        Ideas don’t have rights.
Every ideology must be subjected to open, free discussion in regard to its value or otherwise, without fear of reprisal.  No Exceptions.
“Islamophobia” is not racism, any more than “Communistophobia” or “Fascistophobia” would be, because Islam is an idea, not a race.
In a civilised society, no idea – religious, political or philosophical – can claim any special treatment, or be set beyond the reach of empirical evidence.
                                                                                           Support free speech.   Support people.
I really, really, really hope that I’m reading it correctly…

'Luthon64

Yes sorry that is what it reads.

On second reading, I still have a problem with it thou.

Any meaningful discussion as the paragraph puts its should not be labeled “Islamophobia”.
“Islamophobia” is what bigots might have.

I have no phobia about muslims. I do want to stand up and say if you have believe that killing
people in defense of you religion is right. Your believe has no place in this world.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2946



« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2015, 16:34:00 PM »

Oh for freck sakes

(My emphasis)
Quote from: NY Daily News
Pope Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good. But he added there were limits. While Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence, he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs. By way of example, he referred to a friend: "if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs."


See what I meant about the "asking for it" argument? These people truly believe they're making a consistent point.

So acc. to our dear pope free speech can, and should, beget violence. Except when it's other religions doing the violence. Then it's bad. Ya'll got that?
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2015, 16:52:47 PM »

"if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch".

One may argue that the merits would depend on whether Pope Francis's mother was indeed a whore.  If a person entertains ridiculous beliefs, those beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3728


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2015, 17:11:03 PM »

Maybe he became Pope because someone spoke ill of his friend’s mother, in which case it’s not clear who deserves some punch… Roll Eyes

More seriously, the whole basic premiss (i.e., that violence somehow constitutes a sane and commensurate response to words, however hurtful) can itself only be “defended” by invoking the religious principle that says there are holy cows that thou shalt not touch.

ETA:  And just when you thought the PC bag had been emptied, you find another pork sausage in it.

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2015, 04:10:46 AM »

"if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch".

One may argue that the merits would depend on whether Pope Francis's mother was indeed a whore.  If a person entertains ridiculous beliefs, those beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

In any event, here we once again have a failure to understand the difference between the rights of people and the rights of ideas. Calling your mother a whore is simply not in the same category as calling your religion silly.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2015, 04:12:51 AM »

ETA:  And just when you thought the PC bag had been emptied, you find another pork sausage in it.


Oh for vark's sake.

I wonder if it is not time to deliberately launch an "offend a Muslim today" campaign, so the poor sensitive little babies can develop a thicker skin.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2440


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2015, 06:25:15 AM »

I wonder if it is not time to deliberately launch an "offend a Muslim today" campaign, so the poor sensitive little babies can develop a thicker skin.
After which the nation can relax in front of an eight-thirty screening of Babe.
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2015, 09:24:10 AM »

Oh for freck sakes

(My emphasis)
Quote from: NY Daily News
Pope Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good. But he added there were limits. While Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence, he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs. By way of example, he referred to a friend: "if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs."


See what I meant about the "asking for it" argument? These people truly believe they're making a consistent point.

So acc. to our dear pope free speech can, and should, beget violence. Except when it's other religions doing the violence. Then it's bad. Ya'll got that?


What was that line again about turning the other cheek. And who said it again?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3728


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2015, 18:32:51 PM »

How soon people forget that long before Charlie Hebdo offended Islamists with ridicule and lampoonery, the Qur’an offended rationalists with murder and oppression.

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1705



WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2015, 04:57:09 AM »

How soon people forget that long before Charlie Hebdo offended Islamists with ridicule and lampoonery, the Qur’an offended rationalists with murder and oppression.

'Luthon64

And this is indeed a very good, and not merely rhetorical, point. Why on Earth does a Muslim's offense count for more than mine? This is precisely the problem when we start censoring "offensive" literature: there are very few, if any, people who do not sooner or later run into something they find offensive. Most of us then just put down the book/magazine/whatever.

Anyway, it does present an interesting opportunity: if government does decide to start censoring offensive material, rationalists really should launch a lawsuit to have the Bible or Qur'an censored...
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2015, 08:58:08 AM »

How soon people forget that long before Charlie Hebdo offended Islamists with ridicule and lampoonery, the Qur’an offended rationalists with murder and oppression.

'Luthon64
Mind if I use this as a quote to go with the "Draw Mohammed" picture?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3728


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2015, 09:38:23 AM »

Mind if I use this as a quote to go with the "Draw Mohammed" picture?
Please feel free to use it wherever and in whichever way you see fit.



And this is indeed a very good, and not merely rhetorical, point.
Thanks.  It occurred to me while hearing for the umpteenth time someone going on about how Charlie Hebdo should not have provoked Islamic sensitivities.

Why on Earth does a Muslim's offense count for more than mine?
It shouldn’t, but the idea that it does is just one aspect of religions’ success in arrogating special considerations for themselves.

Anyway, it does present an interesting opportunity: if government does decide to start censoring offensive material, rationalists really should launch a lawsuit to have the Bible or Qur'an censored...
An even better strategy might be also to include the Tanakh, the Vedas, Dianetics and other prominent “holy” books, and then getting each group of believers to call for the censoring of all the others.  (However, it remains doubtful that such an initiative would actually succeed in getting the basic point across.)

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3728


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2015, 21:22:41 PM »

A long but worthwhile read: Defending Charlie Hebdo’s publication rights.

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3728


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2015, 11:37:49 AM »

The insidious creep of PC officiousness continues apace.

'Luthon64
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 2946



« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2015, 13:33:29 PM »

Quote
in particular the “B-word” (boer)

Well, that's gonna suck for actual Afrikaans farmers, who I guess will now perpetually be relegated to the sin bin.

Quote
met at the weekend to discuss among others the terms used to refer to white, black and coloured people living in the province.

Gotta love those who think they're in charge: "We, your exalted and flawless leaders have had a meeting and have decided things for you! Our decisions are binding. That is all."

Quote
Members say issues that raised eyebrows included claims that the “coloured majority was being neglected for the needs of a small black voter base”.

To me that is just a sad, condemning commentary on the state of SA politics and the world in general.

Quote
service delivery should be focused on the majority race in the province - who had faithfully voted for the DA.

In case you needed any more proof that politicians don't give a flying freck about you....

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.717 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 23, 2018, 12:51:41 PM
Privacy Policy