A quick question.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It doesn't matter if you get to say where the money will go, compulsory payments are taxation.
I am not questioning whether it is good or not, I am only disputing (like MrPudding has already) how paying a compulsory payment actually reflects on the character of the muslims obliged to pay it.

If you want to define it as a type of a tax, that's your opinion, and I do see where you're coming from. I'll maintain it's not a tax in the normal sense, because every other tax you pay goes directly to the state.

As I've already said above, you can't take compulsory charity as an example of how good the character of Muslims is, and that's not a point I made. I merely stated they do a lot of good in this world and that it's because of Islam.

Let me ask you a question, how do you think compulsory charity actually reflects on Islam?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1) Slander only applies to living people, it doesn't apply to beliefs.
2) People should not get offended on behalf of others.

Beliefs are what make living people who they are.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But until you do define the line to take on what's ok, how can you say what's ok? My example is not as extreme as you may think, there is much in all religions that can be easily interpreted by people to leave them opposed to non-believers and alternative religious iconography (commandments 1 and 2, in the Christian bible, for instance) and this can easily lead to offence.

You say that it is intent that should inform of us of where the line is, but I say that intent is irrelevant. It is only justification that should inform us. Can a supposed "offender" justify the speech and actions that offends others? Because if they can, it is no longer offensive, it is simply the truth and if you are offended by the truth then that is your own problem.

The reality is that offence is something that most people just attach to some position or act another takes simply because they do not like its implications and have no justifiable way themselves to counter it. Its not about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do, if it was then it would only be about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do and the offence wouldn't need to be raised.

You raise a lot of valid points. How can one say what's ok when the line isn't defined? Well, you can only really debate that on a case by case basis. But that dialogue can only happen if both sides agree that there is a line in the first place, and are willing to be constructive about it.

Then within the realms of offence, one has to decide what things people are reasonable to take offence to and what is an excessive over-reaction. Of course these are very relative matters and every person will have their own opinion on what's reasonable and what's not, and there might not often be agreement between both sides, but with discussion, I'd hope that the majority of people on both sides can reach some consensus.

If people are offended by the truth, then it absolutely is there own problem, and they shouldn't use offence as an excuse to hide behind. But "offenders" often make ill-formed comments and gross generalisations that are far from the truth. I have to disagree with you on the issue of intent - if a close friend of mine calls me a terrorist because I'm brown and have a beard and he just wants to make a politically incorrect joke which I'll find funny, then that's fine, but if a random stranger says the same thing to me because he doesn't like brown people and wants them all out of "his" country, then that's offensive and bang out of order.

Benny_Cake

I understand that in the vast majority of Muslim countries payment of Zakat is voluntary (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and certainly that would be the case in western countries too. In that case, Muslims who pay zakat are doing so voluntarily without any legal requirement to do so.. I'm a bit wary of trying to read too much into peoples reasons for giving to charity or undertaking voluntary work. People who give for purely secular reasons may have other motives for good works, plenty of people take up voluntary work as a way of meeting new people, give to charity for taxation purposes, and so on. Personally I don't care about that, the fact that someone is prepared to freely do something good on behalf of others is enough for me.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Let me ask you a question, how do you think compulsory charity actually reflects on Islam?

When helping the poor and needy, I'm sure its great, however the money can also be used to proselyting the Islamic faith (Fi Sabillillah), so it is somewhat self serving.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Beliefs are what make living people who they are.

It doesn't matter, beliefs can't be slandered. If I call some belief stupid, that is not the same as calling any holder of that belief stupid. If all available evidence for that person genuinely points to a certain conclusion, then it is not stupid for them to hold to that conclusion. They only become stupid if they continue to hold to that conclusion after comprehensive contradictory evidence is presented to them. Even then, saying that it's stupid of them to hold to something that is clearly false is not slander, as its true.

confusedquark wrote: »

But "offenders" often make ill-formed comments and gross generalisations that are far from the truth.

And they are wrong because those statements are ill-formed and gross generalisations that are far from the truth, not because they are offensive. They are equally wrong if no one gets offended.

confusedquark wrote: »

I have to disagree with you on the issue of intent - if a close friend of mine calls me a terrorist because I'm brown and have a beard and he just wants to make a politically incorrect joke which I'll find funny, then that's fine, but if a random stranger says the same thing to me because he doesn't like brown people and wants them all out of "his" country, then that's offensive and bang out of order.

In one case, someone is making joke to someone they know, not a serious claim they would stand by in an argument. In the other case, someone is making a serious claim that they would stand by in an argument. Only one case will result in someone trying to seriously justify their claim, so again it still comes down to justification - how, or if, it is made.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If I call some belief stupid, that is not the same as calling any holder of that belief stupid.

Technically maybe not - but if you tell a person that their belief is stupid, you'd be pushing it for them to not take it personally that you're saying that they are too. Sure you might go on to present them with evidence to support your case - but equally, many "offenders" aren't interested in dialogue and just want to speak their minds without giving a full explanation. Many beliefs aren't necessarily right or wrong - with no comprehensive contradictory evidence. So, if you take something that isn't comprehensively true or false, and based on your own opinion, and call somebody else's belief in it stupid to their face, it's not unreasonable for them to be insulted/offended by it. I'll go back to my "case by case" argument.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And they are wrong because those statements are ill-formed and gross generalisations that are far from the truth, not because they are offensive. They are equally wrong if no one gets offended.

They are wrong AND they are offensive because those statements are ill-formed and gross generalisations.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In one case, someone is making joke to someone they know, not a serious claim they would stand by in an argument. In the other case, someone is making a serious claim that they would stand by in an argument. Only one case will result in someone trying to seriously justify their claim, so again it still comes down to justification - how, or if, it is made.

I don't quite get where you stand on justification - your previous comment seemed to suggest justification didn't matter:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do, if it was then it would only be about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do and the offence wouldn't need to be raised.

But I'll respond to your last post - my point was that the same thing can be said by two different people, but depending on their intention - the comment can be ok or offensive, and therefore intent does matter. Even if somebody tries to justify an ill-formed and grossly generalised comment (which people will have varying abilities/motivation to do), it doesn't change the fact that the initial comment is offensive if it is ill-formed.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When helping the poor and needy, I'm sure its great, however the money can also be used to proselyting the Islamic faith (Fi Sabillillah), so it is somewhat self serving.

Given that it's left up to individual Muslims to determine where they send the money, and the predominant instruction we go by is "give charity to the poor", I'm sure the vast vast majority of the money goes to the needy. Had it been a case that the instruction behind Zakat also included "and spread the faith" or if the money was collected by Islamic institutions to "spend as they saw fit", then I'd be more concerned about it being self serving.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

Which is fine, but the point remains that the impact you were looking for when you posted the story about Muslims giving more to charity than others is greatly reduced when one considers that it is effectively compulsory.

Personally, I think a person that gives 0.5% of their salary with no compulsion other than thinking it is the right thing to do, has done more than a person that gives 5% because they have to.

MrP

What a short and/or selective memory you seem to have.

We've had this conversation before.

British Poll On Charity-Giving Shows Atheists least generous and Muslims Most
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3820522.ece


Quote:
Muslims are among Britain’s most generous givers, topping a poll of religious groups that donate to charity, according to new research.


Muslims who donated to charity last year gave an average of almost £371 each, with Jewish givers averaging just over £270 per person.
Nearly one in ten of Jewish givers donated more than £1,000. Among Muslim givers, most donated between £300 and £500.

Atheists, by contrast, donated an average of £116 when they gave to charity, with Roman Catholics giving slightly more than £178, other Christians slightly less than £178 and Protestants £202

.

And I then later explained to you that even with the Islamic obligation that Muslims are still twice as generous as atheists.

You can work out what a Muslim is obliged to pay in the UK based on average UK salaries and average UK household costs (and this is before a penny is paid on luxuries)

And you get 125 pound.

If you take this amount from the avg donated by Muslims in the poll you get Muslims as being twice as generous towards charities by choice - and this is even after they have paid their obligations towards charities

Of course, if white people didn't drop so many bombs on brown people, crippling people, orphaning children and making refugees and stopped stealing their resources there wouldn't be as much a need for charity.

Tom Dunne

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course, if white people didn't drop so many bombs on brown people, crippling people, orphaning children and making refugees and stopped stealing their resources there wouldn't be as much a need for charity.

No more of this kind of talk, please. Let's keep the politics out of it.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Technically maybe not - but if you tell a person that their belief is stupid, you'd be pushing it for them to not take it personally that you're saying that they are too. Sure you might go on to present them with evidence to support your case - but equally, many "offenders" aren't interested in dialogue and just want to speak their minds without giving a full explanation. Many beliefs aren't necessarily right or wrong - with no comprehensive contradictory evidence. So, if you take something that isn't comprehensively true or false, and based on your own opinion, and call somebody else's belief in it stupid to their face, it's not unreasonable for them to be insulted/offended by it. I'll go back to my "case by case" argument.

But even by your argument here, a person can only be justifiably offended if they can show the offender is wrong for calling them stupid. And if they can show the offender is wrong, then offence is superfluous.

confusedquark wrote: »

They are wrong AND they are offensive because those statements are ill-formed and gross generalisations.

They are equally wrong if no one gets offended though, which is my point. Offence is superfluous to being wrong.

confusedquark wrote: »

I don't quite get where you stand on justification - your previous comment seemed to suggest justification didn't matter:

My previous quote was talking about the "offendee", not the "offender". I was saying that offence for many people isn't about a statement being wrong (i.e. lacking justification) it was about a statement being embarrassing for them.

confusedquark wrote: »

But I'll respond to your last post - my point was that the same thing can be said by two different people, but depending on their intention - the comment can be ok or offensive, and therefore intent does matter. Even if somebody tries to justify an ill-formed and grossly generalised comment (which people will have varying abilities/motivation to do), it doesn't change the fact that the initial comment is offensive if it is ill-formed.

But people get offended by well-formed and well supported comments all the time, therefore offence in and of itself is useless as a marker for the validity of a statement and therefore of no use in discussion and debate. And in the case of the joker versus the racist, its still comes down to justification. the joker will (attempt to) justify his statement as a joke, to entertain rather than offend, while the racist will (attempt to) justify his (same) statement as fact with his own sources.

I wonder did I may have worded my earlier posts in a way that leads you think that I am saying offence should be based justification rather than intent? I am not saying that. I am saying that offence is 100% irrelevant in discussion, the only value of any statement is justification. If a statement can't be justified then it has no place in discussion.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Given that it's left up to individual Muslims to determine where they send the money, and the predominant instruction we go by is "give charity to the poor", I'm sure the vast vast majority of the money goes to the needy. Had it been a case that the instruction behind Zakat also included "and spread the faith" or if the money was collected by Islamic institutions to "spend as they saw fit", then I'd be more concerned about it being self serving.

Look at the wikipedia section on recipients for zakat. One of the asnaf (official type of recipients) is "Those working in God's way (Fī Sabīlillāh)". Most of the other 7 types are the needy and poor, but it seems that in South East Asia, muslims mainly give to the Fī Sabīlillāh, which includes muslim schools and missionary work.

Apparently, zakat can (or could) be used to fund jihad, as well as to "strengthen the faith" of prominent recent converts or pay off possible hostile groups.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We've had this conversation before.

Weird that you quoted a post by Mr Pudding that you never actually responded to in that thread .
Weirder still that you quote a thread were doctoremma later pointed out that if you remove donations to church based charities, then you reverse your claim that atheists are least generous and muslims the most. Is it even weirder still that you never responded to that point?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But even by your argument here, a person can only be justifiably offended if they can show the offender is wrong for calling them stupid. And if they can show the offender is wrong, then offence is superfluous.

Superfluous is all good and well if the offender is interested in having a dialogue or debate. The offendee doesn't always get a chance to show the offender he/she is wrong, e.g. if somebody says something ill-formed in the media, or a comment shouted across the street directed at someone. People at the receiving end of such comments have the right to feel aggrieved/offended and dismissing their feelings as "superfluous" is a dangerous and slippery slope. I 100% agree with you that offence shouldn't be used (abused) to run away from the truth and hide behind it when you hear something you don't like, but there are many instances when it is perfectly valid.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They are equally wrong if no one gets offended though, which is my point. Offence is superfluous to being wrong.

Of course you can be wrong and not offensive. But you can also be wrong and very offensive if you take that wrong and shove it in somebody's face with full stubborn conviction. You cannot dismiss offence as being superfluous - not every issue of offence is between two people having a civilised discussion.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But people get offended by well-formed and well supported comments all the time, therefore offence in and of itself is useless as a marker for the validity of a statement and therefore of no use in discussion and debate.

Yes, offence is a useless marker for the validity of a statement, because people can be right or wrong in being offended, but once again, not every issue of offence occurs within the context of a discussion or debate. It often comes from a rant, which can have varying precipitants and intentions. Which yet again, brings me back to my "case by case" argument, that you need independent people (e.g. the moderators on boards) or people who are willing to be constructive on both sides of the argument to determine what is offensive and what isn't.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am saying that offence is 100% irrelevant in discussion, the only value of any statement is justification. If a statement can't be justified then it has no place in discussion.

Alas, people blurt out a lot that can't be justified, and people often come to the table without the intention of having a proper discussion - and once again, they can be wrong in doing that, but they can also be offensive in doing that, depending on what is said and how it is said. You have to judge it on a case by case basis

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Look at the wikipedia section on recipients for zakat. One of the asnaf (official type of recipients) is "Those working in God's way (Fī Sabīlillāh)". Most of the other 7 types are the needy and poor, but it seems that in South East Asia, muslims mainly give to the Fī Sabīlillāh, which includes muslim schools and missionary work.

Apparently, zakat can (or could) be used to fund jihad, as well as to "strengthen the faith" of prominent recent converts or pay off possible hostile groups.

Small print stuff I'd say. I'd still say that vast majority of zakat goes to the poor/needy and not for "self-serving purposes". Regarding the South East Asia zakat, I didn't see any hard figures in those couple of pages, and would be interested in what the locals define as Fi Sabilillah - because having travelled a few Muslim countries, I know beggars often say those 2 words to request people to give them money, so it's possible South East Asians might consider "Fi Sabilillah" as giving charity to the poor in itself. I'm only speculating though I'll add - would need to look deeper into it.

old_aussie

Frank Grimes wrote: »

What is the point of this comment, or do you even have one?

Go ahead and and anser for tom, as he has brushed aside my question.

tom states one thing and then ignores my question.

see post 54

my point is trhat tom says one thing then FAILS to backup his words, that's my point.

Frank Grimes

old_aussie wrote: »

Go ahead and and anser for tom, as he has brushed aside my question.

How can I answer for him? I don't recall ever seeing him claim that Allah is real anyway.

my point is trhat tom says one thing then FAILS to backup his words, that's my point.

I don't really understand what your issue with him is, so I can't comment on that.

Tom Dunne

old_aussie wrote: »

Go ahead and and anser for tom, as he has brushed aside my question.

tom states one thing and then ignores my question.

see post 54

my point is trhat tom says one thing then FAILS to backup his words, that's my point.

A lot going on right now. Let it go.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

not every issue of offence is between two people having a civilised discussion.

But many are. So how de we avoid cases where offence is used as a shield against an uncomfortable fact? By pointing out that genuine offence is caused by things that are demonstrably wrong, and if its demonstrably wrong, then thats all you need to counter it.

confusedquark wrote: »

Yes, offence is a useless marker for the validity of a statement, because people can be right or wrong in being offended, but once again, not every issue of offence occurs within the context of a discussion or debate.

Every issue of offence can be presented as a discussion or debate. Someone is offended by someone else sunbathing in the nude - this can be presented as a discussion on whether people should be allowed sunbath in the nude.

confusedquark wrote: »

It often comes from a rant, which can have varying precipitants and intentions. Which yet again, brings me back to my "case by case" argument, that you need independent people (e.g. the moderators on boards) or people who are willing to be constructive on both sides of the argument to determine what is offensive and what isn't.

The mods on boards don't moderate based on offence though, they moderate based on the best way to keep discussions flowing. Much of the time this will line up with removing what most people would consider as offensive, but there are many topics, entire forums even, that would offend certain people yet they aren't removed.And even when they do remove something offensive, the removal is almost always justified with a reason explaining its removable, rather than a simple declaration of offensiveness.

confusedquark wrote: »

Alas, people blurt out a lot that can't be justified, and people often come to the table without the intention of having a proper discussion - and once again, they can be wrong in doing that, but they can also be offensive in doing that, depending on what is said and how it is said. You have to judge it on a case by case basis

People blurt out a lot of stupid things that aren't offensive, merely silly and wrong. We judge them on their justifications, so I fail to see why we judge another blurted statement different, simply because someone happens to find it offensive.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Small print stuff I'd say.

Based on what though? Advancing a religion is considered a charitable act in Ireland (section 3, 1(c), on page 12), I don't think its much of a stretch to think it would be the same across Asia and the Middle east.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But many are. So how de we avoid cases where offence is used as a shield against an uncomfortable fact? By pointing out that genuine offence is caused by things that are demonstrably wrong, and if its demonstrably wrong, then thats all you need to counter it.

You avoid cases of offence being used as a shield by judging one's claim of offence on a case by case basis - and not by the blanket denial of the right of being offended for all people for all comments. Yes, you can counter an offensive comment by demonstrating it is wrong, but once again, that's doesn't change the fact that the comment may have been offensive in the first place. If somebody posts a comment on boards that "all Muslims are terrorists", one can demonstrate that it's wrong, but it's still an offensive comment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Every issue of offence can be presented as a discussion or debate. Someone is offended by someone else sunbathing in the nude - this can be presented as a discussion on whether people should be allowed sunbath in the nude.

Indeed, every issue can potentially be presented in that form. The case of sunbathing is one person's actions in relation to themselves and it will generate a good debate, but the context of somebody making a comment directed at somebody else is a different matter, and whilst the topic can lead to a discussion or debate, the original comment doesn't become absolved of being judged as to whether it was offensive or not. Equally, one could also make the case of seeing a person nude as offensive (regardless of any subsequent discussion or debate), and you would have to judge their case on its merits, and decide whether they are being reasonable in their claim.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The mods on boards don't moderate based on offence though, they moderate based on the best way to keep discussions flowing. Much of the time this will line up with removing what most people would consider as offensive, but there are many topics, entire forums even, that would offend certain people yet they aren't removed.And even when they do remove something offensive, the removal is almost always justified with a reason explaining its removable, rather than a simple declaration of offensiveness.

I don't recall stating that people who claim offence shouldn't have to explain why they are offended (unless it's something glaringly obvious, and even in those cases, if it needs to be spelled out, so be it). So if the moderators judge offence by what "most people consider offensive" and yet allow other things which "offend certain people", above anything else, that shows that a line of offence does exist and that (according to the boards.ie philosophy anyway) simply demonstrating that a comment is wrong is not sufficient in some cases and more drastic action (like warning/banning people) is sometimes indicated for certain individuals who say certain things. I quite agree with that because it allows people to express their opinions and have civilised discussions should they wish to, but depending on how they phrase their arguments, they can be judged as being offensive or not. From all that you say, I assume you disagree with the "judging offence" role of moderators on boards?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People blurt out a lot of stupid things that aren't offensive, merely silly and wrong. We judge them on their justifications, so I fail to see why we judge another blurted statement different, simply because someone happens to find it offensive.

Who says the latter are being judged differently? Every spoken/written word is open to scrutiny. Just because someone happens to find something offensive does not automatically make the comment genuinely offensive. A genuinely offensive comment is one that is judged to be so after taking both sides into account.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Based on what though? Advancing a religion is considered a charitable act in Ireland (section 3, 1(c), on page 12), I don't think its much of a stretch to think it would be the same across Asia and the Middle east.

Advancing the religion is certainly an aspect of Islam as well, but the specific issue of whether zakat is to be used for that purpose is small print stuff in my opinion, because as I earlier stated, the predominant instruction behind it is to support the needy.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

You avoid cases of offence being used as a shield by judging one's claim of offence on a case by case basis - and not by the blanket denial of the right of being offended for all people for all comments. Yes, you can counter an offensive comment by demonstrating it is wrong, but once again, that's doesn't change the fact that the comment may have been offensive in the first place. If somebody posts a comment on boards that "all Muslims are terrorists", one can demonstrate that it's wrong, but it's still an offensive comment.

I'm not saying that anyone should be denied the right to be offended, its just that if we are going to go through each possibly offensive statement on a case-by-case basis to make sure it isn't a valid statement (ie by checking its justifications), and we also go through non-offensive statements to check if they are/aren't valid, then anything beyond that validation is superfluous to requirements. Its redundant to say you are offended a statement that is going to be debated anyway, if its wrong it will be rejected, if its right (accurate) then tough luck.

confusedquark wrote: »

Equally, one could also make the case of seeing a person nude as offensive (regardless of any subsequent discussion or debate), and you would have to judge their case on its merits, and decide whether they are being reasonable in their claim.

But we don't restrict nudism on the basis of it possibly being offensive, we do it because on the balance of the freedom of one person to be nude versus the freedom of another not to have to see them if they dont want to, the second persons freedom wins out (not that this changes if we go from a public space to a semi-private space like a nudist beach).

confusedquark wrote: »

From all that you say, I assume you disagree with the "judging offence" role of moderators on boards?

Not quite, because as I said, mods don't judge based on offence, they judge based on whatever is conductive to discussion. This lines up with offence quite regularly and in a general way, most forms of trolling are offensive in various ways. However not all forms of trolling are inherently offensive, soap boxing for instance (if the repeated statement is not insulting).

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Advancing the religion is certainly an aspect of Islam as well, but the specific issue of whether zakat is to be used for that purpose is small print stuff in my opinion, because as I earlier stated, the predominant instruction behind it is to support the needy.

And many theists (particularly religious leaders) see the non religious (or differently religious) as in need of conversion, hence one of the officially accepted recipients of zakat is those who advance the religion. It might be small print, but since when has small print been used for something less important than the large print?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not saying that anyone should be denied the right to be offended

We have a consensus.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its redundant to say you are offended a statement that is going to be debated anyway, if its wrong it will be rejected, if its right (accurate) then tough luck.

Just because a statement is made in a debate, it doesn't absolve it from being potentially offensive. Is it wrong of me to say that "all Muslims are terrorists" is an offensive comment, even if it's made in the context of a debate?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But we don't restrict nudism on the basis of it possibly being offensive, we do it because on the balance of the freedom of one person to be nude versus the freedom of another not to have to see them if they dont want to, the second persons freedom wins out (not that this changes if we go from a public space to a semi-private space like a nudist beach).

So in this case offence is deemed to be unreasonable as it's more an issue of personal freedoms. That's fair enough - offence isn't always reasonable. But that's different to offence always being superfluous.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not quite, because as I said, mods don't judge based on offence, they judge based on whatever is conductive to discussion. This lines up with offence quite regularly and in a general way, most forms of trolling are offensive in various ways. However not all forms of trolling are inherently offensive, soap boxing for instance (if the repeated statement is not insulting).

I didn't mean that "judging offence" is the only role of the mods and the only thing they look for. Of their many roles in ensuring what is conductive to discussion, one role is to judge if comments are offensive. I assume you disagree with the need for that specific role?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And many theists (particularly religious leaders) see the non religious (or differently religious) as in need of conversion, hence one of the officially accepted recipients of zakat is those who advance the religion. It might be small print, but since when has small print been used for something less important than the large print?

By small print I meant it's one of the lesser reasons for which zakat is given, and the large print is not the needy in terms of spirituality, but the needy in terms of poverty, to whom a larger chunk of zakat goes.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Just because a statement is made in a debate, it doesn't absolve it from being potentially offensive. Is it wrong of me to say that "all Muslims are terrorists" is an offensive comment, even if it's made in the context of a debate?

I didn't said statements are absolved from offence in debates, just that the pointing out of offence is redundant if the statements are going to be examined anyway.

confusedquark wrote: »

I didn't mean that "judging offence" is the only role of the mods and the only thing they look for. Of their many roles in ensuring what is conductive to discussion, one role is to judge if comments are offensive. I assume you disagree with the need for that specific role?

I see it as a role that is covered by the other ways they judge comments.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

By small print I meant it's one of the lesser reasons for which zakat is given, and the large print is not the needy in terms of spirituality, but the needy in terms of poverty, to whom a larger chunk of zakat goes.

Do you have any numbers for this though? I.e. the ratio of money each of the 8 types of recipient of zakat actually gets? The only source I've seen (the wikipedia one I quoted before) indicates that at least in some places in the world, those who advance islam get more than the rest.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didn't said statements are absolved from offence in debates

We have a further consensus.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

just that the pointing out of offence is redundant if the statements are going to be examined anyway.

Redundant if you're focusing on it purely from a debating perspective, but you have to consider the bigger picture.

Offence is relevant because:
1) Most well meaning people don't intentionally try to offend others, and sometimes might do so unintentionally. Personally, I'd like to know if somebody's offended by something I've said, and if the comment has caused genuine offence, I'll try not to do it again and rephrase my point.
2) Some people intentionally try to offend others for various reasons (humour, racism, other -isms, etc.) and unfortunately you have to draw a line for these people (e.g. forum charters) to ensure they don't go beyond a limit. It can also create needless hostility which isn't conductive to discussion.
3) As you've said, people do try to hide behind offence when it suits them, and that also needs to be highlighted and countered when it occurs.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I see it as a role that is covered by the other ways they judge comments.

Lol, not what I asked, but fair enough.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you have any numbers for this though? I.e. the ratio of money each of the 8 types of recipient of zakat actually gets? The only source I've seen (the wikipedia one I quoted before) indicates that at least in some places in the world, those who advance islam get more than the rest.

I've gone hunting online for numbers, and there aren't really that many numbers out there. I suppose that might be because it's not an easy thing to gather data on, as zakat is often given by people privately. I did come across one article from Malaysia which states the following (which probably has similar sources to where you go your info from):

"Fi sabilillah. Nowadays this category covers those who go for further studies or higher education."

http://www.academia.edu/4980275/Zakat_disbursement_Ui_TM_Johor_ARI

So I wouldn't necessarily categorise that as "advancing Islam". The specific breakdown they give is 40% Fi sabilillah, 22-26% to the asnaf of needy (Miskin). These figures seem to be from local authorities, so I don't know if private individual data is missing and what impact that would have on the overall percentages.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

Redundant if you're focusing on it purely from a debating perspective, but you have to consider the bigger picture.

No, just redundant in general.
I do get what you are saying, but I don't think you are getting my disagreement. If person A says something, and person B says "I'm offended by what he said", then the response to that offense is "why are you offended". If person A says something and person B says "I disagree with what he said", then the response to that disagreement is "why do you disagree". In both cases, in order for person B to be justified, he has to explain why person A is wrong in what they said.
Offense (as a counter to a statement) is redundant as it is subjective and you are still going to have to treat the statement as a serious claim (ie explain why you disagree with it) in order to be justified in countering teh statement.

Yes, ideally, this should be a non-issue. If people are going to explain their offence taking anyway, then what difference does it make whether they say they are offended or they simply disagree? The difference is that many people see the declaration of offence in and of itself as all that is needed to counter a statement. Many people are unable to explain why a non-offended person should care that they are offended, whereas if they were arguing that the other person is wrong, that is all they would need to show.