Quick Question; Does This Offened You?

seanybiker wrote: »

what are you talking ABOOT . sorry only copped on your canadian

C'mon give me a break. It's a-bow(as in the front of a boat)-t

Dont listen to yanks, they know not of that which they speak.
Sheesh.

A boot - that which one puts on ones foot when it gets cold and snowy.

seanybiker wrote: »

Me cousin was over from Canada last week I kept on getting him to say aboot hehehe. Thought he was gonna kick me in the nads at one stage.


Anyways. must get the popcorn for this thread

When I was in Ireland this past summer I took great delight in gearing the local Kerry folk into saying the number between 2 and 4. I'd then point at a green leafy object.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thanks, nice response.

Thank you for your response also.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The "active" elements of this such as the bells, the laws etc are much more difficult to ignore when they interfere with you whether you choose to ignore them or not. If you can hear you can't stop hearing the bells short of putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. It permeates your reality. The laws are inescapable. It is illegal for a shop or pub to sell you alcohol on Good Friday (and I think christmas day as well), while this law may be on its way out it is still an active interference in your life.

So from my perspective (and this is with other people in mind) it is not the same thing as saying "you can just switch over". You cant switch reality when you dont like the sound of the bells nor can you decide to ignore the laws of the land without consequences.


I realise that the bells could be construed as being a form of freedom of speech but it could also be construed as noise pollution.

I suppose this comes down to different points of view. While I agree that the drinking laws on Good Friday affects your life on an immediate level (which I don't think is fair) , I personally wouldn't view church bells as noise pollution ( though I understand your reasoning for thinking that.). To me the bells represent freedom of religious expression. They are easy for me to ignore personally as the only last for a minute twice a day. If, for example, priests , or whoever, went around forcing everybody to say the Rosary at twelve and six o' clock I would have more of a problem. As it stands, they don't bother me that much.

Again, it's all personal decision, and if you are offended by the bells, or you find them interfering in your life, then of course, you have every right to complain.


Likewise, the religious person might see a Slayer album cover in a music shop i.e. a public place and be offended by it, as they don't have control over viewing it or not. In this case, I would also say that they should not let it bother them as the artist also has a right to freedom of expression.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It was intended to.



I appreciate that you feel things could have been said in a different or more palleteable manner but it flies a little in the face of freedom of expression since the right to say what we want how we want is what is being discussed. I tend to run my mouth a little and to add colour to my prose, some find it too blunt (some have even found it offensive and I've received infractions and bans) but in my opinion that is people being too picky and looking for something to get riled about.

In my opinion, using generalizations will not support an argument. In fact, it may weaken it by showing a lack of understanding of the matter at hand ( I'm not applying this to you personally, but in a more general sense ). In the case of your post, I felt it was un-neccessary to tar all religious people with the same brush (i.e. 'whackos') when nobody on the thread had tried to force their religious beliefs on anybody else, but had merely given their opinion, as the OP asked for.

Freedom of expression and insulting people are two different things. If you invite people to give their opinion, I don't think you should use demeaning language towards just because you don't agree with what they say. To me, like the generalizations, it doesn't really add anything to an argument, but distracts from the topic at hand, in my opinion. If you've ever seen people argue on a site like youtube, for example, where people swear as much as they like, you'll see rational debates descend into flame wars where nothing is achieved but antagonizing each other. Well, that's how I feel anyway.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats fine, so long as those religions dont try to force their values on other people = a behaior I doubt is likely from the major religions such as Christianity or Islam.



the right to express opinion is fundamental I wont argue. Nor will I argue that the rightto express opinion even if it is religious is fundamental. But the right to respond is also fundamental and it is the right to call a duck a duck, and a loony raving about angels a loony raving about angels.

Again, I can see your point. However, it is important to remember that not every religious person tries to force their views on others ( though I can certainly see where you're coming from, given the history of this country, for example), nor are they all crazy because they , for example, believe in angels. We can not assume why people believe , or don't believe in the things they do.It is different for every person.

However, questioning a person's religious beliefs is of course, fine, as long as it is not implied that they are overtly wrong and the you ( not you personally) are overtly right.And vice versa.

This was my original problem with this thread. Certain people gave their opinions on the album cover, and it turned into their religious beliefs being attacked, which was not the topic at hand.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

For what its worth, as much as I like the idea of the posters on the busses I dont think that any state body should have any theological, political or philosophical propaganda daubed on it.


Not quite the same thing. The busses are far more overt. However, if they were 100% privately owned then its not quite such a big deal. any government cash goes into it though and theur should be no question of their being permitted.


I never said it applied universally, it was meant as a general comment regarding western culture, values and Ireland. Besides, China is communist (ostensibly) and they tend to treat the party as a substitute for religion.

I agree with your view on the buses (private vs. government -owned). However, while it seems people are determined to express their views on bill boards and public transport, I feel that each side should be entitled to their say.

RE: China. I was just providing an example of where religious expression is not allowed. However, I get your point that you were referring to the West mainly.

Nailz wrote: »

Acacia, I understand were you were coming from, but did you read were those quotes sourced from?? I never said anything without being confronted to which I felt I needed to reply to, understand?

I understand where you're coming from, but as I said to Hive in my comments above, I don't feel the way in which you presented your argument was very constructive ( or fair to those that expressed their dislike of the cover), that's all.

Finally, apologies for the unbelievably long reply!

Guys, I'm going to lock this regrettable thread and split the latter posts into a new thread.