Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Hazards of Belief

Options
1…182183185187188…334

Comments

  • Options
    #5522
    CptMackey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭CptMackey


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Astrophysicist angers Christians with Christmas tweet



    Think the NY Post might be hyping this up just a tad? :rolleyes:
    People are crazy sensitive about nothing aren't they . It's mental


  • Options
    #5523
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,483 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    They're owned by Rupert Murdoch, of course they're going to hype it up. :(

    They were responsible for one of the all time great headlines though -

    333165.jpg

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #5524
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    A reporter and a photographer visit the Central African Republic where two religions of peace are facing each other down in a savage civil war. The report is not for the faint-hearted.

    http://features.hrw.org/features/Unravelling_central_african_republic/index.php


  • Options
    #5525
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    "Should children be exposed to the Sounds Of Sodomy?"
    http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/01/05/sounds-of-sodomy/

    Answers on postcard to the usual.


  • Options
    #5526
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,882 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    A certain up-his-own-arse far-right Catholic has already made his "contribution" to the AH thread, and has unsurprisingly run away.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5527
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,483 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    "Should children be exposed to this beastly obsession with unholy acts?"

    Are they arguing for children to be taken away from religious fundamentalists, because they're the only ones obsessed with other people's "unholy acts" ???

    Poe or real, I just can't tell anymore.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #5528
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    A certain up-his-own-arse far-right Catholic has already made his "contribution" to the AH thread, and has unsurprisingly run away.

    Which thread? Link please?


  • Options
    #5529
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,882 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    It's the thread about the homophobic leaflets, and this particular reactionary seemed more offended by the "PC brigade" than by the contents of this leaflet.


  • Options
    #5530
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    A great juxtaposition here this morning between between the Christian Right and radical Islam.
    One posts annoying leaflets into letterboxes, the other kills you for your opinion.

    Gunmen still at large, rumoured to be 4. Hope it ends without more innocent blood being split.


  • Options
    #5531
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jank wrote: »
    A great justification here this morning between between the Christian Right and radical Islam.

    Assuming you meant "juxtaposition", who did that (apart from you just now)?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5532
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Well is it quite a contrast in fairness, from handing out leaflets to executing journalists. I suppose I take a certain view on what is an actual hazard and what is an occasional annoyance.


  • Options
    #5533
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    It's the thread about the homophobic leaflets, and this particular reactionary seemed more offended by the "PC brigade" than by the contents of this leaflet.
    Please don't make us look for it... Please...

    MrP


  • Options
    #5534
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,882 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I don't think I'd be allowed to name names, unfortunately. All I can tell you is his username is Irish for a type of non-lay Christian.


  • Options
    #5535
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    I don't think I'd be allowed to name names, unfortunately. All I can tell you is his username is Irish for a type of non-lay Christian.
    If only there was some kind of system for sending messages, that were not public, to other board users. We could call them 'not-public messages' or perhaps 'NPMs' for short. That would be awesome. :D

    MrP


  • Options
    #5536
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    MrPudding wrote: »
    If only there was some kind of system for sending messages, that were not public, to other board users. We could call them 'not-public messages' or perhaps 'NPMs' for short. That would be awesome. :D

    MrP

    Me too! Me too! Don't forget me!:cool:


  • Options
    #5537
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,483 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    jank wrote: »
    A great juxtaposition here this morning between between the Christian Right and radical Islam.

    One lot murders journalists, the other murders abortion clinic doctors.
    They both murder gays

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #5538
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    "In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech.
    But not everyone is so supportive.

    Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/07/after-charlie-hebdo-attack-u-s-catholic-group-says-cartoonists-provoked-slaughter/?tid=sm_fb

    Sad in the extreme.


  • Options
    #5539
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Unfortunately the above sentiment is displayed by the non religious as well. Time magazine printed in 2011 under the headline "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr" in regards Charlie Hedbo continuous printing of satirical cartoons....

    http://world.time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/
    Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren’t going to tell “us” what can and can’t be done in free societies?

    “[N]ot only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

    One would have thought a free society can indeed print cartoons that others may find offensive.


  • Options
    #5540
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,331 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Good opinion peice on this here.

    In a nutshell:
    1. The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order.

    2. There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid.

    3. The legitimacy and wisdom of such criticism is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.


  • Options
    #5541
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The legitimacy... of such criticism is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.
    There's a fatal logical loophole in that argument: it implies that it's possible to de-legitimise criticism by the threat of violent reprisal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5542
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,331 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's a fatal logical loophole in that argument: it implies that it's possible to de-legitimise criticism by the threat of violent reprisal.
    What the article is saying is not that criticism of Islamist fundamentalists is de-legitimised if that criticism is going to provoke a violent attack. It's that criticism of people giving gratuitous offence is de-legitimized if those people are subject to violent attack for what they have done.

    In other words, it may in some circumstances be cruel and/or stupid to attack an already alienated and marginalised minority by deliberately setting out to outrage their sensibilities, and it may iin some circumstances be right to denounce this cruelty and stupidity. But when people are attacked and murdered for doing that, it's neither appopriate nor relevant to say that their behaviour was cruel and/or stupid. Any fault they have may have committed is dwarfed by the fault of those who attack and murder them, and the need to defend freedom and the rule of law eclipses any concerns about not giving gratuitous offence.


  • Options
    #5543
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Ah, fair enough - I misread.


  • Options
    #5544
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It's that criticism of people giving gratuitous offence is de-legitimized if those people are subject to violent attack for what they have done.
    Interesting, but what if the offended party retaliates in a more "proportionate" way, do you think that is justified?
    I'm thinking now of Sony's movie "The interview" portraying a mock-up of the murder of Kim Jong Un, who was obviously offended by same. Although nothing is proven, suppose for the sake of argument that Kim had responded by hacking the Sony website, releasing personal e-mails and by damaging the marketing opportunities of the movie. But no actual violence. Would he be justified in doing this, or would his response be an attack on free speech?


  • Options
    #5545
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    recedite wrote: »
    Interesting, but what if the offended party retaliates in a more "proportionate" way, do you think that is justified?
    I'm thinking now of Sony's movie "The interview" portraying a mock-up of the murder of Kim Jong Un, who was obviously offended by same. Although nothing is proven, suppose for the sake of argument that Kim had responded by hacking the Sony website, releasing personal e-mails and by damaging the marketing opportunities of the movie. But no actual violence. Would he be justified in doing this, or would his response be an attack on free speech?

    The only proper response to speech you don't like is more speech. If I write a story in which you get raped and murdered, would you think yourself justified if you hacked my company's servers and revealed private information of my employees, some of whom have nothing at all to do with my story?


  • Options
    #5546
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,882 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    So, I heard that there's some pics Anjem Choudary wants taken down from the Internet. Thankfully /r/pics is there to show them to the world!


  • Options
    #5547
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    .. employees, some of whom have nothing at all to do with..
    Ah yes, the old Nuremberg defence.

    "Answering speech with more speech" is a good answer. But then making and circulating a fictional movie of someone's murder is more than just speaking an opinion. And shutting down a server is a fairly passive sort of reaction, it is the opposite to speech, which gives it a sort of equivalence.


  • Options
    #5548
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,483 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    So people can shut down speech they disagree with, just because?
    Have you thought this through?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #5549
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    recedite wrote: »
    Ah yes, the old Nuremberg defence.

    "Answering speech with more speech" is a good answer. But then making and circulating a fictional movie of someone's murder is more than just speaking an opinion. And shutting down a server is a fairly passive sort of reaction, it is the opposite to speech, which gives it a sort of equivalence.

    The Nuremberg defence applies only to those who themselves carry out atrocities and then later claim "I was only following orders!"
    In my hypothetical scenario, I am the owner of a company with several employees. I am known as the head of that company. On my own initiative, I write a story in which you, by name, are raped and murdered. Your response is to hack my company's servers (not just shut down as you said there) and to release private information relating to my employees, who had nothing to do with me writing and posting online the offensive story. So the janitor I hired should just shrug his shoulders when you release online his PPS number, his medical history, etc etc?
    Is that a a justified response on your part? To hurt others in an attempt to get back at me?


  • Options
    #5550
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    "Answering speech with more speech" is a good answer. But then making and circulating a fictional movie of someone's murder is more than just speaking an opinion.
    I can think of at least two movies where a key plot point is a plan to assassinate the Queen of England. I don't recall MI6 hacking anything in retaliation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5551
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I can think of at least two movies where a key plot point is a plan to assassinate the Queen of England. I don't recall MI6 hacking anything in retaliation.
    A couple of differences spring to mind; did the Queen specifically voice an objection? Was the murder portrayed in a graphic way or was the plot foiled?
    Was the hero portrayed as defending her?
    (Rhetorical questions)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement