Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
18-09-2020, 00:12   #31
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 21,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicbastarder View Post
if i eat beef, am i being disrespectful to those for whom cattle are sacred?
If you're in India at the time, disrespectful doesn't enter into it, there are militant hindus who would happily slaughter you
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
Advertisement
18-09-2020, 00:14   #32
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 21,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by auspicious View Post
Practicing is the operative word missing from the initial quote.
Well maybe if they practice perhaps as often as once a week, they'll get good at it
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
18-09-2020, 08:15   #33
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,616
The only modification I would make to a thread started in my name would be to ask why the "or" in the topic title. Is it necessarily mutually exclusive? Is sacrilege itself not fair game at times, if not even positively warranted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
Hark ... tis the sound of Boris / Dominic /Phil and all the rest who fudge around wafer thin (excuse the pun) technicalities.
Calling something a "technicality" is just a label you fling to avoid actually replying to, or rebutting, what was said. That is more a politician move than anything I have ever made. So perhaps check the mirror before flinging accusations of this sort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
You know the purpose and meaning of the Eucharist. And you trampled on it. No great crime, we all do such things, being sinners and all.
Exactly. There was no crime. No legal one and no moral one. At least OUTSIDE the system of your clubhouse rules. Rules which I am not beholden to. The concept of "Sin" is nothing more than "violations of the ethics of my clubhouse".

It is just a fancy word to apply to your particular hobby's rules. Many clubs with club houses have rules of this sort, they just do not need to label those rules with fancy terms. For example the fishing club I am in consider it highly bad form to use certain types of "lure" when fishing.

If any club house hold open public events and they hand out free things at that event, they have no pedestal form which to admonish people for what they do with that stuff later. Especially if they make no move whatsoever, not even as simple as a pamphlet in the foyer, explaining expectations. Let alone maybe mentioning it in the schools they control while marching kids off to partake.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
18-09-2020, 08:15   #34
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hutton View Post
However, going to the trouble of dishonestly acquiring Eucharist to "experiment" upon and destroy is a number of degrees above "disrespect" or disagreement. It is not just being "disrespectful" to something you are confronted with, but rather going out of your way to be so, which is altogether different.
For the most part it was no trouble at all, and I did not go out of my way at all.

For example when I acquired them at weddings I was there by invitation.

Or when I acquired them during a mass I did not want to be at, it was because the school I attended went out of THEIR way to force me to go to that mass.... and to force me to go up and take a cracker.... all under the threat of extra homework, detention, or getting my parents down to the school.

Actions which now-a-days might even be newsworthy given some of the stories that were in the paper in recent years about religion being forced on students in schools. And in fact one of the reasons why Atheist Ireland have formed an alliance with the Amadi Muslims of Ireland and the Evangelical Society of Ireland.... because the common ground on the mistreatment of kids in this regard transcends religious barriers.

Not eating a dry tasteless cracker FREELY given to me, and keeping it for myself, was entirely my right and my own autonomy. Especially as it was on some of those occasions given to me by a priest who knew damn well I was an atheist and knew damn well I had refused confirmation and was so about as much a lapsed Catholic as it was possible to be at that age/stage of my life.

But sure, the "crime" here is my treatment of a cracker I guess. Not the religion being forced on a helpless child. Also context is useful here as another user already pointed out on this thread already. Much (not all) of what I acquired and wrote (the link that triggered you was from about 10 years ago) back at that time was done in the context of the Blasphemy Laws becoming a focal point of discourse in Ireland. A time when the government were trying to rammify such a concept in law, and Atheist Ireland were releasing lists of blasphemous quotes to test/highlight the law, and foreign bloggers were making posts like this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hutton View Post
Anyway, I had said I was finished with this thread
No worries. Tongue in cheek some years ago I invented something called "Nozzerrahhtoo's first law of internet posting". Despite being a joke it has proved true a lot more than it proved false. Basically the law states that the probability of a user posting again in a discussion goes UP in proportion to the number of times they indicate they will not be.

As such, despite being a joke, it brings me a little tickle of joy/amusement when someone proves it for me. Especially multiple times on one thread. So thanks for that

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hutton View Post
How about asking if it was OK for ISIS to destroy various religious sites?
A useful distinction. If they had been GIVEN FREELY that religious site and THEN they decided to destroy it.... well then sure no problem there. It might sadden us of course, for good reason, but we would have no pedastal from which to really admonish them for their actions.

The fact that people go and destroy the property of others however is a problem. Both a legal and ethical one at times. And you would never find me doing any such thing anywhere ever.

The distinction between that and me doing whatever the hell I want with property that was freely given to me... is one you should dwell on for some time.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
18-09-2020, 09:24   #35
smacl
Moderator
 
smacl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicbastarder View Post
if i eat beef, am i being disrespectful to those for whom cattle are sacred?
if i do so, i do so knowing that some people regard what i am doing as disrespectful (though i do not know if it's considered 'sacrilege'). i coudl just order the fish instead?

though to a catholic, eating the body of your own god is probably more acceptable than to many other religions.
I think the two factors to consider here are intent and context. So for example, if I order a Royale with cheese in Burger King in Dublin, I have no intent to offend those for whom cattle are sacred. Eating beef in Ireland is also entirely normal and thus can't be considered sacrilege in this context.

Now look at the funnies page on this forum, which clearly takes this píss out of many things more religious types would hold sacred and as such could be considered sacrilege in terms of intent. At the same time, if those religious types are browsing the humour section of an atheist forum they should expect this type of thing. Much like the priest getting offended by the lewd pictures in Playboy, they are very clearly not the intended audience.

Compare that to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Mohammed. By placing these pictures on the front cover of a magazine that will visible on magazine stands and in shops in an area with a large Muslim population, the intent is clearly to disrespect what Islam holds sacred.



This is intentionally sacrilegious and inflammatory, where the humour is primarily a device to highlight an argument. That argument, as I read it, is that one group's religious beliefs cannot be used to censor others beyond what is acceptable in law. See https://www.indexoncensorship.org/20...-two-years-on/ for more. While I agree entirely with the argument I have issues with the way it can be delivered, most notably in providing a platform for promoting racism and discrimination under the guise of free speech. Aggressively inflammatory material intended to offend specific groups carries with it the likelihood of polarising society which ultimately favours extremists on both sides.



As such I'd question with wisdom and intent of placing this material on the front cover of magazine displayed publicly and wonder where the balance lies between freedom of speech and incitement to hatred.
smacl is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
18-09-2020, 10:49   #36
Bannasidhe
Moderation is the key.
 
Bannasidhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
The only modification I would make to a thread started in my name would be to ask why the "or" in the topic title. Is it necessarily mutually exclusive? Is sacrilege itself not fair game at times, if not even positively warranted?


Mod - in the interest's of fairness as this thread does list you as OP and it was a post by you who kicked it all off I have amended the thread title.
Bannasidhe is offline  
Thanks from:
18-09-2020, 17:06   #37
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 21,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacl View Post
Compare that to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting Mohammed.
It depicts a man in islamic dress, I'm pretty sure Mohammed did not have access to a printed and bound copy of the koran, in French. I thought the text "The koran is sh!t" would be more of an issue? (The context is "Massacre in Egypt" text in the box, and "it can't stop bullets".)

Quote:
By placing these pictures on the front cover of a magazine that will visible on magazine stands and in shops in an area with a large Muslim population, the intent is clearly to disrespect what Islam holds sacred.
So what. We should disrespect everything 'held sacred' because it's nonsense, and used as an excuse to oppress people.

And those covers are funny. "The reform of islam - Muslims, loosen up!" Well just how loosened up could they get!

They've gone a lot further in relation to the pope.

Last edited by Hotblack Desiato; 18-09-2020 at 17:11.
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
18-09-2020, 17:35   #38
smacl
Moderator
 
smacl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotblack Desiato View Post
We should disrespect everything 'held sacred' because it's nonsense, and used as an excuse to oppress people
Strange sentiment. Advocating that we should disrespect things that other's hold sacred is itself a form of oppression in my opinion. Once the group you're targeting also tends predominantly to be from a specific racial minority you also have to be very careful that your defense of free speech isn't pandering to those with a racist agenda.
smacl is offline  
Thanks from:
18-09-2020, 17:57   #39
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 21,094
Maybe disrespect is the wrong word, I mean not pander to, and not be afraid to be accused of disrespect for pointing out unpalatable truths.
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
Advertisement
18-09-2020, 18:51   #40
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotblack Desiato View Post
Maybe disrespect is the wrong word, I mean not pander to, and not be afraid to be accused of disrespect for pointing out unpalatable truths.
So someone slashes up the Mona Lisa. A sacred item in the minds of art appreciation and folk of culture. Fair game?
antiskeptic is offline  
18-09-2020, 18:53   #41
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacl View Post
Strange sentiment. Advocating that we should disrespect things that other's hold sacred is itself a form of oppression in my opinion. Once the group you're targeting also tends predominantly to be from a specific racial minority you also have to be very careful that your defense of free speech isn't pandering to those with a racist agenda.
Can not a minority be racist of a majority (this Irishman is getting close to that point re Americans) I don't see why minority in itself has anything to do with it.

Last edited by antiskeptic; 18-09-2020 at 18:56.
antiskeptic is offline  
18-09-2020, 19:00   #42
antiskeptic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacl View Post
Much like the priest getting offended by the lewd pictures in Playboy, they are very clearly not the intended audience.
You reading this Nozz? Intended audience. You sidling up to the altar and stuffing your pockets with wafers is like a priest taking a crafty peek into Playboy!
antiskeptic is offline  
19-09-2020, 02:54   #43
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 21,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
So someone slashes up the Mona Lisa. A sacred item in the minds of art appreciation and folk of culture. Fair game?
Remind me again of a religious group which worships the Mona Lisa, and a religious group which wants to slash it?
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
Thanks from:
19-09-2020, 08:21   #44
nozzferrahhtoo
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
So someone slashes up the Mona Lisa. A sacred item in the minds of art appreciation and folk of culture. Fair game?
If you gave it to them free of charge and without any conditions you made obvious to them at the time, then sure it is. It would be sad of course, but it would certainly be allowed.

Now if it was NOT their property and they went in and destroyed it.... that's something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
You reading this Nozz? Intended audience. You sidling up to the altar and stuffing your pockets with wafers is
... is something that never happened. And is thus irrelevant.
nozzferrahhtoo is offline  
26-09-2020, 14:11   #45
o1s1n
Registered User
 
o1s1n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 29,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
So someone slashes up the Mona Lisa. A sacred item in the minds of art appreciation and folk of culture. Fair game?
No, because it is in a one off, irreplaceable piece of art.

If someone slashes up a copy of the Mona Lisa, a print, nobody would care. It can be easily reproduced. The image itself is not sacred - people make parodies of it all the time.
o1s1n is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet