The right not to be offended

[Ryu Kishi]

Is ideology a person?

Give me an example when have I insulted a specific person in here.

I've gotten 1 infraction in the last three months and that was for bypassing the censor function aka cursing. That should tell you that I don't insult people even when I'm making fact based criticism. Boom.

By criticizing the ideology you also criticize the people that believe in that ideology

For example if you choose to represent an ideology that at it's core is violent, oppressive and intolerant. And you know this. So when you choose to represent an ideology you accept everything that that ideology entails

By saying such things about an ideology you are also insinuating the same thing about the people who believe in such ideology.


You hide behind innuendos therefore you feel untouchable, but we all know the truth.

 

[Hawker]

By criticizing the ideology you also criticize the people that believe in that ideology

So? Are ideologies immune to criticism? My freedom of speech ends when your feelings begin?

By saying such things about an ideology you are also insinuating the same thing about the who believe in such ideology.

Look if I'm saying that oppressing women, killing apostates and homosexuals is bad and a person feels offended by this then that's their problem. I'm only making arguments against violent and an oppressive ideology. If someone chooses to represent an ideology like that then boohoo. You deserve to get critisised and insulted.

You hide behind innuendos therefore you feel untouchable, but we all know the truth.

I don't get what you're trying to say with this. I'm pretty straightforward with my critisism.

 

[Ryu Kishi]

So? Are ideologies immune to criticism? My freedom of speech ends when your feelings begin?




Look if I'm saying that oppressing women, killing apostates and homosexuals is bad and a person feels offended by this then that's their problem. I'm only making arguments against violent and an oppressive ideology. If someone chooses to represent an ideology like that then boohoo. You deserve to get critisised and insulted.



I don't get what you're trying to say with this. I'm pretty straightforward with my critisism.

You perceive an ideology to be a certain way so you insinuate the people must be the same way, that's why people get offended.

So? Are ideologies immune to criticism? My freedom of speech ends when your feelings begin?

but you only criticize a specific ideology and I never see you do the same to any other ideology which leads one to believe maybe its just more then criticism.

 

[Le0]

By criticizing the ideology you also criticize the people that believe in that ideology

Isn't that the point in criticizing an ideology? If someone view a certain ideology as being outrages, that automatically means the person who believes / accept that ideology as being equally outrages. If someone believes in a certain ideology but at the same time stays behind a line where they know what is right and wrong, then there is no need for them to be offended. If they are offended, which they have the right to, it only shows that they accept what some or most criticized.

 

[Hawker]

You perceive an ideology to be a certain way so you insinuate the people must be the same way, that's why people get offended.

Like I said that's their problem. And it's not only my perception. It's a fact. If people follow that kind of ideology, I guess they are the same way? Anyways you have no reason to get offended if you aren't like that. But then you should just leave that ideology.

but you only criticize a specific ideology and I never see you do the same to any other ideology which leads one to believe maybe its just more then criticism.

I criticize natzism, fascism, communism and also christianity.They all are bad for individual freedom for one way or the other. It's just that currently islam is the problem. And that's why you see me talking mostly about it.

Isn't that the point in criticizing an ideology? If someone view a certain ideology as being outrages, that automatically means the person who believes / accept that ideology as being equally outrages. If someone believes in a certain ideology but at the same time stays behind a line where they know what is right and wrong, then there is no need for them to be offended. If they are offended, which they have the right to, it only shows that they accept what some or most criticized.

Exactly.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Is ideology a person?

Give me an example when have I insulted a specific person in here.

I've gotten 1 infraction in the last three months and that was for bypassing the censor function aka cursing. That should tell you that I don't insult people even when I'm making fact based criticism. Boom.

Before I start, let me make clear that I strongly agree that freedom of speech and the right to criticize should not be impeded or restricted.

However, what you are doing is something else. There are a plethora of horrendous ideologies and belief systems that have and some that still do exist, but I notice that you never seem to criticize the base fundamentals of superstition (as I have, in my thread on astrology for instance) or criticize the belief systems of the sun god Ra, or the Norse god Odin, or the shamanistic spirit. Most of your criticism is directed at the judeo christian Islamic god. Why? Because its taken seriously by a large number of people today. So whilst I agree with your views, don't pretend that your criticism has nothing to do with people and that its just about an ideology.

 

[Hawker]

Before I start, let me make clear that I strongly agree that freedom of speech and the right to criticize should not be impeded or restricted.

However, what you are doing is something else. There are a plethora of horrendous ideologies and belief systems that have and some that still do exist, but I notice that you never seem to criticize the base fundamentals of superstition (as I have, in my thread on astrology for instance) or criticize the belief systems of the sun god Ra, or the Norse god Odin, or the shamanistic spirit. Most of your criticism is directed at the judeo christian Islamic god. Why? Because its taken seriously by a large number of people today. So whilst I agree with your views, don't pretend that your criticism has nothing to do with people and that its just about an ideology.

Look, I think religion is always bad. I even made a thread about faith being evil:

You must be registered for see links

just a month ago. My signature adresses the problem with religion generally. I clearly am against superstition and outsourcing your thinking and morals to a book or an imaginary god.

So I should start criticizing all the ideologies just for the heck of it? So that it won't seem that I'm focusing on just one, and therefore being unfare? Lmao. Are there any worshipers of sun god Ra? Or shamanistic views? Or Odin? Do they form a problem nowadays?

Ofcourse my criticism has something to do with people since my wish is that people would just stop following islam. or any religion for that matter. It's that first and foremost I'm adressing the problems with the ideology. That the source of problems. I also can criticize people for following islam. I never said I don't do that? I said I don't hate muslims. Hate is a strong word. I'd say I disagree with what they believe in. I disagree with their values. Which are based on their ideology. But I don't hate them as individuals. I don't go around insulting them.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Look, I think religion is always bad. I even made a thread about faith being evil:

You must be registered for see links

just a month ago. My signature adresses the problem with religion generally. I clearly am against superstition and outsourcing your thinking and morals to a book or an imaginary god.

So I should start criticizing all the ideologies just for the heck of it? So that it won't seem that I'm focusing on just one, and therefore being unfare? Lmao. Are there any worshipers of sun god Ra? Or shamanistic views? Or Odin? Do they form a problem nowadays?

Ofcourse my criticism has something to do with people since my wish is that people would just stop following islam. or any religion for that matter. It's that first and foremost I'm adressing the problems with the ideology. That the source of problems. I also can criticize people for following islam. I never said I don't do that? I said I don't hate muslims. Hate is a strong word. I'd say I disagree with what they believe in. I disagree with their values. Which are based on their ideology. But I don't hate them as individuals. I don't go around insulting them.

As an atheist, I'm sure you know that there's nothing special about the ideology or its outdated values. What you should be concerned with is why people take it seriously, and the answer to that is not easy, in fact there are an array of complex factors that come into play to explain it.

My examples were to illustrate a point that you seem too ignorant to grasp: an ideology has no power on its own to do anything. All your threads are really saying is : I don't like 'x' group of people. For attitudes of theirs whose prevalence owes itself to reasons you clearly don't understand a thing about(your blaming it solely on the ideology is proof of this) .

Of course, none of this means that a regressive ideology is immune to criticism, far from it. Rather, only by highlighting under what conditions, both historically and contemporarily, do groups of people become religious can a real cure be found.

 

[Hawker]

As an atheist, I'm sure you know that there's nothing special about the ideology or its outdated values. What you should be concerned with is why people take it seriously, and the answer to that is not easy, in fact there are an array of complex factors that come into play to explain it.

My examples were to illustrate a point that you seem too ignorant to grasp: an ideology has no power on its own to do anything. All your threads are really saying is : I don't like 'x' group of people. For attitudes of theirs whose prevalence owes itself to reasons you clearly don't understand a thing about(your blaming it solely on the ideology is proof of this) .

Of course, none of this means that a regressive ideology is immune to criticism, far from it. Rather, only by highlighting under what conditions, both historically and contemporarily, do groups of people become religious can a real cure be found.

Who says I'm not conserned about why people take religion seriously? The reason is mostly fear of death and people want to simplify world so it's easier for them to understand. Add peer pressure plus culture to that then yeah you have a pretty consistent formula that allows indoctrination generation after generation. I think that's another discussion though. But at the same time the values of Quran are enforced in the laws of islamic states. That's a problem. So there's two things to worry about. Reasons and their belief system. I don't know why you dismiss the other.

You make your own conclusions about this matter. You assume I just blindly blame ideology, when you really have no reason to believe so. I have no idea why you came up with those conclusions when I just linked you the thread which explains my view on why faith is bad, meaning ideology in this case. I guess you were too lazy to read any of it. I will simplify it for you:

Faith like ideology is a leathal weapon. It doesn't have to be, but it can be. It's a weapon because a group of boys can be made human bombs because they have been brought up to believe without question explicitly in that certain religion/ideology. That makes religious faith and the ideology of islam inherently evil.

 

[Ryu Kishi]

Isn't that the point in criticizing an ideology? If someone view a certain ideology as being outrages, that automatically means the person who believes / accept that ideology as being equally outrages. If someone believes in a certain ideology but at the same time stays behind a line where they know what is right and wrong, then there is no need for them to be offended. If they are offended, which they have the right to, it only shows that they accept what some or most criticized.

They get offended because they accept what is be criticized? Or they getting offended because it not true?

But hawker is specifically targeting a certain ideology and everyone knows that, and everyone knows why

And I will quote again what he said

For example if you choose to represent an ideology that at it's core is violent, oppressive and intolerant. And you know this. So when you choose to represent an ideology you accept everything that that ideology entails

This is specifically a comments made towards islam and people who follow Islamic teachings, we know this because he has said the same thing many times when referring to Islam.

 

[Hawker]

They get offended because they accept what is be criticized? Or they getting offended because it not true?

But hawker is specifically targeting a certain ideology and everyone knows that, and everyone knows why

And I will quote again what he said




This is specifically a comments made towards islam and people who follow Islamic teachings, we know this because he has said the same thing many times when referring to Islam.

Yes? What is it that you don't get here?? Generally there is no other problem with free speech and ideologies than when it comes to criticizing islam. I criticize christianity all the time, but no one gets offended by it. No one blows up sky scrapers or kills journalists for making a cartoon. Ofcourse I'm using islam as an example here, because it's the currently a problem. I just didn't mention it because people get butthurt. Why do you make me spell this out for you?

 

[NarutoKage2]

Who says I'm not conserned about why people take religion seriously? The reason is mostly fear of death and people want to simplify world so it's easier for them to understand. Add peer pressure plus culture to that then yeah you have a pretty consistent formula that allows indoctrination generation after generation. I think that's another discussion though. But at the same time the values of Quran are enforced in the laws of islamic states. That's a problem. So there's two things to worry about. Reasons and their belief system. I don't know why you dismiss the other.

You make your own conclusions about this matter. You assume I just blindly blame ideology, when you really have no reason to believe so. I have no idea why you came up with those conclusions when I just linked you the thread which explains my view on why faith is bad, meaning ideology in this case. I guess you were too lazy to read any of it. I will simplify it for you:

Faith like ideology is a leathal weapon. It doesn't have to be, but it can be. It's a weapon because a group of boys can be made human bombs because they have been brought up to believe without question explicitly in that certain religion/ideology. That makes religious faith and the ideology of islam inherently evil.

I've actually read that thread, most of the ideas in the op are borrowed from others and trust me when I say that I'm no stranger to this debate. Now stop detracting from the issue at hand: your attitude to people's faith.

What your analysis fails to account for is the following:

-there are religious people all over the world

-the percentage of those who take religion seriously varies from region to region

-there is a distinct commonality in the conditions of the people who are the most doggedly religious

- this mindset, thus born out of a set of conditions that said people face, multiplies and spreads till it becomes the norm

- certain groups of people unconsciously become willing to give religion a free pass in their societies, due to first and foremost to the attitudes in their midst

- this creates the recipe for religious laws and injunctions that seem atrocious to the outside observer

Only by undertaking this analysis first and foremost, can an answer to the creeping problem of religiosity hope to be solved. Richard Dawkins and his ilk(who's arguments you more or less copy paste) fails to see and target this differential religiosity. There was a time when women were burned at the stake for the crime of witchcraft, in the very countries where the Muslim immigrant crisis is unfolding today. Do you think any amount of reasoning and argument could have caused an iota of difference to the Europeans of that time? No. Religion was entrenched in their psyche, to dissuade them would've been an exercise in futility. The same is true for many Muslims today.
So only by targeting the root causes of superstitious belief held with deep conviction, can a solution be found. Criticism of the ideology itself will only affect people who are already by and large secular, and won't make the slightest bit of difference to the most doggedly religious group, who were supposed to be the target of the criticism to begin with. Basically this kind of methodology to attack widely popular, and deeply held religious belief, is flawed.

 

[Hawker]

I've actually read that thread, most of the ideas in the op are borrowed from others and trust me when I say that I'm no stranger to this debate. Now stop detracting from the issue at hand: your attitude to people's faith.

What your analysis fails to account for is the following:

-there are religious people all over the world

-the percentage of those who take religion seriously varies from region to region

-there is a distinct commonality in the conditions of the people who are the most doggedly religious

- this mindset, thus born out of a set of conditions that said people face, multiplies and spreads till it becomes the norm

- certain groups of people unconsciously become willing to give religion a free pass in their societies, due to first and foremost to the attitudes in their midst

- this creates the recipe for religious laws and injunctions that seem atrocious to the outside observer

Only by undertaking this analysis first and foremost, can an answer to the creeping problem of religiosity hope to be solved. Richard Dawkins and his ilk(who's arguments you more or less copy paste) fails to see and target this differential religiosity. There was a time when women were burned at the stake for the crime of witchcraft, in the very countries where the Muslim immigrant crisis is unfolding today. Do you think any amount of reasoning and argument could have caused an iota of difference to the Europeans of that time? No. Religion was entrenched in their psyche, to dissuade them would've been an exercise in futility. The same is true for many Muslims today.
So only by targeting the root causes of superstitious belief held with deep conviction, can a solution be found. Criticism of the ideology itself will only affect people who are already by and large secular, and won't make the slightest bit of difference to the most doggedly religious group, who were supposed to be the target of the criticism to begin with. Basically this kind of methodology to attack widely popular, and deeply held religious belief, is flawed.

This is going off topic. We'll continue this by vm/pm. But the root cause of the problems I am adressing is that islam hasn't gone through reformation. Otherwise I don't feel to need to address other causes. Because the change has to come within the religion. Not from outside. All I need to do is to establish that the ideology is the problem. Good. Now take that ideology elsewhere and go through a reformation on your own. It's simple. It's not my burden to analyse the deepest problems within that ideology. So your points imo are irrelevant here.

But you are right that reasoning probably doesn't do anything at this point. But it's certainly better than nothing. Like I said we can't really do much else.

If you like to continue this, post your next comment on my profile or pm me, because this thread is about the right to not get offended.

 

[Ryu Kishi]

Yes? What is it that you don't get here?? Generally there is no other problem with free speech and ideologies than when it comes to criticizing islam. I criticize christianity all the time, but no one gets offended by it. No one blows up sky scrapers or kills journalists for making a cartoon. Ofcourse I'm using islam as an example here, because it's the currently a problem. I just didn't mention it because people get butthurt. Why do you make me spell this out for you?

Im tired of talking to you hawker I don't care anymore but if someone like me who is not even muslim gets offended by the stuff you say, that has to tell you something.

 

[Hawker]

Im tired of talking to you hawker I don't care anymore but if someone like me who is not even muslim gets offended by the stuff you say, that has to tell you something.

What offended you?

 

[NarutoKage2]

This is going off topic. We'll continue this by vm/pm. But the root cause of the problems I am adressing is that islam hasn't gone through reformation. Otherwise I don't feel to need to address other causes. Because the change has to come within the religion. Not from outside. All I need to do is to establish that the ideology is the problem. Good. Now take that ideology elsewhere and go through a reformation on your own. It's simple. It's not my burden to analyse the deepest problems within that ideology. So your points imo are irrelevant here.

But you are right that reasoning probably doesn't do anything at this point. But it's certainly better than nothing. Like I said we can't really do much else.

If you like to continue this, post your next comment on my profile or pm me, because this thread is about the right to not get offended.

No I don't want to continue this, thanks.

Not bothered with the root causes, and your calling me lazy? Lol

You more or less spelled it out: for you Islam is a group of people as opposed to an ideology, 'they need to take it elsewhere' 'not my problem', etc your comments are all proof of this. Thanks for proving my point.

I'll stop posting as you requested however FYI: no civilization has ever just upped and said'hey let's just go through an enlightenment!'
There is ALWAYS an external influence, this was even true of Europe during the middle ages pre enlightenment.

 

[Itachi Minato]

The right not to be offended? If your offended its not like you can do something about it. I don't get this question. Of course you have the right not to be offended because it's not like you cant not be offended.

 

[Hawker]

The right not to be offended? If your offended its not like you can do something about it. I don't get this question. Of course you have the right not to be offended because it's not like you cant not be offended.

It means basically that you are saying I have a right not to get offended and based on that right you can't draw cartoons of Muhammad because it will offend me.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Good thread, loved the video .

 

[Itachi Minato]

It means basically that you are saying I have a right not to get offended and based on that right you can't draw cartoons of Muhammad because it will offend me.

Ah ok I got it. Well you have the right to do whatever you want. But its more a question of should you do it or not. Your offending millions of people and literally your only goal for doing that is to piss people off. Its not like a debate where there is a proper argument, all that drawing achieved was piss people off. And for Muslims its like taking the piss of their dad. Im not saying they react in the correct manner but I dont see the point of it.