Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Muslims are the vilest of animals...

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 5:27:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What if there was a religion that taught the following:

"Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims"

"How perverse are Muslims!"

"Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips"

"Fight those Muslims who are near to you"

"Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified"

Would you say that this is hate speech? Incitement to violence? Sounds like it to us, but a knowledgeable Muslim would have to disagree.

The Qur'an says the same thing, only it replaces the word "Muslim."

Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve
Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves

Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!

Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness

Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement

Now, if a Muslim were to agree that the first posts were hate speech and they would rationally be afraid of such a group, how much more should we be afraid of such a group that preaches what the Qur'an does?

(Warning: This post is satire)
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 5:42:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 5:27:31 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Would you say that this is hate speech? Incitement to violence? Sounds like it to us, but a knowledgeable Muslim would have to disagree.
If you put it that way, yes it is. There's a thing called "context" though.

The Qur'an says the same thing, only it replaces the word "Muslim."

Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve
All living beings are beasts, and that term is more appropriate. (Read other translations sir.) Those who disbelieve in God are worst among all creatures/beasts because they disbelieve despite having a rational mind. Other beasts like cows don't disbelieve because they are unable to reject Faith.

Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves

Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!

Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness

Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
Pff, worst out-of-context quotes ever. I hope non-Muslims have better stuff to do than babble like this every time the Quran is discussed.

Now, if a Muslim were to agree that the first posts were hate speech and they would rationally be afraid of such a group, how much more should we be afraid of such a group that preaches what the Qur'an does?
The sentences you posted are hate-speech because they have no context. They depend on nothing but their words, hence the only meaning we can get from them is what we read from the beginning of capital letter to the period. In the Quran, most verses were revealed in specific contexts. For example, 8:12 speaks of the Battle of Badr, which was a major battle for Muslims against their oppressors. If you just want to read, then how about reading all the textual context and see what it says? You'd be better off.

Au revoir.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:01:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 5:42:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/12/2012 5:27:31 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Would you say that this is hate speech? Incitement to violence? Sounds like it to us, but a knowledgeable Muslim would have to disagree.
If you put it that way, yes it is. There's a thing called "context" though.

The Qur'an says the same thing, only it replaces the word "Muslim."

Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve
All living beings are beasts, and that term is more appropriate. (Read other translations sir.) Those who disbelieve in God are worst among all creatures/beasts because they disbelieve despite having a rational mind. Other beasts like cows don't disbelieve because they are unable to reject Faith.

Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves

Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!

Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness

Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
Pff, worst out-of-context quotes ever. I hope non-Muslims have better stuff to do than babble like this every time the Quran is discussed.

Now, if a Muslim were to agree that the first posts were hate speech and they would rationally be afraid of such a group, how much more should we be afraid of such a group that preaches what the Qur'an does?
The sentences you posted are hate-speech because they have no context. They depend on nothing but their words, hence the only meaning we can get from them is what we read from the beginning of capital letter to the period. In the Quran, most verses were revealed in specific contexts. For example, 8:12 speaks of the Battle of Badr, which was a major battle for Muslims against their oppressors. If you just want to read, then how about reading all the textual context and see what it says? You'd be better off.

Au revoir.

I suppose you didn't see the satire label...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:13:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 5:27:31 PM, Microsuck wrote:
(Warning: This post is satire)

Was ready to fire full cannons until I read this.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:16:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't really like the way this was presented or the title of the thread, I think the point being made here could have been done much more diplomatically. Also putting "this is satire" at the end doesn't somehow instantly justify anything...

It kinda reminds me of a Lebanese publisher in the US who owned a newspaper in New York who published the Protocols of Zion. Each day in the paper he published a different section of it. When asked about why he was printing something he couldn't prove was correct and that was controversial, he said that he also didn't believe it was true. But he said he wanted people to make that judgement for themselves, and that on the final day, after the final section was published, he was going to say that none of it was actually true, and that people should be wary of believing such things.

Of course, by the time he had gotten to the final printing, most people would have already made up their mind, and may not have even read the final section or cared to read the editorial that followed. If that publisher was really concerned about potentially spreading falsehood, he would be sure to include the disclaimer with each section, or simply not print something he agreed was intended to defame Jews.

I'm not equating this publisher with the OP at all, as these are significantly different scenarios. But it's worth always keeping in mind that valid points are often lost when not presented in a thoughtful way, and make it appear that shock value is more important than the substance itself.
Debate.org Moderator
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:30:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How to win a debate against a muslim and claim the moral high ground:

What is the punishment for apostasy?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:35:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:16:22 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't really like the way this was presented or the title of the thread, I think the point being made here could have been done much more diplomatically. Also putting "this is satire" at the end doesn't somehow instantly justify anything...

It kinda reminds me of a Lebanese publisher in the US who owned a newspaper in New York who published the Protocols of Zion. Each day in the paper he published a different section of it. When asked about why he was printing something he couldn't prove was correct and that was controversial, he said that he also didn't believe it was true. But he said he wanted people to make that judgement for themselves, and that on the final day, after the final section was published, he was going to say that none of it was actually true, and that people should be wary of believing such things.

Of course, by the time he had gotten to the final printing, most people would have already made up their mind, and may not have even read the final section or cared to read the editorial that followed. If that publisher was really concerned about potentially spreading falsehood, he would be sure to include the disclaimer with each section, or simply not print something he agreed was intended to defame Jews.

I'm not equating this publisher with the OP at all, as these are significantly different scenarios. But it's worth always keeping in mind that valid points are often lost when not presented in a thoughtful way, and make it appear that shock value is more important than the substance itself.

The Fool: What is with the CENSORING today?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:37:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:35:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:16:22 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't really like the way this was presented or the title of the thread, I think the point being made here could have been done much more diplomatically. Also putting "this is satire" at the end doesn't somehow instantly justify anything...

It kinda reminds me of a Lebanese publisher in the US who owned a newspaper in New York who published the Protocols of Zion. Each day in the paper he published a different section of it. When asked about why he was printing something he couldn't prove was correct and that was controversial, he said that he also didn't believe it was true. But he said he wanted people to make that judgement for themselves, and that on the final day, after the final section was published, he was going to say that none of it was actually true, and that people should be wary of believing such things.

Of course, by the time he had gotten to the final printing, most people would have already made up their mind, and may not have even read the final section or cared to read the editorial that followed. If that publisher was really concerned about potentially spreading falsehood, he would be sure to include the disclaimer with each section, or simply not print something he agreed was intended to defame Jews.

I'm not equating this publisher with the OP at all, as these are significantly different scenarios. But it's worth always keeping in mind that valid points are often lost when not presented in a thoughtful way, and make it appear that shock value is more important than the substance itself.

The Fool: What is with the CENSORING today?

Can you point to anything I have censored?

I stated my opinion, that is all.
Debate.org Moderator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:40:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:35:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:16:22 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I don't really like the way this was presented or the title of the thread, I think the point being made here could have been done much more diplomatically. Also putting "this is satire" at the end doesn't somehow instantly justify anything...

It kinda reminds me of a Lebanese publisher in the US who owned a newspaper in New York who published the Protocols of Zion. Each day in the paper he published a different section of it. When asked about why he was printing something he couldn't prove was correct and that was controversial, he said that he also didn't believe it was true. But he said he wanted people to make that judgement for themselves, and that on the final day, after the final section was published, he was going to say that none of it was actually true, and that people should be wary of believing such things.

Of course, by the time he had gotten to the final printing, most people would have already made up their mind, and may not have even read the final section or cared to read the editorial that followed. If that publisher was really concerned about potentially spreading falsehood, he would be sure to include the disclaimer with each section, or simply not print something he agreed was intended to defame Jews.

I'm not equating this publisher with the OP at all, as these are significantly different scenarios. But it's worth always keeping in mind that valid points are often lost when not presented in a thoughtful way, and make it appear that shock value is more important than the substance itself.

The Fool: What is with the CENSORING today?

The Fool: Airmax. I am on your side in that sense, I am a critical thinking advocate, but let us duke it out, let us think for ourselves.. we can judge it BS or not. Why the fathering?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I am suprised you havent recognized my posting they are all about Critical thinking skills! .
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?
Debate.org Moderator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I understand what you are saying I don;t think there was good intention, but its the fact that you are above and beyond logic. But its like you did'nt even know better.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:55:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.

I'm not infallible and I don't believe I am, and have never said or acted as such (At least I don't think so, if members feel this way about me they should let me know, and I'll try to reform my behavior). I state my opinions, and I try to back them up as best I can. If you feel I am wrong, you are free to say so. But what you are doing now is harassing me when I post (did you actually disagree about anything I said here? Or do you just want to antagonize me?) because you have a problem with me.

I generally back up my assertions with facts and reason and if you believe I am wrong about what I said in the "kosher" thread challenge me to a debate on it. I'm still waiting...
Debate.org Moderator
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:56:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Psh, what is this post? Something from a tabloid? An intentionally provocative title with a small disclaimer at the end hardly constitutes reasonable thought.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 6:58:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If people have the right to practice any religion of their choosing, others duly enjoy the right to make fun of said religion to the extent of their choosing. When we start worrying about wether something is "offensive" or not (as a basis for regulating content), we walk a dangerous path towards inventing a "right not to be offended" that comes at the expense of others' right to free expression.

Moreover, as a general rule, it needn't mater if the way ideas are presented are "nice" or not, because when we begin to question wether or not an idea was appropriately expressed, we remove the right from others to judge ideas for themselves.

Example: Westboro Baptist Church

They are insane. We all know it. We don't need a law to protect us from them, because we almost universally denounce their sum of their activities.

To say: "We must prevent WBC from [doing offensive act X]" we imply that whatever X is, will be more harmful than setting the precedent to regulate speech on the basis of content. Nonsense... the lot of it.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:06:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:55:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.

I'm not infallible and I don't believe I am, and have never said or acted as such (At least I don't think so, if members feel this way about me they should let me know, and I'll try to reform my behavior). I state my opinions, and I try to back them up as best I can. If you feel I am wrong, you are free to say so. But what you are doing now is harassing me when I post (did you actually disagree about anything I said here? Or do you just want to antagonize me?) because you have a problem with me.

I generally back up my assertions with facts and reason and if you believe I am wrong about what I said in the "kosher" thread challenge me to a debate on it.

The Fool: Just the fact that you think debate value which be superior to logical refutation is problem. Because at best you would just be appealing to populary. That is, it would be lower level of truth value. Do you even know what I am talking about??? Holy!!

I'm still waiting...

The Fool: If every body believes the earth was flat does that make the earth flat?????
Your not making anysense!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:11:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:58:18 PM, YYW wrote:
If people have the right to practice any religion of their choosing, others duly enjoy the right to make fun of said religion to the extent of their choosing. When we start worrying about wether something is "offensive" or not (as a basis for regulating content), we walk a dangerous path towards inventing a "right not to be offended" that comes at the expense of others' right to free expression.

Moreover, as a general rule, it needn't mater if the way ideas are presented are "nice" or not, because when we begin to question wether or not an idea was appropriately expressed, we remove the right from others to judge ideas for themselves.

Example: Westboro Baptist Church

They are insane. We all know it. We don't need a law to protect us from them, because we almost universally denounce their sum of their activities.

To say: "We must prevent WBC from [doing offensive act X]" we imply that whatever X is, will be more harmful than setting the precedent to regulate speech on the basis of content. Nonsense... the lot of it.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. But you seem to be coming from the direction as though someone suggested speech should be regulated by some type of governing body.

I only suggested that peoples points will be more likely to be heard and respected if they regulate their own speech (I don't advocate for any type of censorship, or any government regulation of speech in the least) and make the focus of their point on the substance entirely.

On the substance of what you said, I couldn't agree more. The only reason anyone can say what they believe is because everyone has the right to say what they believe. If we start arbitrarily restricting the speech of certain groups, or ideas, then eventually we will have to restrict the speech of everyone, and every idea, because it is likely to offend someone.

Only by allowing everyone to say anything, can the truth actually come through. Otherwise the 'truth' will be filtered and regulated and controlled by those in power.

Luckily and thankfully, I think most Americans recognize the importance of this, and I don't think it's going to be threatened in any significant way anytime soon.

For instance the "burn the quran day" is something Americas are free to partake in. While I entirely disagree with it, I believe anyone has a right to do so. If things like that are free to continue, I can't imagine any other type of speech that is at risk in the near future.
Debate.org Moderator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:13:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:55:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.

I'm not infallible and I don't believe I am, and have never said or acted as such (At least I don't think so, if members feel this way about me they should let me know, and I'll try to reform my behavior). I state my opinions, and I try to back them up as best I can. If you feel I am wrong, you are free to say so. But what you are doing now is harassing me when I post (did you actually disagree about anything I said here? Or do you just want to antagonize me?)

The Fool: Am I calling you names or am I giving you rational arguments. What RULE am I violated beside your own self-consiousnes. NOTHING! YOU CAN BE WRONG! Am I not aloud to debate now??

because you have a problem with me.

The Fool: In what sense? As abusing you power YES!! Why can't I hold that opinion of you.. It a DEBATE SITE,, Isnt it called DEBATE.org. ??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:15:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 7:11:14 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:58:18 PM, YYW wrote:
If people have the right to practice any religion of their choosing, others duly enjoy the right to make fun of said religion to the extent of their choosing. When we start worrying about wether something is "offensive" or not (as a basis for regulating content), we walk a dangerous path towards inventing a "right not to be offended" that comes at the expense of others' right to free expression.

Moreover, as a general rule, it needn't mater if the way ideas are presented are "nice" or not, because when we begin to question wether or not an idea was appropriately expressed, we remove the right from others to judge ideas for themselves.

Example: Westboro Baptist Church

They are insane. We all know it. We don't need a law to protect us from them, because we almost universally denounce their sum of their activities.

To say: "We must prevent WBC from [doing offensive act X]" we imply that whatever X is, will be more harmful than setting the precedent to regulate speech on the basis of content. Nonsense... the lot of it.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. But you seem to be coming from the direction as though someone suggested speech should be regulated by some type of governing body.

I only suggested that peoples points will be more likely to be heard and respected if they regulate their own speech (I don't advocate for any type of censorship, or any government regulation of speech in the least) and make the focus of their point on the substance entirely.

On the substance of what you said, I couldn't agree more. The only reason anyone can say what they believe is because everyone has the right to say what they believe. If we start arbitrarily restricting the speech of certain groups, or ideas, then eventually we will have to restrict the speech of everyone, and every idea, because it is likely to offend someone.

Only by allowing everyone to say anything, can the truth actually come through. Otherwise the 'truth' will be filtered and regulated and controlled by those in power.

Luckily and thankfully, I think most Americans recognize the importance of this, and I don't think it's going to be threatened in any significant way anytime soon.

For instance the "burn the quran day" is something Americas are free to partake in. While I entirely disagree with it, I believe anyone has a right to do so. If things like that are free to continue, I can't imagine any other type of speech that is at risk in the near future.

The Fool: Just censoring People who dont agree with you or your FRIENDs.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:18:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 7:06:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:55:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.

I'm not infallible and I don't believe I am, and have never said or acted as such (At least I don't think so, if members feel this way about me they should let me know, and I'll try to reform my behavior). I state my opinions, and I try to back them up as best I can. If you feel I am wrong, you are free to say so. But what you are doing now is harassing me when I post (did you actually disagree about anything I said here? Or do you just want to antagonize me?) because you have a problem with me.

I generally back up my assertions with facts and reason and if you believe I am wrong about what I said in the "kosher" thread challenge me to a debate on it.

The Fool: Just the fact that you think debate value which be superior to logical refutation is problem. Because at best you would just be appealing to populary. That is, it would be lower level of truth value. Do you even know what I am talking about??? Holy!!

This is a debate site. A formal debate allows for all assertions and rebuttals to be considered systematically. I don't necessarily care who wins the debate, just the fact that a formal debate would make each of us organize our opinions and facts in a clear and coherent way.


I'm still waiting...

The Fool: If every body believes the earth was flat does that make the earth flat?????
Your not making anysense!!

It's not an appeal to populism. I'd like to debate you on it so it is done in a formal fashion. I believe I have said everything I possibly can on the issue in the other thread, and yet you wont leave me alone about it. If you want to continue that discussion, respond in that thread, create a new tread, or challenge me to a debate.
Debate.org Moderator
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:19:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 7:18:08 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 7:06:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:55:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.

I'm not infallible and I don't believe I am, and have never said or acted as such (At least I don't think so, if members feel this way about me they should let me know, and I'll try to reform my behavior). I state my opinions, and I try to back them up as best I can. If you feel I am wrong, you are free to say so. But what you are doing now is harassing me when I post (did you actually disagree about anything I said here? Or do you just want to antagonize me?) because you have a problem with me.

I generally back up my assertions with facts and reason and if you believe I am wrong about what I said in the "kosher" thread challenge me to a debate on it.

The Fool: Just the fact that you think debate value which be superior to logical refutation is problem. Because at best you would just be appealing to populary. That is, it would be lower level of truth value. Do you even know what I am talking about??? Holy!!

This is a debate site. A formal debate allows for all assertions and rebuttals to be considered systematically. I don't necessarily care who wins the debate, just the fact that a formal debate would make each of us organize our opinions and facts in a clear and coherent way.


I'm still waiting...

The Fool: If every body believes the earth was flat does that make the earth flat?????
Your not making anysense!!

It's not an appeal to populism. I'd like to debate you on it so it is done in a formal fashion. I believe I have said everything I possibly can on the issue in the other thread, and yet you wont leave me alone about it. If you want to continue that discussion, respond in that thread, create a new tread, or challenge me to a debate.

And perhaps also delete this thread?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:23:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 7:19:31 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/12/2012 7:18:08 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 7:06:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:55:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.

I'm not infallible and I don't believe I am, and have never said or acted as such (At least I don't think so, if members feel this way about me they should let me know, and I'll try to reform my behavior). I state my opinions, and I try to back them up as best I can. If you feel I am wrong, you are free to say so. But what you are doing now is harassing me when I post (did you actually disagree about anything I said here? Or do you just want to antagonize me?) because you have a problem with me.

I generally back up my assertions with facts and reason and if you believe I am wrong about what I said in the "kosher" thread challenge me to a debate on it.

The Fool: Just the fact that you think debate value which be superior to logical refutation is problem. Because at best you would just be appealing to populary. That is, it would be lower level of truth value. Do you even know what I am talking about??? Holy!!

This is a debate site. A formal debate allows for all assertions and rebuttals to be considered systematically. I don't necessarily care who wins the debate, just the fact that a formal debate would make each of us organize our opinions and facts in a clear and coherent way.


I'm still waiting...

The Fool: If every body believes the earth was flat does that make the earth flat?????
Your not making anysense!!

It's not an appeal to populism. I'd like to debate you on it so it is done in a formal fashion. I believe I have said everything I possibly can on the issue in the other thread, and yet you wont leave me alone about it. If you want to continue that discussion, respond in that thread, create a new tread, or challenge me to a debate.

And perhaps also delete this thread?

Deleting threads is not something I am generally inclined to do.
Debate.org Moderator
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:26:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:58:18 PM, YYW wrote:
If people have the right to practice any religion of their choosing, others duly enjoy the right to make fun of said religion to the extent of their choosing. When we start worrying about wether something is "offensive" or not (as a basis for regulating content), we walk a dangerous path towards inventing a "right not to be offended" that comes at the expense of others' right to free expression.

Moreover, as a general rule, it needn't mater if the way ideas are presented are "nice" or not, because when we begin to question wether or not an idea was appropriately expressed, we remove the right from others to judge ideas for themselves.

Example: Westboro Baptist Church

They are insane. We all know it. We don't need a law to protect us from them, because we almost universally denounce their sum of their activities.

To say: "We must prevent WBC from [doing offensive act X]" we imply that whatever X is, will be more harmful than setting the precedent to regulate speech on the basis of content. Nonsense... the lot of it.

Sure, and by that same logic, the rest of us have the right to condemn such speech as 'hateful rhetoric' and 'foolish.' We can also call it 'irrational' and 'intentionally provocative.' We're exercising our freedom of speech as well. Just because someone excercises theirs doesn't mean we have to respect what they say.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:29:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 7:18:08 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 7:06:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:55:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.

I'm not infallible and I don't believe I am, and have never said or acted as such (At least I don't think so, if members feel this way about me they should let me know, and I'll try to reform my behavior). I state my opinions, and I try to back them up as best I can. If you feel I am wrong, you are free to say so. But what you are doing now is harassing me when I post (did you actually disagree about anything I said here? Or do you just want to antagonize me?) because you have a problem with me.

I generally back up my assertions with facts and reason and if you believe I am wrong about what I said in the "kosher" thread challenge me to a debate on it.

The Fool: Just the fact that you think debate value which be superior to logical refutation is problem. Because at best you would just be appealing to populary. That is, it would be lower level of truth value. Do you even know what I am talking about??? Holy!!

This is a debate site. A formal debate allows for all assertions and rebuttals to be considered systematically. I don't necessarily care who wins the debate, just the fact that a formal debate would make each of us organize our opinions and facts in a clear and coherent way.


I'm still waiting...

The Fool: If every body believes the earth was flat does that make the earth flat?????
Your not making anysense!!

It's not an appeal to populism.

The Fool: You are not getting it eh? Lets say we debate, and you win, it would not change the fact of the matter. Because the point is that you didn't have enough information for a complete conclusion. I dont doubt that is may not be genuine..But in that they information was incomplete to make a full conclusion. No offence Airmax but this isnt even complicated. Just asked someone if you don;t know.

Whats wrong with you?? These are BASIC critical thinking skill. A vote based truth is and appeal to Popularity. YOU ARE NOT ABOVE LOGIC!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:30:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 6:58:18 PM, YYW wrote:
If people have the right to practice any religion of their choosing, others duly enjoy the right to make fun of said religion to the extent of their choosing. When we start worrying about wether something is "offensive" or not (as a basis for regulating content), we walk a dangerous path towards inventing a "right not to be offended" that comes at the expense of others' right to free expression.

Moreover, as a general rule, it needn't mater if the way ideas are presented are "nice" or not, because when we begin to question wether or not an idea was appropriately expressed, we remove the right from others to judge ideas for themselves.

Example: Westboro Baptist Church

They are insane. We all know it. We don't need a law to protect us from them, because we almost universally denounce their sum of their activities.

To say: "We must prevent WBC from [doing offensive act X]" we imply that whatever X is, will be more harmful than setting the precedent to regulate speech on the basis of content. Nonsense... the lot of it.

This.

Also, this post just seemed pointless to me. Satire is comedic, what was written here was not so. Moreover, this could have been done with any of the major western religions, as all of their holy books contain proclamations like the ones mentioned. So... what was the purpose or punch-line?
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:30:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 7:26:46 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:58:18 PM, YYW wrote:
If people have the right to practice any religion of their choosing, others duly enjoy the right to make fun of said religion to the extent of their choosing. When we start worrying about wether something is "offensive" or not (as a basis for regulating content), we walk a dangerous path towards inventing a "right not to be offended" that comes at the expense of others' right to free expression.

Moreover, as a general rule, it needn't mater if the way ideas are presented are "nice" or not, because when we begin to question wether or not an idea was appropriately expressed, we remove the right from others to judge ideas for themselves.

Example: Westboro Baptist Church

They are insane. We all know it. We don't need a law to protect us from them, because we almost universally denounce their sum of their activities.

To say: "We must prevent WBC from [doing offensive act X]" we imply that whatever X is, will be more harmful than setting the precedent to regulate speech on the basis of content. Nonsense... the lot of it.

Sure, and by that same logic, the rest of us have the right to condemn such speech as 'hateful rhetoric' and 'foolish.' We can also call it 'irrational' and 'intentionally provocative.' We're exercising our freedom of speech as well. Just because someone excercises theirs doesn't mean we have to respect what they say.

This is exactly right, in my opinion. Some civility when making a point about incivility (or immorality) goes a long way in reinforcing that point of view.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:31:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/12/2012 7:29:22 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 7:18:08 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 7:06:54 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:55:11 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:49:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/12/2012 6:45:28 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
@The Fool

I didn't think the way the thread being presented was in the best interest towards making the point it may have intended. I decided to say so, and it was just my humble opinion.

The Fool: alot are bad points, I know

So what exactly is your problem with what I said?

The Fool: because you are acting like you are actually infallible. That last thread, even though you had good intention it was BOLD assumtion fallacy. Yet somehow you felt you were above reason.

I'm not infallible and I don't believe I am, and have never said or acted as such (At least I don't think so, if members feel this way about me they should let me know, and I'll try to reform my behavior). I state my opinions, and I try to back them up as best I can. If you feel I am wrong, you are free to say so. But what you are doing now is harassing me when I post (did you actually disagree about anything I said here? Or do you just want to antagonize me?) because you have a problem with me.

I generally back up my assertions with facts and reason and if you believe I am wrong about what I said in the "kosher" thread challenge me to a debate on it.

The Fool: Just the fact that you think debate value which be superior to logical refutation is problem. Because at best you would just be appealing to populary. That is, it would be lower level of truth value. Do you even know what I am talking about??? Holy!!

This is a debate site. A formal debate allows for all assertions and rebuttals to be considered systematically. I don't necessarily care who wins the debate, just the fact that a formal debate would make each of us organize our opinions and facts in a clear and coherent way.


I'm still waiting...

The Fool: If every body believes the earth was flat does that make the earth flat?????
Your not making anysense!!

It's not an appeal to populism.

The Fool: You are not getting it eh? Lets say we debate, and you win, it would not change the fact of the matter. Because the point is that you didn't have enough information for a complete conclusion. I dont doubt that is may not be genuine..But in that they information was incomplete to make a full conclusion. No offence Airmax but this isnt even complicated. Just asked someone if you don;t know.

Whats wrong with you?? These are BASIC critical thinking skill. A vote based truth is and appeal to Popularity. YOU ARE NOT ABOVE LOGIC!!

Fine, you are right. Now leave me alone.
Debate.org Moderator
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2012 7:34:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
All religions have verses in their holy texts that are pure insanity.....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015