Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is wearing the Darwin fish symbol acceptable?

lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:32:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

Build a bridge.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:34:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:32:59 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

Build a bridge.

Explain. Do you mean the fish acts as a bridge between Creationists and others?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 7:12:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Like I said.
Build a bridge and get over it.
Soft cocks aren't worth anyone's time.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 7:29:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

Is the symbol copyright? Is any secular law being broken? If not, I fail to see how just showing disagreement with someones beliefs is offensive. Why can't ridiculous beliefs be challenged in a free society?

As to the rainbow with the slogan on it, who would it offend? Leprechauns?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:35:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

I find it just as offensive as the "Fiction" t-shirts... that is, not offensive at all.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 5:39:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:

Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species.

The Pope has just confirmed it:

Evolution is real and God is no wizard, says Pope Francis

http://www.smh.com.au...

Of course, humans are still 'special' in some undefined way (spiritual element or something).
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:23:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 7:29:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

Is the symbol copyright? Is any secular law being broken? If not, I fail to see how just showing disagreement with someones beliefs is offensive. Why can't ridiculous beliefs be challenged in a free society?

As to the rainbow with the slogan on it, who would it offend? Leprechauns?

I'm not talking legally I'm talking morally and your not showing disagreement you are parodying it.
And as to the rainbow have you never encountered the rainbow as a gay rights symbol?
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:28:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:35:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

I find it just as offensive as the "Fiction" t-shirts... that is, not offensive at all.
Is whether it is actually offensive or not really what matters or is it that it is intended to be offensive what really matters?
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:31:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...

But is whether or not it is offensive what matters or is the fact that it is intended to be offensive? I agree that you would have to be incredibly over sensitive and probably quite stupid to find it offensive but isn't it wrong to wear a symbol that is intended to be offensive to some people?
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:32:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:39:29 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:

Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species.

The Pope has just confirmed it:

Evolution is real and God is no wizard, says Pope Francis

http://www.smh.com.au...

Of course, humans are still 'special' in some undefined way (spiritual element or something).

Yay Francis. I love this Pope.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:33:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:39:29 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:

Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species.

The Pope has just confirmed it:

Evolution is real and God is no wizard, says Pope Francis

http://www.smh.com.au...

Of course, humans are still 'special' in some undefined way (spiritual element or something).

Though actually Pope John Paul the second accepted it more than 10 years ago.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:50:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

They show their belief (and their ignorance), by displaying the Jesus fish symbol.
Atheists/"evolutionists" show their belief by displaying the Darwin fish symbol.

How is that not even and equal? This is the power religion has exercised over people for centuries - the belief that whatever symbols they present should be respected, and that those who do not agree have no right to display symbols for their own beliefs. That's rubbish. If they can present their symbols, so can everyone else. You don't have to ask any member of any religion, what you can and can't do.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:07:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

I never thought the Darwin Fish displayed on someone's car means atheists are trying to offend creationists. My first impression at seeing them a decade or so ago was that the person driving the car believes in evolution and Jesus. Boy do I feel silly. Call me naive but I never even considered there was an atheist in the car. I'm okay with it even if it is an atheistic symbol. They've got a voice too.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:54:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:23:10 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:29:14 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

Is the symbol copyright? Is any secular law being broken? If not, I fail to see how just showing disagreement with someones beliefs is offensive. Why can't ridiculous beliefs be challenged in a free society?

As to the rainbow with the slogan on it, who would it offend? Leprechauns?

I'm not talking legally I'm talking morally and your not showing disagreement you are parodying it.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

And as to the rainbow have you never encountered the rainbow as a gay rights symbol?

I'm hetero so it isn't up there at the forefront of my thoughts. But now that you mention it, it does ring a faint bell. :-)
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 6:12:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:31:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...

But is whether or not it is offensive what matters or is the fact that it is intended to be offensive? I agree that you would have to be incredibly over sensitive and probably quite stupid to find it offensive but isn't it wrong to wear a symbol that is intended to be offensive to some people?

It depends. Would you ban a parodied version of The One Ring to Rule Them All because you think diehard fans of LOTR could get offended?
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:51:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:50:00 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

They show their belief (and their ignorance), by displaying the Jesus fish symbol.
Atheists/"evolutionists" show their belief by displaying the Darwin fish symbol.

How is that not even and equal? This is the power religion has exercised over people for centuries - the belief that whatever symbols they present should be respected, and that those who do not agree have no right to display symbols for their own beliefs. That's rubbish. If they can present their symbols, so can everyone else. You don't have to ask any member of any religion, what you can and can't do.

Because the fish is just a symbol. The Darwin fish is a parody of the fish. The fish is just a show of belief. The Darwin fish is more than that, it is a ridicule of the belief shown by the fish. In the same way the fish eating the Darwin fish symbol is not acceptable as it ridicules the Darwin fish.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:52:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 6:12:16 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:31:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...

But is whether or not it is offensive what matters or is the fact that it is intended to be offensive? I agree that you would have to be incredibly over sensitive and probably quite stupid to find it offensive but isn't it wrong to wear a symbol that is intended to be offensive to some people?

It depends. Would you ban a parodied version of The One Ring to Rule Them All because you think diehard fans of LOTR could get offended?

Interesting point.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:53:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:31:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...

But is whether or not it is offensive what matters or is the fact that it is intended to be offensive? I agree that you would have to be incredibly over sensitive and probably quite stupid to find it offensive but isn't it wrong to wear a symbol that is intended to be offensive to some people?

I don't think it's intended to be offensive, though. I think it's just supposed to be funny. What makes you think it's intended to be offensive?
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:56:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 7:53:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:31:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...

But is whether or not it is offensive what matters or is the fact that it is intended to be offensive? I agree that you would have to be incredibly over sensitive and probably quite stupid to find it offensive but isn't it wrong to wear a symbol that is intended to be offensive to some people?

I don't think it's intended to be offensive, though. I think it's just supposed to be funny. What makes you think it's intended to be offensive?

It's a parody of one of their symbols. It's fairly well known that quite a few of these people are very serious about their religion and have trouble accepting jokes about their faith. The people who invented the Darwin fish must have realised that some people would find it offensive.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 7:58:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 7:56:11 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/29/2014 7:53:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:31:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...

But is whether or not it is offensive what matters or is the fact that it is intended to be offensive? I agree that you would have to be incredibly over sensitive and probably quite stupid to find it offensive but isn't it wrong to wear a symbol that is intended to be offensive to some people?

I don't think it's intended to be offensive, though. I think it's just supposed to be funny. What makes you think it's intended to be offensive?

It's a parody of one of their symbols. It's fairly well known that quite a few of these people are very serious about their religion and have trouble accepting jokes about their faith. The people who invented the Darwin fish must have realised that some people would find it offensive.

That just means some people might take offense, not that it was intended to be offensive. You said it's intended to be so, and to know that you'd need to have some insight into the mindset of the people who created the Darwin fish.
lkxambp
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 8:03:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 7:58:31 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/29/2014 7:56:11 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/29/2014 7:53:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:31:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...

But is whether or not it is offensive what matters or is the fact that it is intended to be offensive? I agree that you would have to be incredibly over sensitive and probably quite stupid to find it offensive but isn't it wrong to wear a symbol that is intended to be offensive to some people?

I don't think it's intended to be offensive, though. I think it's just supposed to be funny. What makes you think it's intended to be offensive?

It's a parody of one of their symbols. It's fairly well known that quite a few of these people are very serious about their religion and have trouble accepting jokes about their faith. The people who invented the Darwin fish must have realised that some people would find it offensive.

That just means some people might take offense, not that it was intended to be offensive. You said it's intended to be so, and to know that you'd need to have some insight into the mindset of the people who created the Darwin fish.

Ok while I am unable to conclusively prove that it was intended to be offensive but if it is intended to be funny it's still a joke which is offensive to some groups, so wearing the symbol is like walking around saying "why do women have smaller feet? So they can stand closer to the sink." Non-stop. Would you disagree?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:08:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

I don't believe the Darwin fish was made to be offensive (I don't know for sure) I have always taken it to be symbolic of the rebuttal to creationism. Religious ideas are not beyond criticism, and if someone chooses to be upset by an opposing view (which is backed by evidence), well, that is their own personal hurdle to deal with.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 11:15:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 8:03:44 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/29/2014 7:58:31 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/29/2014 7:56:11 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/29/2014 7:53:54 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:31:48 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 10/28/2014 7:06:04 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:52:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

How is it offensive to creationists?

You've taken one of their symbols and altered it to symbolise a belief which is the exact opposite of what they believe. It's like if I got a rainbow and scrawled a west side baptist church slogan on it.

I've seen both fish on the same vehicle. Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species. And I'm pretty sure the Darwin fish was just created to be funny, not to be insulting. The supposed offensive nature of the Darwin fish might be a tad overblown.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine to display the Darwin fish in public. But then, I wear this in public all the time, so my sense of what is and isn't offensive might be a bit skewed:

http://controversy.wearscience.com...

But is whether or not it is offensive what matters or is the fact that it is intended to be offensive? I agree that you would have to be incredibly over sensitive and probably quite stupid to find it offensive but isn't it wrong to wear a symbol that is intended to be offensive to some people?

I don't think it's intended to be offensive, though. I think it's just supposed to be funny. What makes you think it's intended to be offensive?

It's a parody of one of their symbols. It's fairly well known that quite a few of these people are very serious about their religion and have trouble accepting jokes about their faith. The people who invented the Darwin fish must have realised that some people would find it offensive.

That just means some people might take offense, not that it was intended to be offensive. You said it's intended to be so, and to know that you'd need to have some insight into the mindset of the people who created the Darwin fish.

Ok while I am unable to conclusively prove that it was intended to be offensive but if it is intended to be funny it's still a joke which is offensive to some groups, so wearing the symbol is like walking around saying "why do women have smaller feet? So they can stand closer to the sink." Non-stop. Would you disagree?

I absolutely disagree with that characterization. No part of the Darwin fish symbol is playing on a stereotype or even commenting on the source symbol. I've seen similar plays on that symbol like this one:

http://www.amazon.com...

Is that offensive? There's one that is shaped like the Enterprise and says "Trek" in it. Another that says "Cthulhu" in it. Are those offensive?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 1:31:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 2:33:52 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:39:29 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:07 AM, Burzmali wrote:

Most Christian denominations officially accept evolution, minus the inclusion of humans in the list of evolved species.

The Pope has just confirmed it:

Evolution is real and God is no wizard, says Pope Francis

http://www.smh.com.au...

Of course, humans are still 'special' in some undefined way (spiritual element or something).

Though actually Pope John Paul the second accepted it more than 10 years ago.

The Church has been involved in the discussion much longer than that, even preceding Darwin to some extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 2:45:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 7:51:33 AM, lkxambp wrote:
At 10/29/2014 2:50:00 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 6:18:34 AM, lkxambp wrote:
I'm just wondering about peoples view on if wearing or displaying the Darwin fish symbol in public is an acceptable thing to do, because unlike most symbols religious or otherwise the Darwin fish symbol is actually designed to be deliberately offensive to creationists. and while my opinion of those who don't accept evolution is less than favourable I still don't think it's acceptable to go around displaying a symbol which has been made to be deliberately offensive to them.

They show their belief (and their ignorance), by displaying the Jesus fish symbol.
Atheists/"evolutionists" show their belief by displaying the Darwin fish symbol.

How is that not even and equal? This is the power religion has exercised over people for centuries - the belief that whatever symbols they present should be respected, and that those who do not agree have no right to display symbols for their own beliefs. That's rubbish. If they can present their symbols, so can everyone else. You don't have to ask any member of any religion, what you can and can't do.

Because the fish is just a symbol. The Darwin fish is a parody of the fish. The fish is just a show of belief. The Darwin fish is more than that, it is a ridicule of the belief shown by the fish. In the same way the fish eating the Darwin fish symbol is not acceptable as it ridicules the Darwin fish.

They are all expressed beliefs. I'm not sure where you live but I live in a country founded on the idea that everyone has an equal right to express beliefs. The display of whatever symbols you believe best present your beliefs, are all equally acceptable. I display my beliefs, and you can take offense if you so choose. And if you choose not to take offense, you have that option as well. But to try to make me responsible for your choice to be offended is absurd and attempts to excuse you from responsibility for your actions.

I can certainly choose to be offended by such blatant public displays of human ignorance, such as the belief that a Jewish zombie who promised to return before the last disciple died (Matthew 16:27-28), is still going to return and carry all of those who remain intellectually dead in their loyalty to this failed belief, off to Heaven. But if I choose to be offended in such manner, is that your responsibility? Is it appropriate to make it your responsibility to avoid all actions which might lead me to the decision to be offended? Or is it a problem for you to hold each person responsible for their own decisions to find offense in the exercise of personal freedoms for others, but not for themselves?

If you can flaunt a symbol (and you most certainly can), then I can do the same. And it doesn't matter that my symbol demonstrates an alternative belief, or even the belief that your beliefs are incorrect. Since the church is no longer in charge, people are allowed to have opinions and even express them. I suggest you learn to live with that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 3:05:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lol @ this thread.

I wouldn't be surprised if that symbol is something's Christians that accept evolution would wear, as it is a cute and clean one, and rather funny. I don't particularly see how it's inflammatory in any way, as it promotes a positive belief (evolution) rather than a desecration of another belief.