Total Posts:368|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free speech double standards against islam ?

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 2:54:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
...But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)
That would not be a double standard against Islam. Such would take require all the other religions (or at least most) to have said protection Islam lacks.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 8:14:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 2:54:49 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
...But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)
That would not be a double standard against Islam. Such would take require all the other religions (or at least most) to have said protection Islam lacks.

- The 'at least most' part defeats the very purpose of your argument.

- The double standard is easy to establish:
> Islam is a Religion, Judaism is a Religion.
> Anti-Islamic hate speech is Freedom of Speech.
> Anti-Judaic hate speech is anti-semitism.
> Freedom of Speech is condoned by Law, anti-semitism is a criminal offence.

=> Now, all the above points are facts, thus there is double standard against Islam.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 8:21:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?

They are correct: We in the West are hypocrites when we condemn Muhammadan reaction to insults against Muhammad and his book while we have allowed us Jews to place laws condemning free speech of people who argue against sets of numbers for God's sake as if one set of death tolls MUST be Believed or you face prison or loss of job, etc, That lunacy must be corrected but Christians are afraid to go up against Jews on this and Christians dominate most nations in the West. Muhammadans have a very legitimate beef with this Holocaust Denial crap. (Here's how you can become a Holocaust Denier in about five minutes: find copies of unabridged World Almanacs from before the 1950's I think it is which show this consistent lack of 6 million Jewish lives lost between 1939-1945 while confirming the figures of the historian arriving at similar numbers who is in prison still perhaps. I have most of my Jewish ancestry from Poland and I don't want religious warfare to be used in place of historical facts as in the long run truth is far more important than these actually narcissistic egotistical ideas about slights to God after the fact of man-made religious bullshite everywhere and deaths following the bullshite exactly.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 8:31:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If Jews were told about the real Torah, the Celestial Torah, instead of the man-made political Wizard of Oz mumbo-jumbo priests of Judah earthly Torah/Tanakh, they would learn about the Job of the Jew which if done by Jews keeps them safe from harm within Gentile societies. But rabbis don't teach the true Torah because they don't know it if they ever did. It's true, rabbis do not know where the word "Torah" originates so how could they know what it really means without knowing the root concepts? It's like Muhammad not knowing about the roots of the Jewish religious ideas he stole to fabricate his religion where he doesn't know the root of "Islam" and thinks it means "surrender to God" only, not understanding the historical linage of "salaam" derived from "shalom" derived from worship of the pagan god of Peace, the Evening Star of Venus. Without honoring Peace in Islam you have no Islam. No peace, no Islam.

Only the Ahmadiyyah Muslims are true Muslims. The rest are Muhammadan imitators and idolators to boot.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 9:54:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 8:14:20 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 2:54:49 AM, Ragnar wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
...But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)
That would not be a double standard against Islam. Such would take require all the other religions (or at least most) to have said protection Islam lacks.

- The 'at least most' part defeats the very purpose of your argument.

- The double standard is easy to establish:
> Islam is a Religion, Judaism is a Religion.
> Anti-Islamic hate speech is Freedom of Speech.
> Anti-Judaic hate speech is anti-semitism.
> Freedom of Speech is condoned by Law, anti-semitism is a criminal offence.

=> Now, all the above points are facts, thus there is double standard against Islam.

That which is bolded is not valid unless you can show there exists anti-Islamic hate speech.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:00:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 8:14:20 AM, YassineB wrote:

> Freedom of Speech is condoned by Law, anti-semitism is a criminal offence.

Seriously? You're comparing the denial of the Holocaust with drawing a cartoon of Muhammad? No, seriously?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted. That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:17:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?

They do have a valid point. People who support free speech are against all hate speech laws. To not be is blatant hypocrisy. In America, we do offer the closest thing to absolute free speech in the world. Europe has it's pet topics.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:38:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted. That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.

But, It doesn't include non-believers, who are insulted by those religions and their followers.

Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.

Muhammad, a man in his fifties gets engaged to a seven year old, marries and consummates when she is nine.

Are you saying this should be tolerated from a so-called prophet of God? It is highly insulting,
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:05:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?

Response: If anything, this only highlights the hypocrisy of Non-Muslims and Western law of free speech. For you claim it is a right, but let me or anyone start to curse or say negative things about your mother or family and you would be the first to try to ban me from the forum. If I did so at a job I would be fired. If I did it in front of you or in public for all to see, you would be mad and your mother would sue for defamation. Yet the West says they practice FREE speech.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:11:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:05:41 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?

Response: If anything, this only highlights the hypocrisy of Non-Muslims and Western law of free speech. For you claim it is a right, but let me or anyone start to curse or say negative things about your mother or family and you would be the first to try to ban me from the forum. If I did so at a job I would be fired. If I did it in front of you or in public for all to see, you would be mad and your mother would sue for defamation. Yet the West says they practice FREE speech.

No one could sue you for defamation for that, in the US at least. There are some pretty strict standards to meet for a defamation lawsuit to be successful.

Besides, free speech is the idea that government cannot punish speech. It doesn't say anything about employers or websites. If I posted some of the pictures which Charlie Hebdo had printed on this site I would be banned for obscenity. If I were at a trade show and started spouting of anti-Islamic propaganda I would be fired.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:13:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:38:20 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted. That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.

But, It doesn't include non-believers, who are insulted by those religions and their followers.

I suppose it does.

Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.

Muhammad, a man in his fifties gets engaged to a seven year old, marries and consummates when she is nine.

Are you saying this should be tolerated from a so-called prophet of God? It is highly insulting,

One must consider the historical context in which this takes place. In those days slavery, child marriage, and the slaughter of women and children in times of war was considered acceptable. This is one of those things that a modern reader naturally finds repulsive, and thus we cannot see things from their perspective.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:14:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

I do. What's wrong with that?

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:22:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:14:32 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

I do. What's wrong with that?

'Right' isn't just a word that can be applied to any old thing that someone thinks ought to be the case. Free speech has essay after essay dedicated to the idea, expounding it, defending it from criticism. It's been fiercely debated at constitutional conventions. All to come to the conclusion that free speech is a fundamental condition for a society which functions at its highest level by ensuring that the truth is never suppressed.

First of all, the 'right to not be constantly insulted', doesn't even make sense, because it's impossible to be constantly insulted. So where is the line drawn where being 'insulted' enough causes this 'right' to kick in? What constitutes an insult? And why is this even a right? How does it help society? And, most importantly, how can you justify scrapping free speech, one of the most foundational rights of enlightened western society, in order to implement your unjustified and badly worded 'right to not be constantly insulted'? What is so absolutely deleterious to society as we know it, which has apparently not been an issue for the last several centuries, that we can take the risk of suppressing truth in matters of public inquiry lest it insult someone (oh, the horror!).

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:27:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:22:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:32 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

I do. What's wrong with that?

'Right' isn't just a word that can be applied to any old thing that someone thinks ought to be the case. Free speech has essay after essay dedicated to the idea, expounding it, defending it from criticism. It's been fiercely debated at constitutional conventions. All to come to the conclusion that free speech is a fundamental condition for a society which functions at its highest level by ensuring that the truth is never suppressed.

First of all, the 'right to not be constantly insulted', doesn't even make sense, because it's impossible to be constantly insulted. So where is the line drawn where being 'insulted' enough causes this 'right' to kick in? What constitutes an insult? And why is this even a right? How does it help society? And, most importantly, how can you justify scrapping free speech, one of the most foundational rights of enlightened western society, in order to implement your unjustified and badly worded 'right to not be constantly insulted'? What is so absolutely deleterious to society as we know it, which has apparently not been an issue for the last several centuries, that we can take the risk of suppressing truth in matters of public inquiry lest it insult someone (oh, the horror!).

Consider pornography. As one guy put it (and I'm paraphrasing):
"There's no clear definition of what is and isn't pornography, but I know it when I see it."

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:29:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:27:27 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:22:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:32 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

I do. What's wrong with that?

'Right' isn't just a word that can be applied to any old thing that someone thinks ought to be the case. Free speech has essay after essay dedicated to the idea, expounding it, defending it from criticism. It's been fiercely debated at constitutional conventions. All to come to the conclusion that free speech is a fundamental condition for a society which functions at its highest level by ensuring that the truth is never suppressed.

First of all, the 'right to not be constantly insulted', doesn't even make sense, because it's impossible to be constantly insulted. So where is the line drawn where being 'insulted' enough causes this 'right' to kick in? What constitutes an insult? And why is this even a right? How does it help society? And, most importantly, how can you justify scrapping free speech, one of the most foundational rights of enlightened western society, in order to implement your unjustified and badly worded 'right to not be constantly insulted'? What is so absolutely deleterious to society as we know it, which has apparently not been an issue for the last several centuries, that we can take the risk of suppressing truth in matters of public inquiry lest it insult someone (oh, the horror!).

Consider pornography. As one guy put it (and I'm paraphrasing):
"There's no clear definition of what is and isn't pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I don't get the point, as pornography isn't banned under free speech.

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:31:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:29:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:27:27 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:22:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:32 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

I do. What's wrong with that?

'Right' isn't just a word that can be applied to any old thing that someone thinks ought to be the case. Free speech has essay after essay dedicated to the idea, expounding it, defending it from criticism. It's been fiercely debated at constitutional conventions. All to come to the conclusion that free speech is a fundamental condition for a society which functions at its highest level by ensuring that the truth is never suppressed.

First of all, the 'right to not be constantly insulted', doesn't even make sense, because it's impossible to be constantly insulted. So where is the line drawn where being 'insulted' enough causes this 'right' to kick in? What constitutes an insult? And why is this even a right? How does it help society? And, most importantly, how can you justify scrapping free speech, one of the most foundational rights of enlightened western society, in order to implement your unjustified and badly worded 'right to not be constantly insulted'? What is so absolutely deleterious to society as we know it, which has apparently not been an issue for the last several centuries, that we can take the risk of suppressing truth in matters of public inquiry lest it insult someone (oh, the horror!).

Consider pornography. As one guy put it (and I'm paraphrasing):
"There's no clear definition of what is and isn't pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I don't get the point, as pornography isn't banned under free speech.

But the principle still applies. There's no clear definition of what constitutes "constant insult" (that is, being insulted too much), but one knows it when they see it.

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:31:26 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:29:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:27:27 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:22:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:32 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

I do. What's wrong with that?

'Right' isn't just a word that can be applied to any old thing that someone thinks ought to be the case. Free speech has essay after essay dedicated to the idea, expounding it, defending it from criticism. It's been fiercely debated at constitutional conventions. All to come to the conclusion that free speech is a fundamental condition for a society which functions at its highest level by ensuring that the truth is never suppressed.

First of all, the 'right to not be constantly insulted', doesn't even make sense, because it's impossible to be constantly insulted. So where is the line drawn where being 'insulted' enough causes this 'right' to kick in? What constitutes an insult? And why is this even a right? How does it help society? And, most importantly, how can you justify scrapping free speech, one of the most foundational rights of enlightened western society, in order to implement your unjustified and badly worded 'right to not be constantly insulted'? What is so absolutely deleterious to society as we know it, which has apparently not been an issue for the last several centuries, that we can take the risk of suppressing truth in matters of public inquiry lest it insult someone (oh, the horror!).

Consider pornography. As one guy put it (and I'm paraphrasing):
"There's no clear definition of what is and isn't pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I don't get the point, as pornography isn't banned under free speech.

But the principle still applies. There's no clear definition of what constitutes "constant insult" (that is, being insulted too much), but one knows it when they see it.

So what? That makes it an extremely bad standard. 'Well, we're going to abrogate one of the most fundamental human rights. We're not really sure under what conditions we'll do this, but we'll know it when we see it. Trust us, we're the government.'

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:34:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:05:41 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?

Response: If anything, this only highlights the hypocrisy of Non-Muslims and Western law of free speech. For you claim it is a right, but let me or anyone start to curse or say negative things about your mother or family and you would be the first to try to ban me from the forum. If I did so at a job I would be fired. If I did it in front of you or in public for all to see, you would be mad and your mother would sue for defamation. Yet the West says they practice FREE speech.

No one could sue you for defamation for that, in the US at least. There are some pretty strict standards to meet for a defamation lawsuit to be successful.

Besides, free speech is the idea that government cannot punish speech. It doesn't say anything about employers or websites. If I posted some of the pictures which Charlie Hebdo had printed on this site I would be banned for obscenity. If I were at a trade show and started spouting of anti-Islamic propaganda I would be fired

Response: A person can be sued for defamation for that, especially in the U. S..

And whether free speech is a governmental law or not, it is still hypocrisy for a person to say it is a right to have free speech to say anything, only to turn around and enforce bans and lawsuits when a person defamed another. Whether, it be a job or website or government.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:35:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:33:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:31:26 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:29:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:27:27 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:22:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:32 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

I do. What's wrong with that?

'Right' isn't just a word that can be applied to any old thing that someone thinks ought to be the case. Free speech has essay after essay dedicated to the idea, expounding it, defending it from criticism. It's been fiercely debated at constitutional conventions. All to come to the conclusion that free speech is a fundamental condition for a society which functions at its highest level by ensuring that the truth is never suppressed.

First of all, the 'right to not be constantly insulted', doesn't even make sense, because it's impossible to be constantly insulted. So where is the line drawn where being 'insulted' enough causes this 'right' to kick in? What constitutes an insult? And why is this even a right? How does it help society? And, most importantly, how can you justify scrapping free speech, one of the most foundational rights of enlightened western society, in order to implement your unjustified and badly worded 'right to not be constantly insulted'? What is so absolutely deleterious to society as we know it, which has apparently not been an issue for the last several centuries, that we can take the risk of suppressing truth in matters of public inquiry lest it insult someone (oh, the horror!).

Consider pornography. As one guy put it (and I'm paraphrasing):
"There's no clear definition of what is and isn't pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I don't get the point, as pornography isn't banned under free speech.

But the principle still applies. There's no clear definition of what constitutes "constant insult" (that is, being insulted too much), but one knows it when they see it.

So what? That makes it an extremely bad standard. 'Well, we're going to abrogate one of the most fundamental human rights. We're not really sure under what conditions we'll do this, but we'll know it when we see it. Trust us, we're the government.'

Yes. Go shout "Bomb!" in a crowded airport and see how well the "freedom of speech" defense helps you.
Words have power. That's something that many people seem to forget.

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:37:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?

Firstly, it's the other way round; just look at the media. Jokes about the Jews/holocaust are not met with violence. Charlie Hebdo has also featured cartoons satirizing the Jewish people and the Jewish religion, yet we do not go and kill 12 innocent people because of it.

More importantly, the holocaust and Muhammad/Islam are entirely different subjects. The Holocaust was a mass genocide in which an estimated 11 million people (6 million Jews) were killed and subjected to immeasurable cruelty.

Whereas Islam is just a religion, which like every other one is not exempt to criticism or ridicule. Particularly in a secular state such as France with a long history of satire.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:39:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?

Those who believe that free speech is real in this world are very confused. Try speak the Truth and find out what "free speech" really means in this world.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:40:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:34:31 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:11:44 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:05:41 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/17/2015 12:58:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
An objection I am seeing more and more from some muslims is that the whole free speech is used selectively and thus what is preached is free speech but what is practiced not so much depending on the topic.

For example any cartoon that makes fun of islam/muhamed is ok on free speech grounds.

But if you make fun of jews/holocaust etc etc you could be charged with breaking a law (depending on which country/state you in)

Do they have a valid point here ? or are they just making it up ?

Response: If anything, this only highlights the hypocrisy of Non-Muslims and Western law of free speech. For you claim it is a right, but let me or anyone start to curse or say negative things about your mother or family and you would be the first to try to ban me from the forum. If I did so at a job I would be fired. If I did it in front of you or in public for all to see, you would be mad and your mother would sue for defamation. Yet the West says they practice FREE speech.

No one could sue you for defamation for that, in the US at least. There are some pretty strict standards to meet for a defamation lawsuit to be successful.

Besides, free speech is the idea that government cannot punish speech. It doesn't say anything about employers or websites. If I posted some of the pictures which Charlie Hebdo had printed on this site I would be banned for obscenity. If I were at a trade show and started spouting of anti-Islamic propaganda I would be fired

Response: A person can be sued for defamation for that, especially in the U. S..

And whether free speech is a governmental law or not, it is still hypocrisy for a person to say it is a right to have free speech to say anything, only to turn around and enforce bans and lawsuits when a person defamed another. Whether, it be a job or website or government.

No, it would not. The standard of proof for libel and defamation is incredibly high in the US.

" "Truth" is an absolute defense against defamation. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 411 (1967). Consequently, a plaintiff has to provide convincing evidence of a defamatory statement's falsity in order to prove defamation.

The law does not require that a statement must be perfectly accurate in every conceivable way to be considered "true." Courts have said that some false statements must be protected for the wider purpose of allowing the dissemination of truthful speech. The resulting doctrine is known as "substantial truth." Under the substantial truth doctrine, minor factual inaccuracies will be ignored so long as the inaccuracies do not materially alter the substance or impact of what is being communicated. In other words, only the "gist" or "sting" of a statement must be correct.

The substantial truth defense is particularly powerful because a judge will often grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant (thus disposing of the case before it goes to trial) if the defendant can show that the statement the plaintiff is complaining about is substantially true, making the defense a quick and relatively easy way to get out of a long (and potentially expensive) defamation case.

Substantial truth can also be a flashpoint for libel cases involving public figures and officials who must show actual malice by the defendant in order to recover. In Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (1991), the plaintiff tried to argue that inaccurate quotations were evidence of actual malice. The Supreme Court refused to adopt such a stringent rule, noting the difficulty of taking notes and translating from recordings and the need to edit a speaker's comments into a coherent statement."

http://www.dmlp.org...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:42:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Firstly, it's the other way round; just look at the media. Jokes about the Jews/holocaust are not met with violence. Charlie Hebdo has also featured cartoons satirizing the Jewish people and the Jewish religion, yet we do not go and kill 12 innocent people because of it.

More importantly, the holocaust and Muhammad/Islam are entirely different subjects. The Holocaust was a mass genocide in which an estimated 11 million people (6 million Jews) were killed and subjected to immeasurable cruelty.

Whereas Islam is just a religion, which like every other one is not exempt to criticism or ridicule. Particularly in a secular state such as France with a long history of satire.

The attackers killed that insulters of prophet Muhammad because they deserve so. If they dont want to be slain then dont insult the prophet. Very simple. Taste it.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:45:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:35:58 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:33:45 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:31:26 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:29:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:27:27 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:22:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:14:32 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:18:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:11:23 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's as simple as this: don't insult anybody's religion. People have a right to not be constantly insulted.

Lol, I hope that you don't mean this in a literal sense.

I do. What's wrong with that?

'Right' isn't just a word that can be applied to any old thing that someone thinks ought to be the case. Free speech has essay after essay dedicated to the idea, expounding it, defending it from criticism. It's been fiercely debated at constitutional conventions. All to come to the conclusion that free speech is a fundamental condition for a society which functions at its highest level by ensuring that the truth is never suppressed.

First of all, the 'right to not be constantly insulted', doesn't even make sense, because it's impossible to be constantly insulted. So where is the line drawn where being 'insulted' enough causes this 'right' to kick in? What constitutes an insult? And why is this even a right? How does it help society? And, most importantly, how can you justify scrapping free speech, one of the most foundational rights of enlightened western society, in order to implement your unjustified and badly worded 'right to not be constantly insulted'? What is so absolutely deleterious to society as we know it, which has apparently not been an issue for the last several centuries, that we can take the risk of suppressing truth in matters of public inquiry lest it insult someone (oh, the horror!).

Consider pornography. As one guy put it (and I'm paraphrasing):
"There's no clear definition of what is and isn't pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I don't get the point, as pornography isn't banned under free speech.

But the principle still applies. There's no clear definition of what constitutes "constant insult" (that is, being insulted too much), but one knows it when they see it.

So what? That makes it an extremely bad standard. 'Well, we're going to abrogate one of the most fundamental human rights. We're not really sure under what conditions we'll do this, but we'll know it when we see it. Trust us, we're the government.'

Yes. Go shout "Bomb!" in a crowded airport and see how well the "freedom of speech" defense helps you.
Words have power. That's something that many people seem to forget.

And that's a completely ridiculous analogy. You aren't allowed to walk up to someone and say 'I'm going to slit your throat tomorrow night...' either. There are well-established reasons for the exceptions for defamation and libel, causing a panic a crowded space, and threatening people. The fact that there are justified exceptions does not in any way make your pet objection justified.

That includes Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.
Trying to convince somebody that Islam is a false religion is one thing. But telling someone "Muhammad liked little girl parts" is something else entirely, and should not be tolerated.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:48:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:42:42 AM, uncung wrote:
Firstly, it's the other way round; just look at the media. Jokes about the Jews/holocaust are not met with violence. Charlie Hebdo has also featured cartoons satirizing the Jewish people and the Jewish religion, yet we do not go and kill 12 innocent people because of it.

More importantly, the holocaust and Muhammad/Islam are entirely different subjects. The Holocaust was a mass genocide in which an estimated 11 million people (6 million Jews) were killed and subjected to immeasurable cruelty.

Whereas Islam is just a religion, which like every other one is not exempt to criticism or ridicule. Particularly in a secular state such as France with a long history of satire.

The attackers killed that insulters of prophet Muhammad because they deserve so. If they dont want to be slain then dont insult the prophet. Very simple. Taste it.

And Muslims across Europe will feel the consequences of your expressing the absolutely stupid idea that walking into another country and threatening to kill their civilians if they do not alter their society to conform to your volatile emotions is acceptable. Every time a Muslim says something like this it feeds into justification for the oppression of Muslim minorities in Europe. Shame on you.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:49:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:42:42 AM, uncung wrote:
Firstly, it's the other way round; just look at the media. Jokes about the Jews/holocaust are not met with violence. Charlie Hebdo has also featured cartoons satirizing the Jewish people and the Jewish religion, yet we do not go and kill 12 innocent people because of it.

More importantly, the holocaust and Muhammad/Islam are entirely different subjects. The Holocaust was a mass genocide in which an estimated 11 million people (6 million Jews) were killed and subjected to immeasurable cruelty.

Whereas Islam is just a religion, which like every other one is not exempt to criticism or ridicule. Particularly in a secular state such as France with a long history of satire.

The attackers killed that insulters of prophet Muhammad because they deserve so. If they dont want to be slain then dont insult the prophet. Very simple. Taste it.

I insult the Christian false deities and false gods by testifying to the knowledge of God. Most Christians hate the Truth with a passion. Muslims are more receptive to the Truth because they don't hold up Mohammed as their Allah like Christians hold up Jesus as our Creator.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:55:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:42:42 AM, uncung wrote:
Firstly, it's the other way round; just look at the media. Jokes about the Jews/holocaust are not met with violence. Charlie Hebdo has also featured cartoons satirizing the Jewish people and the Jewish religion, yet we do not go and kill 12 innocent people because of it.

More importantly, the holocaust and Muhammad/Islam are entirely different subjects. The Holocaust was a mass genocide in which an estimated 11 million people (6 million Jews) were killed and subjected to immeasurable cruelty.

Whereas Islam is just a religion, which like every other one is not exempt to criticism or ridicule. Particularly in a secular state such as France with a long history of satire.

The attackers killed that insulters of prophet Muhammad because they deserve so. If they dont want to be slain then dont insult the prophet. Very simple. Taste it.

The attackers killed the journalists because they were violent extremists. Do you realize how illogical it is to state people "deserve" to be killed for simply drawing cartoons? How about YOU trying "tasting" that? Try not to choke though.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'