A Sad Day For Free Speech In Italy
-
John Carson wrote:
You seem to have been happy to defend the Cardinal in your earlier posts without having seen any quotes.
Just to be clear, I could care less what the Cardinal said...I am not Catholic and he doesn't speak for me. I personally wouldn't waste my time protesting some silly sign. My only point is that he had the right to do it. The bus company wasn't obligated to listen to him. Aside from making a "statement" one way or the other, you can look at from a business perspective...not censorship. I think the company probably decided it was in its best interest to listen to the Cardinal, than to make a few bucks off an ad. Those sorts of decisions are made by businesses everyday in response to one influence or another.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Aside from making a "statement" one way or the other, you can look at from a business perspective...not censorship.
You seem to have this view that unless the government does it, then it is not censorship. I find that legalistic nonsense. A group is being denied the opportunity to express its point of view because of pressure --- possibly economic pressure --- from another group. That is censorship. But call it ^%^$%&*$$% instead if you prefer. It is still morally equivalent to censorship.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
It may work differently in Australia, but here in the U.S. it is the people who are considered to be "behaving badly" that are protected by our constitution. After all, the people who behave "properly" don't need legal protection.
I didn't propose that any legal sanctions should be applied against the Cardinal. I simply opined that his attempts at censorship were deplorable.
Oakman wrote:
Awhile back, we had some black guys announce to their local bus company that they weren't going to ride the buses until and unless some bus policies got changed. A lot of people said they were "behaving badly," and they singled out the leader of this attempt to intefere with the bus company's right to run itself as being the worst of a bad lot. We're celebrating that particular man's birthday today.
Sometimes people accused of behaving badly are actually behaving well. Sometimes people accused of behaving badly are indeed behaving badly. In this case both the atheists attempting to run the ads and those trying to stop the ads are being accused of behaving badly. If you think that it is a good thing to get the bus company to change its policies so that it denies atheists a right to express their views in paid ads...then that is sad.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I simply opined that his attempts at censorship were deplorable.
Censorship can only be carried out by the government. The bus company has the right to display or not display anything it chooses - and to take into account anyone's opinions it values - doesn't it?
John Carson wrote:
If you think that it is a good thing to get the bus company to change its policies so that it denies atheists a right to express their views in paid ads...then that is sad.
How clever. Assign a belief to me I never advocated and then pity me for having it. Here's 3 clues: my opinion is that atheists who run around trying to make believers feel bad are foolish. Believers who try to make atheists feel bad are foolish. Australians who run away from the question and hide by setting up and knocking down straw men are pitiable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have reasonable assertions about the world around me.
I keep assuming that the Law of Gravity continues to prevail, but I can't actually prove that it will. Should I be worried? :~
Fisticuffs wrote:
Seriously, if your whole argument is to try to discredit me on the basis that my typing style mildly resembles Ilion's and is somewhat hyperbolic
Better than hyperbaric. But I never try to discredit anyone - what never? well, hardly ever - I just wanted you to see that you were coming across as a bit more emphatic than you needed to be to get my attention.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I keep assuming that the Law of Gravity continues to prevail, but I can't actually prove that it will. Should I be worried? Unsure
As any good scientist knows, proof is impossible except for mathematicians. All we can do is act on best evidence. :)
Oakman wrote:
Better than hyperbaric. But I never try to discredit anyone - what never? well, hardly ever - I just wanted you to see that you were coming across as a bit more emphatic than you needed to be to get my attention.
Agreed, my apologies.
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
On what subjects? Human sacrifice? Necrophilia? Cannibalism? Ancestor Worship? The equality of races? Not exposing my child to views different than my own on these subjects is tantamount to child abuse?
Er, no. We were talking about religious beliefs, not your weekend hobbies. :laugh:
digital man wrote:
We were talking about religious beliefs, not your weekend hobbies
So it's only religious beliefs where one has to assume that a young child needs to be exposed to views not considered acceptable by his parents - or be accused of something tantamount to child abuse? :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Are there going to be any "There's probably no Allah" buses?
-
digital man wrote:
We were talking about religious beliefs, not your weekend hobbies
So it's only religious beliefs where one has to assume that a young child needs to be exposed to views not considered acceptable by his parents - or be accused of something tantamount to child abuse? :confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Boy, you're hard going today! We were talking about religious belief and the imposition of those beliefs or the notion that, somehow, theism should be allowed to trump atheism whereas I feel that both need to be discussed and that doing so is not brainwashing. The flip side of that is that to impose your beliefs on anyone is brainwashing and that, by extension, to do that to a child is abuse (it's abuse to anyone actually). Are we getting there: I'll not be back tonight as about to eat supper and watch some Sopranos (the missus loves it).
-
Boy, you're hard going today! We were talking about religious belief and the imposition of those beliefs or the notion that, somehow, theism should be allowed to trump atheism whereas I feel that both need to be discussed and that doing so is not brainwashing. The flip side of that is that to impose your beliefs on anyone is brainwashing and that, by extension, to do that to a child is abuse (it's abuse to anyone actually). Are we getting there: I'll not be back tonight as about to eat supper and watch some Sopranos (the missus loves it).
digital man wrote:
We were talking about religious belief and the imposition of those beliefs
My point, for what it's worth, is that much of what parents do is impose their beliefs on their children in just about every aspect of life. It's what we expect them to do and usually what we fault them for not doing. imho, child abuse usually exists when an adult starts treating a child like an adult - hitting one as you might hit another adult, having sex with one, allowing them to decide how late to stay up when they are eight, expecting them to have the sense not to play in the road at the age of three. . . There are studies out there that suggest that truly abstract thinking is one of the last aspects of the human mind that is developed by most children - we call the exceptions prodigies. Frankly, I'd rather have my kids play with Christian's kids, even though their religious beliefs are counter to many of my own, than I would those of some folks that I have known who have insisted that their kids act like adults and left them as neurotic as hell. I hope you enjoyed the Sopranos
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
I keep assuming that the Law of Gravity continues to prevail, but I can't actually prove that it will. Should I be worried? Unsure
As any good scientist knows, proof is impossible except for mathematicians. All we can do is act on best evidence. :)
Oakman wrote:
Better than hyperbaric. But I never try to discredit anyone - what never? well, hardly ever - I just wanted you to see that you were coming across as a bit more emphatic than you needed to be to get my attention.
Agreed, my apologies.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
And that's how religion began. Ta-dah!
Yeah? So what? God or no God, the result of religion was human civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
As any good scientist knows, proof is impossible except for mathematicians.
So we have to take the Law of Gravity on faith? :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I think it's proof of an attempt to create a 'Christian country', like what Stan wants the US to be. I disagree with any attempt to stop such a sign, I could care less what they write on the side of a bus, it doesn't make them right ( they are wrong ). But, I am all for free speech, and for people to be able to voice their views. I'd welcome the chance to discuss it with people. Catholics, of course, are not Christians, and their religion is based on layers of tradition that move from the bible and often have no basis in fact.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yeah? So what? God or no God, the result of religion was human civilization.
Utter nonsense.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Utter nonsense.
I am afraid that a scientific analysis of the available evidence strongly indicates otherwise.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
I simply opined that his attempts at censorship were deplorable.
Censorship can only be carried out by the government. The bus company has the right to display or not display anything it chooses - and to take into account anyone's opinions it values - doesn't it?
John Carson wrote:
If you think that it is a good thing to get the bus company to change its policies so that it denies atheists a right to express their views in paid ads...then that is sad.
How clever. Assign a belief to me I never advocated and then pity me for having it. Here's 3 clues: my opinion is that atheists who run around trying to make believers feel bad are foolish. Believers who try to make atheists feel bad are foolish. Australians who run away from the question and hide by setting up and knocking down straw men are pitiable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Censorship can only be carried out by the government.
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2886719[^]
Oakman wrote:
The bus company has the right to display or not display anything it chooses - and to take into account anyone's opinions it values - doesn't it?
I have been complaining about the Cardinal, not the bus company. However, since you raise the question, I don't support the unfettered right of businesses to discriminate on any basis that they choose. I don't, to take your earlier example, support the right of bus companies to discriminate against blacks and I believe that it should be illegal. I regard this instance of discrimination against atheists to be deplorable. Whether it should be illegal is a matter on which I can't pass judgement from this distance (e.g., it may depend on whether the bus company is a monopoly).
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Censorship can only be carried out by the government.
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2886719[^]
Oakman wrote:
The bus company has the right to display or not display anything it chooses - and to take into account anyone's opinions it values - doesn't it?
I have been complaining about the Cardinal, not the bus company. However, since you raise the question, I don't support the unfettered right of businesses to discriminate on any basis that they choose. I don't, to take your earlier example, support the right of bus companies to discriminate against blacks and I believe that it should be illegal. I regard this instance of discrimination against atheists to be deplorable. Whether it should be illegal is a matter on which I can't pass judgement from this distance (e.g., it may depend on whether the bus company is a monopoly).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I don't, to take your earlier example, support the right of bus companies to discriminate against blacks and I believe that it should be illegal.
So, no matter how inflamatory the message, anyone who wishes to have their sign on the side of a bus should be permitted to put it there? And if the bus company's owners don't like it, they should go out of business? What about taxicabs? What about during children's shows on TV? What about in store windows?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't, to take your earlier example, support the right of bus companies to discriminate against blacks and I believe that it should be illegal.
So, no matter how inflamatory the message, anyone who wishes to have their sign on the side of a bus should be permitted to put it there? And if the bus company's owners don't like it, they should go out of business? What about taxicabs? What about during children's shows on TV? What about in store windows?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So, no matter how inflamatory the message, anyone who wishes to have their sign on the side of a bus should be permitted to put it there?
Ironic that this should come after a post accusing me of using a strawman. The wording of the atheist message was very mild.
Oakman wrote:
And if the bus company's owners don't like it, they should go out of business?
How does not liking something translate into going out of business? But since you raise the issue, some businesses that declined to discriminate against blacks did go out of business. Should they have discriminated?
John Carson
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Utter nonsense.
I am afraid that a scientific analysis of the available evidence strongly indicates otherwise.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Does it?
If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Yes. I did a carefully analysis of civilization and religion and discovered that every time you find the one, you find the other. In fact, there appears to also be a strong correlation between the complexity of a given civilzation and the complexity of the religion with which it is associated. As
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
So, no matter how inflamatory the message, anyone who wishes to have their sign on the side of a bus should be permitted to put it there?
Ironic that this should come after a post accusing me of using a strawman. The wording of the atheist message was very mild.
Oakman wrote:
And if the bus company's owners don't like it, they should go out of business?
How does not liking something translate into going out of business? But since you raise the issue, some businesses that declined to discriminate against blacks did go out of business. Should they have discriminated?
John Carson
-
Yes. I did a carefully analysis of civilization and religion and discovered that every time you find the one, you find the other. In fact, there appears to also be a strong correlation between the complexity of a given civilzation and the complexity of the religion with which it is associated. As
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes. I did a carefully analysis of civilization and religion and discovered that every time you find the one, you find the other. In fact, there appears to also be a strong correlation between the complexity of a given civilzation and the complexity of the religion with which it is associated. As
Citation plz + bonus correlation != causation which you should already know if you actually did a degree in science ha ha you're schooled
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes. I did a carefully analysis of civilization and religion and discovered that every time you find the one, you find the other. In fact, there appears to also be a strong correlation between the complexity of a given civilzation and the complexity of the religion with which it is associated. As
Citation plz + bonus correlation != causation which you should already know if you actually did a degree in science ha ha you're schooled
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Citation plz
Sorry, it was a privately funded, unpublished, study.
Fisticuffs wrote:
bonus correlation != causation
No, but a sufficiently strong correlation supports a possible causal association. Obviously, we need a set of controlled experiments to confirm the hypothesis. Perhaps we coudl take a civilization which had been historically associated with a religion, than remove that religion and measure the results. One could specify a set of social parameters and observe how they change over time.
Fisticuffs wrote:
which you should already know if you actually did a degree in science
Does my degree in biology count?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.