For the ryanbs of this world
-
jschell wrote:
eliminating a lot of comedy
I'm not advocating elimination of anything. But you're probably right that if people stopped making fun of others then a lot of so-called "comedy" would disappear.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that if it was kept in the church rather than constantly being pushed into the public that in fact no one would make fun of it because neither they nor the audience would have any context
Well that's true. If you'll agree to stop talking about atheism and promoting it then I'll agree to stop talking about and promoting religion.
jschell wrote:
ok for others to push back.
Sure, of course. No reason said pushing back can't be respectful.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
If you'll agree to stop talking about atheism and promoting it then I'll agree to stop talking about and promoting religion.
Of course "stop talking" means that all of those christian programs must stop broadcasting, all politicians must stop making religious promises and all celebrities of any sort must stop bringing up their beliefs.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
No reason said pushing back can't be respectful.
Are you claiming that the religious pundits, especially the ones that get the most public face time, are "respectful" of others beliefs?
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
If you'll agree to stop talking about atheism and promoting it then I'll agree to stop talking about and promoting religion.
Of course "stop talking" means that all of those christian programs must stop broadcasting, all politicians must stop making religious promises and all celebrities of any sort must stop bringing up their beliefs.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
No reason said pushing back can't be respectful.
Are you claiming that the religious pundits, especially the ones that get the most public face time, are "respectful" of others beliefs?
jschell wrote:
Of course "stop talking" means that all of those christian programs must stop broadcasting, all politicians must stop making religious promises and all celebrities of any sort must stop bringing up their beliefs.
Yeah, and while we're at it why don't we burn all the books, close and demolish all the schools, libraries and universities and send everyone back to the fields to farm. All the meanwhile nobody will be allowed to say anything or think anything that hasn't been approved of by the "government".
jschell wrote:
Are you claiming that the religious pundits, especially the ones that get the most public face time, are "respectful" of others beliefs?
I wouldn't really know. I don't pay them any mind. But I doubt they're always respectful.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
jschell wrote:
Of course "stop talking" means that all of those christian programs must stop broadcasting, all politicians must stop making religious promises and all celebrities of any sort must stop bringing up their beliefs.
Yeah, and while we're at it why don't we burn all the books, close and demolish all the schools, libraries and universities and send everyone back to the fields to farm. All the meanwhile nobody will be allowed to say anything or think anything that hasn't been approved of by the "government".
jschell wrote:
Are you claiming that the religious pundits, especially the ones that get the most public face time, are "respectful" of others beliefs?
I wouldn't really know. I don't pay them any mind. But I doubt they're always respectful.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
Yeah, and while we're at it why don't we burn all the books, close and demolish all the schools, libraries and universities and send everyone back to the fields to farm. All the meanwhile nobody will be allowed to say anything or think anything that hasn't been approved of by the "government".
You are the one that put forward the suggestion that speech should be limited. I then responded to your suggestion.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Yeah, and while we're at it why don't we burn all the books, close and demolish all the schools, libraries and universities and send everyone back to the fields to farm. All the meanwhile nobody will be allowed to say anything or think anything that hasn't been approved of by the "government".
You are the one that put forward the suggestion that speech should be limited. I then responded to your suggestion.
jschell wrote:
You are the one that put forward the suggestion that speech should be limited.
Actually you were the one suggesting limiting speech...
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that if it was kept in the church
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
jschell wrote:
You are the one that put forward the suggestion that speech should be limited.
Actually you were the one suggesting limiting speech...
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that if it was kept in the church
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
Actually you were the one suggesting limiting speech...
The point of that statement is that in a society with free speech that publicly expressed opinions allow for dissenting opions. HOWEVER if one keeps their opinions in their church then there is little point in expressing dissenting opinions nor would there be any context for which dissenting opinions would be meaningful. However if you are suggesting that it is perfectly ok for religions to publicly promote their ideology and that others should not be allowed to respond to that (regardless of how they respond) then it is you who are attempting to limit speech.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Actually you were the one suggesting limiting speech...
The point of that statement is that in a society with free speech that publicly expressed opinions allow for dissenting opions. HOWEVER if one keeps their opinions in their church then there is little point in expressing dissenting opinions nor would there be any context for which dissenting opinions would be meaningful. However if you are suggesting that it is perfectly ok for religions to publicly promote their ideology and that others should not be allowed to respond to that (regardless of how they respond) then it is you who are attempting to limit speech.
I never suggested anyone should not be allowed to respond to someone's religious speech (or any other speech, for that matter). I merely wished and desired for that response, dissenting or otherwise, to be respectful. And, yeah, everyone on all sides should be respectful. You went on and then said (and now you repeated it) if they kept it in their church (and by extension, whomever would keep their opinions, ideas, thoughts to themselves) then nobody would have any context in which to respond or comment whether respectful or not. I never once suggested anyone should be disallowed to respond, dissent or say something to someone else's speech. It was you who suggested religious people's speech should be confined to their church and out of the public square. Hence you are limiting peoples speech. There's enough animosity and hatred in the world. I'm merely objecting to hate speech.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I never suggested anyone should not be allowed to respond to someone's religious speech (or any other speech, for that matter). I merely wished and desired for that response, dissenting or otherwise, to be respectful. And, yeah, everyone on all sides should be respectful. You went on and then said (and now you repeated it) if they kept it in their church (and by extension, whomever would keep their opinions, ideas, thoughts to themselves) then nobody would have any context in which to respond or comment whether respectful or not. I never once suggested anyone should be disallowed to respond, dissent or say something to someone else's speech. It was you who suggested religious people's speech should be confined to their church and out of the public square. Hence you are limiting peoples speech. There's enough animosity and hatred in the world. I'm merely objecting to hate speech.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
You went on and then said (and now you repeated it) if they kept it in their church (and by extension, whomever would keep their opinions, ideas, thoughts to themselves) then nobody would have any context in which to respond or comment whether respectful or not.
That is a fair statement of what I said. That however has nothing to do with requiring them to limit their speech. Free speech means all (broadly reasonable) forms which includes comedy and that has specifically been ruled on by the US Supreme Court. Attempts to claim that only certain types of dissent are allowed is specifically an attempt to limit free speech. So I will repeat what I said again if someone wants their cherished ideas safe from dissenting views, regardless of the form of those views, then they is their responsibility to limit how they expose their views. If they choose to use public forums to broadcast their message then they must accept that dissenting views of all sort are allowed. And when they push those views repeatedly and to vast numbers of people it is much more likely that dissent will take a very, very wide range of forms. And it unreasonable to expect anything differently.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
You went on and then said (and now you repeated it) if they kept it in their church (and by extension, whomever would keep their opinions, ideas, thoughts to themselves) then nobody would have any context in which to respond or comment whether respectful or not.
That is a fair statement of what I said. That however has nothing to do with requiring them to limit their speech. Free speech means all (broadly reasonable) forms which includes comedy and that has specifically been ruled on by the US Supreme Court. Attempts to claim that only certain types of dissent are allowed is specifically an attempt to limit free speech. So I will repeat what I said again if someone wants their cherished ideas safe from dissenting views, regardless of the form of those views, then they is their responsibility to limit how they expose their views. If they choose to use public forums to broadcast their message then they must accept that dissenting views of all sort are allowed. And when they push those views repeatedly and to vast numbers of people it is much more likely that dissent will take a very, very wide range of forms. And it unreasonable to expect anything differently.
jschell wrote:
And it unreasonable to expect anything differently.
It is not unreasonable to expect respectful treatment.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
ahmed zahmed wrote:
You went on and then said (and now you repeated it) if they kept it in their church (and by extension, whomever would keep their opinions, ideas, thoughts to themselves) then nobody would have any context in which to respond or comment whether respectful or not.
That is a fair statement of what I said. That however has nothing to do with requiring them to limit their speech. Free speech means all (broadly reasonable) forms which includes comedy and that has specifically been ruled on by the US Supreme Court. Attempts to claim that only certain types of dissent are allowed is specifically an attempt to limit free speech. So I will repeat what I said again if someone wants their cherished ideas safe from dissenting views, regardless of the form of those views, then they is their responsibility to limit how they expose their views. If they choose to use public forums to broadcast their message then they must accept that dissenting views of all sort are allowed. And when they push those views repeatedly and to vast numbers of people it is much more likely that dissent will take a very, very wide range of forms. And it unreasonable to expect anything differently.
Also there are laws against hate speech. There is no license to publish hate and incite hate.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
jschell wrote:
And it unreasonable to expect anything differently.
It is not unreasonable to expect respectful treatment.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect respectful treatment.
Yes it is. First because it completely ignores facts that should be readily apparent to anyone that has any exposurce to media in the current times. Second because you are presuming, very incorrectly, that the views expressed by the first part are reasonable/respectful of others in the first place. And in my experience there are a great number of people expressing their views which they claim represent the viewpoint of one of the main religions and which specifically are not reasonable nor respectful of others.
-
Also there are laws against hate speech. There is no license to publish hate and incite hate.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun