South Park censored
- Thread starter Emoni
- Start date
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
That still doesn't answer my question. Taking moral high ground in this situation is not an argument of itself, only a demonstration of ignorance.
Hezam
Out of Service
- 24 Aug 2007
- 2,543
- 122
But i find what i said reasonable !
If someone walk around and mocking you infront of the people what are you gonna do ?
i think if you are human you will do one of two things :
- Stop him by your self.
- Call the police or one of his family/friends to stop him.
If someone walk around and mocking you infront of the people what are you gonna do ?
i think if you are human you will do one of two things :
- Stop him by your self.
- Call the police or one of his family/friends to stop him.
Half-n-Half
先輩
- 17 Jul 2007
- 920
- 70
Ignore him or present my position to him in a calm manner. I wouldn't call for his beheading and death.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
Well, I mean, yeah, he's big bird, he has to be tall, why else would he be big bird, yes?
That still doesn't answer my question. However reasonable you think your answer is, if it does not answer to the question that I have posed, you have not answered the question. I think this is fairly evident. Why do I even have to point it out?
-What are you going to eat tomorrow morning?
-Not duck.
I have never asked what you won't be having.
That is an overly-simplified analogy and hardly truly analogous. Firstly, why is he mocking me? If he is mocking me because I have committed atrocities in the past, have went against progress and caused pain and suffering through several other means, I will just sneak away in shame and that's it.
How is he mocking me? If he is ridiculing me for my wrongous actions and my bigoted ways, again, I can only reconsider my own behaviour.
If I'm mocked for no reason whatsoever, I will just tell the person to piss off and walk away. I will not stage a dramatic protest with politically heated speeches and religious ideologies to oppose the very essence of the person mocking me.
It has to be recognised that I am being overly generous here and ridiculously easy-going. I shouldn't even have written the stuff above because, frankly, the analogy is quite a bit off and it is pretty silly to compare a natural person to an institution/belief system.
In fact, I have noticed that you prefer the word 'mock', when truly we are speaking about criticism here. You appear to be hiding behind a veneer of victimisation, when, in fact, religion simply receives the criticism that it has invited and continues to invite with the outrageous and logic-defying deeds of adherents. I don't want to live in a world without criticism and scrutiny. What you propose is practically an arbitrary ban on criticism as regards a set of belief systems that have the least amount of tangible content.
The argument for criticism of even hostile criticism is twofold and based on entirely different grounds:
1, There is nothing to suggest that there is a normative obligation upon one not to criticise or mock religion. This means that morality here is excluded.
2, Disallowing the scrutiny of beliefs through protecting religion from criticism would only have adverse effects. The result would not be the peace and tranquility that you so readily envisioned. It would only lead to religion seeping into all spheres of life and assuming it's old role in leading people, mainly into stupidity and servitude. If you buy a product and the state of the product does not accord with the professed state, then you complain and the same goes for services as well, which are really quite similar to religion in that they involve reciprocal obligations and for the most part actions rather than goods. If I hear that my peers have been wronged by religion and religious institutions, I will of course take the piss. How else, do you think, can we protect ourselves from the stupidity that is so common in religion. If JW's refuse to have blood transfusion and die instead, of course I would want to protect my peers and especially the more naive ones from the madness that is the JW cult.
Also, for the second time in this post, I would like to mention that you still haven't answered my question.
Now, honestly, who gives a **** what is important to the believer? It's not as if you have to be religious to cherish and value things. That's a load of bollocks there. You value exactly what it is that you value and this is a non-issue. Pro-life people commiserate Roe v Wade and pro-choice folks celebrate it. Should they both shut the **** up, lest they offend each other? What a wimpy society you have envisioned there. Uneasy wimps who can't take a bit of bashing need to man the **** up.
Emoni
先輩
- 20 Sep 2003
- 1,779
- 67
- Thread starter
- #57
Pretty good example here.
Honestly , Hezam, the two options you gave area little silly. If someone is mocking you, calling the police/running home to mommy, or beating him up/killing him, are the options of someone in the 1500's Europe, not a civilized modern society. Y
Half-and-half presented the option people choose (hopefully) today. "Ignore him or present my position to him in a calm manner. "
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
Why should your faith be protected by an invisible, no mocking barrier? Your politics aren't, your nationality isn't, the football team you support isn't, even yourself isn't. I have been mocked for most of my life, either directly or indirectly. The reason is because I am a red head. Yet at no point have I called for the beheading or death or any idiot who thinks that having ginger hair is fair game for fun. I even find the odd comment funny. I have sat in a tent while a group of Austrians mocked a German, she didn't demand their deaths, just took it in her stride and occassionally told them to eff off. The English and French ahve been mocking each other for years, everyone mocks the Americans. The Australians, well, that is just too easier a target. So why should yours, or any religion have this special no mocking or criticising protection? No evading, I want an answer.
The most noticable things about the violence that radical muslims incite is the lack of condemnation from moderate muslims. AFAIK there is only one other religion that doesn't like to be criticised in the public arena, and that is Scientology. the only difference between Islam and Scientology is that they use lawyers instead of violence.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
I have been waiting for one, pretty much to the same question, for three pages. Nothing so far, not even a trace of willingness to engage in a dialogue.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
He made a diversion thread too. It is so damn frustrating to be denied an answer after so long.
Hezam
Out of Service
- 24 Aug 2007
- 2,543
- 122
No,actually i am at work now and your post was too long,i am trying to reply to all the points.
By the way i did not post the other thread as diversion,i will ask Mod to delete it.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
Don't ask the a mod to delete it because of what I said about it lol. That doesn't make sense.
Hezam
Out of Service
- 24 Aug 2007
- 2,543
- 122
No it's not that but it leads to a bullshit.x_X
- 19 May 2007
- 1,716
- 113
I am with AJBryant, even if you do get an answer it won't be one of reason.
I refer back to big bird.
Emoni
先輩
- 20 Sep 2003
- 1,779
- 67
- Thread starter
- #68
lol thanks, I think this thread needed that. A mod derailing a thread. That's what makes JRef awesome 
Well, it is in the spirit of South Park at least.
Speaking of which Hezam have you SEEN South Park? Especially the three episodes we are talking about? Super Best Friends, 200, and 201?
Well, it is in the spirit of South Park at least.
Speaking of which Hezam have you SEEN South Park? Especially the three episodes we are talking about? Super Best Friends, 200, and 201?
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
That doesn't surprise me. Saudi Arabia has some of the heaviest censoring of the net in the world. I doubt if you'll be able to see any of the South Park in most Islamic countries.
