Rip wrote:An even finer line between forgiving and enabling.
I feel like we don't need the Pope to forbid us from murder. Has anyone ever considered that?
I don't see how this is a markedly different free speech sentiment than "Don't be a jerk."
It isn't and don't be a jerk is a crock.
I can be a jerk if I damn well please, and the freedom to be a jerk will still be around and spreading around the universe when it has long been forgotten what Catholic and Big Brother even mean.
The second line was more for 'Grim.
I was hoping you'd clarify your remark about "enabling" murder, presumably by the Pope. I am even more curious now that you've opined on the immutability of human belligerence. Was your point a bit off the cuff?
Rip wrote:An even finer line between forgiving and enabling.
I feel like we don't need the Pope to forbid us from murder. Has anyone ever considered that?
I don't see how this is a markedly different free speech sentiment than "Don't be a jerk."
It isn't and don't be a jerk is a crock.
I can be a jerk if I damn well please, and the freedom to be a jerk will still be around and spreading around the universe when it has long been forgotten what Catholic and Big Brother even mean.
The second line was more for 'Grim.
I was hoping you'd clarify your remark about "enabling" murder, presumably by the Pope. I am even more curious now that you've opined on the immutability of human belligerence. Was your point a bit off the cuff?
Pretty simple. There is an extremely fine line between acknowledging the causation of evil acts and enabling them by failing to take a firm immovable stance against them. The popes statement walks that line.
Not everything in the world has to be black and white.
You can condemn something without automatically supporting the agenda opposing it.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Rip wrote:An even finer line between forgiving and enabling.
I feel like we don't need the Pope to forbid us from murder. Has anyone ever considered that?
I don't see how this is a markedly different free speech sentiment than "Don't be a jerk."
It isn't and don't be a jerk is a crock.
I can be a jerk if I damn well please, and the freedom to be a jerk will still be around and spreading around the universe when it has long been forgotten what Catholic and Big Brother even mean.
The second line was more for 'Grim.
I was hoping you'd clarify your remark about "enabling" murder, presumably by the Pope. I am even more curious now that you've opined on the immutability of human belligerence. Was your point a bit off the cuff?
Pretty simple. There is an extremely fine line between acknowledging the causation of evil acts and enabling them by failing to take a firm immovable stance against them. The popes statement walks that line.
I reject your premise that a firm immovable stance significantly disables terrorist acts.
Rip wrote:An even finer line between forgiving and enabling.
I feel like we don't need the Pope to forbid us from murder. Has anyone ever considered that?
I don't see how this is a markedly different free speech sentiment than "Don't be a jerk."
It isn't and don't be a jerk is a crock.
I can be a jerk if I damn well please, and the freedom to be a jerk will still be around and spreading around the universe when it has long been forgotten what Catholic and Big Brother even mean.
The second line was more for 'Grim.
I was hoping you'd clarify your remark about "enabling" murder, presumably by the Pope. I am even more curious now that you've opined on the immutability of human belligerence. Was your point a bit off the cuff?
Pretty simple. There is an extremely fine line between acknowledging the causation of evil acts and enabling them by failing to take a firm immovable stance against them. The popes statement walks that line.
I reject your premise that a firm immovable stance significantly disables terrorist acts.
My stance stands and you won't change it even with terroristic™ tactics.
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”
— Benjamin Rush --
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Isgrimnur wrote:When the man plans for weeks to come to my place of business to punch me in the nose, I should certainly be held as innocent. Again, fighting words are substantially different from a satirist being "not wholly innocent" of their own premeditated murder.
Words should be met with words. Those who use violence as a response to speech should not be tolerated in any modern society, nor should their victims be held to be culpable for their own deaths, even partially.
He said this
The Pope said Monday that, in theory, violence contradicts Jesus' "turn the other cheek" teachings, but in practice, people must be prudent enough not to needlessly provoke others -- unless they want to risk a harsh response.
You're both saying the same thing. It's not tolerated, it will be punished, but being surprised it happened means you're not being realistic. We will never live in a world where purposely poking someone will not eventually get you punched in the face.
The Pope said Monday that, in theory, violence contradicts Jesus' "turn the other cheek" teachings, but in practice, people must be prudent enough not to needlessly provoke others -- unless they want to risk a harsh response.
You're both saying the same thing. It's not tolerated, it will be punished, but being surprised it happened means you're not being realistic. We will never live in a world where purposely poking someone will not eventually get you punched in the face.
+1
Free speech is good. However you can be in the right and still be putting yourself in danger. That doesn't excuse the evildoers in any way it is just a rational, realistic view of human nature. I find it refreshing to have the Pope realize that we live in a world full of fallible human beings and thus must at least think about the possible consequences of our actions.
The Pope said Monday that, in theory, violence contradicts Jesus' "turn the other cheek" teachings, but in practice, people must be prudent enough not to needlessly provoke others -- unless they want to risk a harsh response.
You're both saying the same thing. It's not tolerated, it will be punished, but being surprised it happened means you're not being realistic. We will never live in a world where purposely poking someone will not eventually get you punched in the face.
+1
Free speech is good. However you can be in the right and still be putting yourself in danger. That doesn't excuse the evildoers in any way it is just a rational, realistic view of human nature. I find it refreshing to have the Pope realize that we live in a world full of fallible human beings and thus must at least think about the possible consequences of our actions.
The Pope said Monday that, in theory, violence contradicts Jesus' "turn the other cheek" teachings, but in practice, people must be prudent enough not to needlessly provoke others -- unless they want to risk a harsh response.
You're both saying the same thing. It's not tolerated, it will be punished, but being surprised it happened means you're not being realistic. We will never live in a world where purposely poking someone will not eventually get you punched in the face.
+1
Free speech is good. However you can be in the right and still be putting yourself in danger. That doesn't excuse the evildoers in any way it is just a rational, realistic view of human nature. I find it refreshing to have the Pope realize that we live in a world full of fallible human beings and thus must at least think about the possible consequences of our actions.
That is all fine but it would serve us well to also consider the consequences of our inaction.
What inaction? What consequences? Please be more clear than a sound bite which says and means nothing.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Zarathud wrote:What inaction? What consequences? Please be more clear than a sound bite which says and means nothing.
The inaction of the civilized world failing to come out in universal condemnation of the radical Islamists and to reject the idea that the mocking of a religion gives even a smitten of justification for killing innocent people.
The consequences are that the increases in this type of terror attack will continue instead of being beat back by universal worldwide condemnation. Perhaps if they start tossing Jews into ovens the world will finally grow the balls to smack them into oblivion but I kinda doubt it.
I guess we are lucky Hitler wasn't a Muslim.
Also for the record the mocking of religion among other things isn't a "needless provocation" it is exercising an inalienable human right. The right of free speech even when used to mock religion is a far more important right than that of religion.
Rip wrote:
I guess we are lucky Hitler wasn't a Muslim.
I don't understand this. Hitler was totally doing his thing long before the US (for one) decided to jump in. Hitler got off relatively easy for a long while for doing a lot worse than killing 12 employees of a magazine.
Ah, universal worldwide OUTRAGE!? Like someone who wants to blow themselves up will be convinced. Might as well all hold hands and sing kumbayah for all the good that will do.
Not giving terrorists the notoriety they desire would do more.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Zarathud wrote:What inaction? What consequences? Please be more clear than a sound bite which says and means nothing.
The inaction of the civilized world failing to come out in universal condemnation of the radical Islamists and to reject the idea that the mocking of a religion gives even a smitten of justification for killing innocent people.
The consequences are that the increases in this type of terror attack will continue instead of being beat back by universal worldwide condemnation. Perhaps if they start tossing Jews into ovens the world will finally grow the balls to smack them into oblivion but I kinda doubt it.
I guess we are lucky Hitler wasn't a Muslim.
Also for the record the mocking of religion among other things isn't a "needless provocation" it is exercising an inalienable human right. The right of free speech even when used to mock religion is a far more important right than that of religion.
Actually no. Freedom of speech is not an inalienable right, it's part of the bill of rights under the US Constitution. The inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Of course, those prisoners at guantanamo who were innocent or haven't been charged may disagree with that middle one... and the innocent one who died in our 'care' probably felt rather alienated from the last one too.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Zarathud wrote:What inaction? What consequences? Please be more clear than a sound bite which says and means nothing.
The inaction of the civilized world failing to come out in universal condemnation of the radical Islamists and to reject the idea that the mocking of a religion gives even a smitten of justification for killing innocent people.
The consequences are that the increases in this type of terror attack will continue instead of being beat back by universal worldwide condemnation. Perhaps if they start tossing Jews into ovens the world will finally grow the balls to smack them into oblivion but I kinda doubt it.
I guess we are lucky Hitler wasn't a Muslim.
Also for the record the mocking of religion among other things isn't a "needless provocation" it is exercising an inalienable human right. The right of free speech even when used to mock religion is a far more important right than that of religion.
Actually no. Freedom of speech is not an inalienable right, it's part of the bill of rights under the US Constitution. The inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Of course, those prisoners at guantanamo who were innocent or haven't been charged may disagree with that middle one... and the innocent one who died in our 'care' probably felt rather alienated from the last one too.
You can't pursue happiness without freedom of speech not to mention you don't have liberty without it.
From where I"m sitting it looks like the Western world did condemn the killers. Some people also pointed out that the violence might have been anticipated but so what. If you live in a bad neighborhood you should expect potential crimes against you or your property. That doesn't excuse the criminals but it also doesn't mean that you condemn them prior to the crimes.
Rip wrote:
Also for the record the mocking of religion among other things isn't a "needless provocation" it is exercising an inalienable human right. The right of free speech even when used to mock religion is a far more important right than that of religion.
I disagree. The right to free expression of religion IS the right of free speech. You have the right to mock religion. The religion has the right to say you are going to hell (or whatever punishment they want) for mocking them. They can condemn you are a heretic, a heathen, a sinner, or whatever they want. What they can't do is attack you or your property in the same fashion that you can't attack them or their property without condemnation and criminal consequences.
I read the Pope's advice not as some sort of ban on free speech but as the very traditional Christian advice to speak with love rather than hate. Telling Christians to respect Muslims is precisely equivalent to telling Muslims to respect Jews.
It's kind of interesting how this conflict makes so many Christians forget the genuine radicalism of love at the heart of Jesus' teaching. He really did say "Love your enemies, and do good to those who hurt you." There's no qualifier or limit on it; he didn't add "unless their extremists are really really bad" or "unless they espouse a religion more violent than mine." Al Qaeda has nothing on Rome, after all.
The Pope is trying to stand, as realistically and as reasonably as possible, for this basic Christian truth. Whether this advice can even work in a world like ours is another question, but it's supposed to be the genuine heart of Christianity. As far as I can tell, not many of our so-called Christian politicians even apprehend the contradiction.
Holman wrote:I read the Pope's advice not as some sort of ban on free speech but as the very traditional Christian advice to speak with love rather than hate. Telling Christians to respect Muslims is precisely equivalent to telling Muslims to respect Jews.
It's kind of interesting how this conflict makes so many Christians forget the genuine radicalism of love at the heart of Jesus' teaching. He really did say "Love your enemies, and do good to those who hurt you." There's no qualifier or limit on it; he didn't add "unless their extremists are really really bad" or "unless they espouse a religion more violent than mine." Al Qaeda has nothing on Rome, after all.
The Pope is trying to stand, as realistically and as reasonably as possible, for this basic Christian truth. Whether this advice can even work in a world like ours is another question, but it's supposed to be the genuine heart of Christianity. As far as I can tell, not many of our so-called Christian politicians even apprehend the contradiction.
Then maybe you should read him again.
On his way to the Philippines last week, Francis was asked about the terrorist attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. While denouncing terrorism,
the Pope said there are limits to free speech
"If Dr. Gasbarri, a great friend, says a swear word against my mother, then a punch awaits him," Francis said, referring to Alberto Gasbarri, a man who organizes papal trips and was then standing next to him on the plane.
"It's normal, it's normal. One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith."
Which is bullshit. There is no such limit on free speech, nor should there be. He basically says a faith can say you are a sinner and going to hell and no offense should be taken but if you mock a religion you have committed some reprehensible provocation. It is baloney, how can a religion telling me I am a sinner and a piece of crap not be provocation but mocking that religion is provocation?
I don't really care what is the "genuine heart of Christianity" I mock it right along with every other religion. They are all a bunch of baloney.
You keep saying free speech. This has nothing to do with free speech. No government did anything to censor the paper. Individuals reacted to an intended offense. It should be handled by condemning the attack and discussing whether or not the paper should change. Just as our society shouldn't tolerate violence, it also has no reason to tolerate boorish behavior.
stessier wrote:You keep saying free speech. This has nothing to do with free speech. No government did anything to censor the paper. Individuals reacted to an intended offense. It should be handled by condemning the attack and discussing whether or not the paper should change. Just as our society shouldn't tolerate violence, it also has no reason to tolerate boorish behavior.
You equate the two but they are far from equal. Are you suggesting society needs laws to imprison those guilty of boorish behavior?
For me it is simple. One is illegal across the civilized world, the other is not nor should it be.
The paper has NO reason to change they did NOTHING wrong.
They like I, have made a religion of mocking religion. That is a healthy thing and is as deserving of a voice as any religion is.
Rip wrote:
For me it is simple. One is illegal across the civilized world, the other is not nor should it be.
The paper has NO reason to change they did NOTHING wrong.
They like I, have made a religion of mocking religion. That is a healthy thing and is as deserving of a voice as any religion is.
Absolutely. The paper did nothing wrong. The paper deserves to legally have a voice. An Islamic cleric has done nothing legally or morally wrong when he says that the images are blasphemous and that anyone who publishes them is a sinner, unworthy of trust or support, and an opponent of Islam. The only wrong act in the entire thing is the violence.
No, they're rather boorish, crude and xenophobic. I am not Charlie, but I condemn the attack on them.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
stessier wrote:You keep saying free speech. This has nothing to do with free speech. No government did anything to censor the paper. Individuals reacted to an intended offense. It should be handled by condemning the attack and discussing whether or not the paper should change. Just as our society shouldn't tolerate violence, it also has no reason to tolerate boorish behavior.
You equate the two but they are far from equal. Are you suggesting society needs laws to imprison those guilty of boorish behavior?
Of course not - the punishment fits the crime. Violence is prosecuted by law. Boorish behavior is punished by shunning and marginalization.
The paper has NO reason to change they did NOTHING wrong.
They like I, have made a religion of mocking religion. That is a healthy thing and is as deserving of a voice as any religion is.
What do you hope to accomplish through mockery? Who are you trying to win over with your "argument"?
I find your mockery to be useless and boorish - I will work to see that you are drowned out by more rational discourse. The system works, life goes on.
stessier wrote:You keep saying free speech. This has nothing to do with free speech. No government did anything to censor the paper. Individuals reacted to an intended offense. It should be handled by condemning the attack and discussing whether or not the paper should change. Just as our society shouldn't tolerate violence, it also has no reason to tolerate boorish behavior.
You equate the two but they are far from equal. Are you suggesting society needs laws to imprison those guilty of boorish behavior?
Of course not - the punishment fits the crime. Violence is prosecuted by law. Boorish behavior is punished by shunning and marginalization.
The paper has NO reason to change they did NOTHING wrong.
They like I, have made a religion of mocking religion. That is a healthy thing and is as deserving of a voice as any religion is.
What do you hope to accomplish through mockery? Who are you trying to win over with your "argument"?
I find your mockery to be useless and boorish - I will work to see that you are drowned out by more rational discourse. The system works, life goes on.
Since when does humor need an argument. It isn't trying to sway the masses like religion. The point is to make people laugh by mocking the ludicrous customs and teachings of religion. As a bunch of liberals I would think you guys(posters on the R&P forum) would already know that given how much you mock christian religions and their stances on things like abortion and homosexuality.
Glass houses and stones and such.
Are all the people who mock Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin etc, exhibiting boorish behavior?
Rip wrote:
Are all the people who mock Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin etc, exhibiting boorish behavior?
Some of them are most definitely in bad taste or boorish.
Yet I highly doubt if some fanatic tea bagger in love with Palin went and blew up a liberal paper that mocked her there would be anyone of note suggesting that they should have expected to be terrorized when they mocked her. Such a thing is just crazy talk.
Rip wrote:
Are all the people who mock Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin etc, exhibiting boorish behavior?
Some of them are most definitely in bad taste or boorish.
Yet I highly doubt if some fanatic tea bagger in love with Palin went and blew up a liberal paper that mocked her there would be anyone of note suggesting that they should have expected to be terrorized when they mocked her. Such a thing is just crazy talk.
Rip wrote:
Are all the people who mock Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin etc, exhibiting boorish behavior?
Some of them are most definitely in bad taste or boorish.
Yet I highly doubt if some fanatic tea bagger in love with Palin went and blew up a liberal paper that mocked her there would be anyone of note suggesting that they should have expected to be terrorized when they mocked her. Such a thing is just crazy talk.
You're right. Sarah Palin is not of note.
Neither was that paper or mag or whatever it is. I had never heard of it until some terrorist scumbags decided it offended them and they needed to execute a bunch of people that worked there.
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”
— Benjamin Rush --
Rip wrote:
Are all the people who mock Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin etc, exhibiting boorish behavior?
Some of them are most definitely in bad taste or boorish.
Yet I highly doubt if some fanatic tea bagger in love with Palin went and blew up a liberal paper that mocked her there would be anyone of note suggesting that they should have expected to be terrorized when they mocked her. Such a thing is just crazy talk.
Over the last few days, however, GamerGate supporters have begun to get wise to the joke - tracking Rankowski’s character back to other videos by Million Dollar Extreme.
“They realized I was making fun of them with those videos,” Rankowski told Buzzfeed. “It’s become far too real and I wish I could take it all back.”
This is serious stuff. This man has other videos where he is brandishing firearms, and one with a knife threatening to kill me.
— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) January 31, 2015
Rankowski is now experiencing a taste of the abuse figures like Wu and Anita Sarkeesian have suffered from internet misogynists. Strangers have called his former high school and knocked on his flat door. Rankowski’s workplace have asked him to sign a contract agreeing that he won’t be making any more provocative videos.
“Part of the humor of MDE is pushing the boundaries, but we’ve never encountered actually being afraid for our own safety,” he said. “This has ruined my life.
It's ok to make fun of things, but don't be a dick about it. Wil Wheaton's law, I believe. If you go out of your way to be a dick, you are much more likely to provoke a response.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Pope Francis was mobbed by a group of overexcited nuns, let out from their convents during his visit to Naples... The nuns had to be reined in by the Archibishop of Naples after swarming the pontiff, to his evident bemusement, and showering him with gifts and greetings...
Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe could be heard through the microphone urging restraint and making lighthearted commentary in a Neapolitan accent.
“Sisters . . . Later. . . . well would you look at that. And these are the cloistered ones. Just imagine the non-cloistered ones,” he said, provoking laughter among the crowd gathered in the cathedral.
“They are going to eat him! Sisters . . sisters!”
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The latest wisdom from Pope Francis. Preach it, brotha!
From the WaPo:
Pope Francis said Wednesday that he supports equal pay for men and women who perform the same jobs. The fact that a disparity exists, the pontiff said, is a “pure scandal.”
The remarks during his weekly general audience at the Vatican were part of a broader statement on the importance of marriage.
Francis asked Catholics to consider “the Christian seed of radical equality between men and women” when discussing the reasons behind declining marriage rates around the world, according to Vatican Radio.
In response, Christians should “become more demanding” for that “radical equality,” the Pope added. For example, “by supporting the right of equal pay for equal work.”
“Why should it be taken for granted that women must earn less than men? The disparity is pure scandal,” Francis said, according to the Italian news service ANSA.
“The witness of the social dignity of marriage shall become persuasive, precisely by this way: the way of witness that attracts,” he added.
According to the National Catholic Reporter, the Pope also said it was “not true” and an “insult” to suggest that women’s rights movements should take the blame for declining marriage rates. Doing so “is a form of chauvinism that always wants to control the woman,” Francis said.
"Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those Black jobs?"
-Michelle Obama 2024 Democratic Convention
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
