News Stories

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Actually that is a debate technique. Drawing attention by making a point look glaring through dressing up examples.

A late technical consultant once told me at a toastmasters' club that when offended by a statement, do an emotional check on yourself. Your counterparty is attempting to draw attention to something that s/he deems that is left out due to minelaying. Then decide if it is worthy of attention to discuss that issue in depth.

If you are confident that the other side of the "discussion" would respond appropriately, then by all means. Use any and all techniques you possess to create and further the discussion. Otherwise, it may be better to find and use other more appropriate techniques.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by monster

If you are confident that the other side of the "discussion" would respond appropriately, then by all means. Use any and all techniques you possess to create and further the discussion. Otherwise, it may be better to find and use other more appropriate techniques.

Like? tenchar

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Like? tenchar

Like actually communicating without the use of satire.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is because the Muslim population generally think it is wrong to cariacture their prophet.

I admit that I do feel caricature of a prophet is wrong. There are other less offensive ways to give criticism across, and some people just have to choose the most offensive ways seemingly just for the kicks. That to me just shows lack of empathy.

But how does that make me a murderous barbarian?

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is because the Muslim population generally think it is wrong to cariacture their prophet.

That is hypocrisy. I have seen pics with Buddhist statues being wrecked with the caption "Where is your god now?" from "Muslim" users on social media. Even the moderates and the "pious" share it. And there is the one in which "Muslims" claim that their "prophet" outlawed pork and "saved" them from the fate a man in China had begotten.

Well as a Muslim, I certainly wouldn't condone any of that. But its the internet, the best medium available to highlight the fact that idiocy is a trait shared across all races and faiths. But I also share similar views with erneiz_hyde.

The worst one is still this. The best money spinning scheme ever made; who the fuck gave him a state award?

Ignoring the fact that the quoted site is heavily biased; and making the assumption that everything on the link is true: 981/1001 inventions are okay? Then any award is 98% deserved then. If it helps build bridges between cultures then I'm all for it.

Personally I am fine with it as there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticising a faith through satire. I criticise my more "pious" relatives when they burn talismen and drink them, and satirising them is a way of creating discussion while showing that there is no intention to draw offence. Those who respond violently are those who fear losing their faith as they do not understand it at all.

I don't think there should be anything wrong with criticising a faith through satire, as well. BUT as soon you make an argument that you aren't trying to draw offence, then that itself is hypocrisy. I mean there's plenty of wacko people in the world who call themselves Muslim to make fun of, but satirists deliberately choose the one person to satirize that will almost certainly draw offence and that they know very well ahead of time will draw offence. If they do it on purpose, they're only doing it to offend. Why do they have to do that? I'm not saying they should be killed nor do I condone anything that happened in Sydney, Paris or Copenhagen but sometimes I think that Freedom of Speech has become synonymous with Freedom to Offend in these circumstances.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

I admit that do I feel caricature of a prophet is wrong.

Freedom: use it or lose it.

There are other less offensive ways to give criticism across, and some people just have to choose the most offensive ways seemingly just for the kicks. That to me just shows lack of empathy.

Sometimes feelings need to get hurt to remind people they're not the center of the world.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Anarchy is when you have no freedom at all, you are only allowed to do what your own power allow you to force onto others. You have no rights in an anarchy, you take what you can steal and keep only what you can defend.

Here, Freedom means you don't get lynched just because you offend someone.

That, and you can't be taken to court having to justify yourself for every little thing. Rather, the other party has to demonstrate harm and law breaking.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Freedom: use it or lose it.

And I am using it to express my dislike of religious stereotyping.

Sometimes feelings need to get hurt to remind people they're not the center of the world.

I would've agreed to you if people specifically criticized these freaks and not drag the rest along.

[GreyZone]

It's a bit of a double standard though. I mean for example: Did you even once, in recent history, witness that satire against Christianity was considered "bad" publicily? I think not. But the moment you critisize Islam through satire, you are considered either as "offensive", "racist" or sometimes even a "nazi". Shouldn't all religions get the same treatment? It's irritating that Islam gets "special treatment" in that regard.

It should be "allow satire against religions/beliefs or not". The fact that the question is "allow satire against Islam or not" instead is already a grave error in thinking by itself.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

And I am using it to express my dislike of religious stereotyping.

Go for it. But do keep in mind the difference between "I don't like it" and "it should be illegal", or even "they shouldn't do it".

I would've agreed to you if people specifically criticized these freaks and not drag the rest along.

The rest aren't the center of the world either.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

It's a bit of a double standard though. I mean for example: Did you even once, in recent history, witness that satire against Christianity was considered "bad" publicily? I think not. But the moment you critisize Islam through satire, you are considered either as "offensive", "racist" or sometimes even a "nazi". Shouldn't all religions get the same treatment? It's irritating that Islam gets "special treatment" in that regard.

It should be "allow satire against religions/beliefs or not". The fact that the question is "allow satire against Islam or not" instead is already a grave error in thinking by itself.

I'm pretty sure people of any faith will find unjust criticism towards their faith as offensive, but I think the difference is that we Mudslimes have a few barbaric brethren to over react and shout loudly, thus giving the impression we're the only ones getting "special treatment".

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The rest aren't the center of the world either.

And what gave you the impression we think ourselves as such self-centered assholes, such we deserved to be criticized for it? I do not think anything or anyone is the center of the world.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

I'm pretty sure people of any faith will find unjust criticism towards their faith as offensive, but I think the difference is that we Mudslimes have a few barbaric brethren to over react and shout loudly, thus giving the impression we're the only ones getting "special treatment".


And what gave you the impression we think ourselves as such self-centered assholes, such we deserved to be criticized for it? I do not think anything or anyone is the center of the world.

Anyone who confuses "I'm offended" with "it should be illegal" is too self-centered. AK-47s are not necessary.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Anyone who confuses "I'm offended" with "it should be illegal" is too self-centered. AK-47s are not necessary.

Are you referring to that inquiry I asked earlier? Did you miss that I concede that I do not think it should be illegal? Does simple inquiry really warrants such reaction?

And how does 'it should be illegal' equates to needing AK-47 anyway?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by monster

Like actually communicating without the use of satire.

Like?

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

And what gave you the impression we think ourselves as such self-centered assholes, such we deserved to be criticized for it? I do not think anything or anyone is the center of the world.

Eat pork. Don't pray everyday. Acknowledge the flaws in the religion. Fit in with the rest of the world.

Buddhists are required to be vegetarian/fast and meditate aloud amongst other things, but not all of them practice it. They just adhere to the tenets of inner peace and that's it.

The problem with Islam seems to try to create an exclusive club. Then complain about being sidelined. Like the Jews in the Age of Exploration.

I am being really blunt and direct here. As much as I don't like "pious" religious nuts, I think it is time I be honest as a friend here. There are too many practices that make Islam too exclusive at this day and age. Though that seems to be the case for other religions too as believers try to be more "good" and "pious" than they really are.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

I'm pretty sure people of any faith will find unjust criticism towards their faith as offensive, but I think the difference is that we Mudslimes have a few barbaric brethren to over react and shout loudly, thus giving the impression we're the only ones getting "special treatment".

I don't even blame the Muslims for that though. It's just that the topic of "discrimination" is a very "hot" topic for the media. In the Western news you can label anyone a "racist" if he/she even moves a finger against a Muslim and our current society is much too sensitive against such labels of generalization. If you tried to do the same against someone who critisizes Christianity, you would never get the same reactions or TV ratings, because the person is most likely surrounded by Christians (sometimes even Christian himself/herself), so it would not work. Other religions are not "trendy" enough for the news to report about, so they are being outright ignored.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Eat pork. Don't pray everyday. Acknowledge the flaws in the religion. Fit in with the rest of the world.

I do acknowledge there are flaws in my religion that reason cannot explain, and I do have a Christian, Muslim-turned Atheist, all (well, not ALL, but they're diverse enough) sorts of people as a friend, I admire Einstein and other brilliant scientists that happens to be Jews. I believe in evolution.
But why should anyone care about what I eat, how I dress or what I do in my spare time if I'm not harming anyone?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

I do acknowledge there are flaws in my religion that reason cannot explain, and I do have a Christian, Muslim-turned Atheist, all (well, not ALL, but they're diverse enough) sorts of people as a friend, I admire Einstein and other brilliant scientists that happens to be Jews. I believe in evolution.
But why should anyone care about what I eat, how I dress or what I do in my spare time if I'm not harming anyone?

That is because your practices affect those around you. As a member of society, people include you in their activities, and you have to turn it down because you can't do this and that,and the party has to make room for you. Is it not unfair to them? What is the point of living in that society?

The world has become globalised to a state where it is now one big society linked mostly by he internet, former taboos are now acceptable norms, albeit some wih limits. Making yourself exclusive because of your beliefs make you an outcast, and outcasts are treated as such.

By the way, my born-in religion is Taosim, and it preaches us to avoid kosher/halal, because the method of culling is "teeming with evil cruel magic". I still eat the ketupats my neighbour brings over every Hari Raya.

[erneiz_hyde]

And where does freedom of expression fit in all of this then?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

And where does freedom of expression fit in all of this then?

People reserve the right to express distaste at your exclusivity.

That is why we have the term ad nauseam when it comes to opinion trading like this.

[erneiz_hyde]

I could go on, but yeah, I agree. Best leave it at that.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Are you referring to that inquiry I asked earlier? Did you miss that I concede that I do not think it should be illegal? Does simple inquiry really warrants such reaction?

But you keep taking for yourself criticisms aimed at radical elements within your religion and asking people to justify themselves, as if "because they want to, and are free to" wasn't reason enough.

And how does 'it should be illegal' equates to needing AK-47 anyway?

You seem to say that only terrorists are fair targets for criticism, and that care should be taken not to hurt the widdle feelings of non-terrorist Muslims. I say Muslims aren't special and everyone's feelings are fair game.