I agree. My concern is their corruptability. One or more may have a weakness in their ego, a feeling of being powerful and always being right. Good guys are human. The guy that wrote all those comics had an understanding of humaness. Corruption occurs.
I saw the cause of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack about a week after the incident had happened… they went too far IMO, but does that justify the attack? IMO… of course not.
Cause and effect / action and reaction at its worst… the reactions are extreme to the provocation made, but it was made.
There are two tactics at work here. One is the cyber attack on certain websites. The other is to “expose” the malevolent actions of secretive groups. Julian Assange’s group focuses on the latter and the malevolent actions of governments. I think this, along with the absolute ubiquity of video cameras (not on buildings but in people’s hands) is to be hailed as a technological development which empowers true democracy - i.e. Transparency.
Some equate Anonymous with the issue of free speech. But I think transparency empowers free speech - to know who says what. “Whispering,” as the snake in the Garden, is a malevolent act. Not only to be heard more clearly, but to be seen by all is why we have the custom to stand-up when we address a group.
As to taking down twitter accounts, oh well. It is analogous to posting a sign on a house’s front lawn about what the owner actually says and believes -such as belief in torture of infidels and global totalitarian theocracy - And when rocks get thrown through the windows - oh well. Shit happens.
.
I completely agree with you. But, do those people of unity rally agree with this? And, are the people at Charlie Habdo agree with this?
No wise person can ever support the killing of journalists. But, at the same time, no wise person will either ever support what Charlie Habdo did.
People’s response were more emotional rather than rational. They just missed the mistakes of the other side. But, the fact is that both parties are guilty of the same crime. Yes, there may be difference in the degree of the crime, but they were of the same nature.
Both parties were guilty of extremism. Just because of the fact that the journalists were killed, does not make them martyr by default, which was the intention of the people at unity rally. Charlie Habdo should also be condemned or rather stopped forcefully what they were doing. But, it is presenting itself as victim, martyr and the flag bearer of the freedom of speech.
And, most of the western people are still not able not see what and why they are getting it wrong, when they condemn Muslim attackers but support Charlie Habdo. They just start their emotional rant about freedom of speech, without giving a second thought what they are doing, just in the same way as of those blind religious people, who can accept anything in the name of their God.
[b]The mindset is all the same in both cases. One party does not want to hear anything against liberty, while the other party does not want to hear anything against restriction. What is the difference? Both are rigid, extremists and conservatives.
If adamant supporters of free speech are in the illusion that they are liberal, they are very much mistaken. They are as conservative as hardcore religious persons, who do not want to hear anything against their scriptures. A true liberal is such a person who is not rigid but open to the ideas of the other side too.[/b]
Charlie Habdo is a conservative group, not liberal, irrespective of the fact they support free speech.
with love,
sanjay
zinnat, I refuted most of those arguments you put forward here in my long post to you in that other thread, but you said it was irrelevant…
I mean, I specifically gave reasons why forbidding the drawing of something just because one specific religion requires it would too easily lead to the banning of free speech overall.
I’m a libertarian, I think Charlie Hebdo can make art to mock Mohammed and Muslims just like Muslims can make art to mock Charlie Hebdo. I don’t think Charlie Hebdo has the right to come into a Muslim mosque and scream ugly things about Muslims, just like I don’t think Muslims don’t have the right to come into Charlie Hebdo’s workplace and scream ugly things at him (and kill him).
zinnat13 in my country, politicians are mocked in far more humiliating ways, and sometimes in public, and mostly for good reasons too. Yet they never seem to hire assassins to kill whoever was mocking them, but they have the right to retaliate verbally. There are caricatures which depict them butt naked, having sex with animals. Yet the people who wrote those caricatures never got killed. That’s free speech. Pretty sure that the drawing of Mohammed wasn’t nearly as offensive as that, was it?
I do agree that liberals and conservatives can both be equally conservative, just regarding different things. But not libertarians. Authoritarian conservatives (such as I presume yourself to be) have trouble grasping such things as free speech more than others.
And really, trying to portray Charlie Hebdo and Muslims as almost equally guilty just makes you look bad. Charlie Hebdo I assume mocked numerous other things in far worst ways, some people got offended, other people laughed, it passed. That’s what comedians and sometimes artists do. They provoke. It’s nothing extremist in Western societies, maybe in India and middle-east it is, not in the west. What IS considered extremist in the West though is shooting people because they exercise their right to artistic expression.
Very well said.
No, you did not. You chose not to reply. Check again.
No, it cannot. The problem with you that either cannot think beyond free speech or you do not want to do that.
I already addressed this point in the last post but you again pretending as you are bringing any new point in the discussion.
Look carefully. I am not saying that free speech is useless and should be curbed in all cases. Do not try to play innocent. You are capable enough to understand what i am saying. You also acknowledged that when you considered free speech as a grey area and said that you personally do not care much about that.
Atheris, you are in uncomfortable position here. You want to curb the hate mongering that ISIS is trying to spread, which i agree with, but you cannot admit it openly because it weakens your support to Charlie Habdo. That is your exact problem. And, you cannot get out from it ever keeping your present perception.
You may define yourself with any tag as you wish but that does not change anything.
That is your definition of equal response. Others may not agree with that. Secondly, you are comparing Charlie Habdo with Muhammad. Again a mistake.
Atheris, you still are not capable enough to deduct things up to the end. You take 1-2 steps and stops, hence the misunderstanding. Let me do the deduction for you. Perhaps, that may help you a little.
[b]Discussion entails disagreement. And, things can be kept under control only if both parties would not push each other to uncomfortable limits. But, one needs to understand here that these limits may be different for different parties. But, both parties would have to respect that, otherwise discussion would lead to confrontation and the actual purpose of the discussion, which was to reach an agreement, would be lost.
Thus, the way of discussion should not a prestige point for either party, if the actual aim is to reach an agreement. But, if either party just wants to prove its ego in the name of discussion, then it is different issue, which happened in this case from both ends.
Everything depends on the purpose defined and that should be kept in the mind. Here, the purpose of Charlie Habdo is not to discuss, but declarer that they can make cartoons of Muhammad, in spite of the fact that it hurts the sentiments of the Muslims deeply. It is intended to show their strength and they were successful in that. Discussion or sorting out differences was never the aim of Charlie Habdo.
The same is with the Muslim extremists. Discussion was their intention neither. They also showed their strength to match the opponent. Thus, we are having confrontation instead of discussion, which is not good for either party[/b].
Now, let me translate this into a simple analogy, which i also gave you in the other thread, though you ignored that.
Say, there is a patient of hydrophobia and you want to help him through psychological treatment. Now, the right way is that you should talk to him about his fear from water and try to explain him that it is all in his mind and he has to let go his fear. He may listen to you and perhaps that may help him too.
But, if you try to have this conversation with him having a glass of water in your hand, just to delayer that you have right to bring water anywhere you like, he would get agitated and react in irrational way. The actual purpose, which was to cure him through discussion, would be lost forever.
Now, it is up to you what your aim is; whether it is to cure him or just declarer your rights. Former may lead to betterment but later would end into confrontation for sure.
The same applies to Muslim extremists. Unfortunately, but for some inevitable reasons, they are having some kind of mindset/phobia, which does not allow them to think rationally and and tend to react in unacceptable ways. That is given and I am accepting that too.
But, the actual and more important question is how to handle the situation. The groups like Charlie Habdo are not helping the cause but inflating the situation instead. They also push moderate Muslims towards the extremists.
Again a lame excuse.
Did Charlie Habdo display those cartoons in any private gathering? If their targeted audience was not Muslims, to whom those cartoons were addressed? And, which community would be interested in that?
There is no difference in saying at any public platform or in the mosque. This argument is not even of level of philosophy, even a layman would not be convinced by this.
Secondly, when confrontation happens, involved parties do not react by measuring the actions from the other side. They just do what they can to get an upper hand.
It is bit like saying that if one slaps other, other should only slap him on the same cheek with the same force. The other one is cheating if comes up with two slaps or some punches.
Atheris, confrontation knows no rules. It is only about winning and losing the fight in which way one can. So, do not expect rationality, equality and logic in such situations. If both parties were rational, the confrontation would have not been happened in the first place. That is why is is necessary to keep it within the limits of discussion.
Charlie Habdo provoked Muslim extremists intentionally and unnecessarily. Muslim extremists reacted even more irrationally and killed journalists. Charlie Habdo took one step more as it republished the same cartoons. The same reaction will come from the extremists sooner or later.
The confrontation continues but more importantly, the freedom of speech is upheld. The job is done. Right!
That happens everywhere, though the limits may be different. Making cartoons is fine but I do not think showing anyone naked or having sex with animals falls under free speech. That is insult.
Secondly, you are forgetting that we are here talking about a Prophet, not just any individual person. Muhammad may be just one of millions to you but not for Muslims. And, you are supposed to acknowledge and respect that sentiment.
One can make naked cartoons of Buddha or Mahavira. Buddhists or Jain would mind that much because they used to live naked in the real life. Jain monks still live naked. But, that does not apply in the case of Muhammad.
One has to respect the circumstances and cannot blow his trumpet all the time.
You may think about me whatever you want. That is not the issue. Explain how i am bad by argument besides your emotions about me.
Secondly, you do not pay enough attention to my words and got carried away with your emotions, because as soon as criticized Charlie Habdo, i become an evil person in your eyes, hence you stopped paying attention and started presuming things about me.
Look carefully again. I did not say that both were equally guilty, but merely said that both were guilty of the same crime, though the quantity of their crime may be different but the quality is the same, and that is extremism.
You may think that i am looking bad but there are millions of others who share my POV, besides Muslims.
If you want to put a label on me, I am neither liberal nor conservative. The only thing that i always try to look for, is what bring more goodness to the society as whole, and i accept it without caring from which side it is coming.
As a thumb rule, I am in the favor of free speech too but if it is causing any harm to the society, i do not hesitate to curb it either. I do not support free speech or any liberty just for the sake of that liberty only. Free speech may be your ultimate goal but not mine. I look for inductive values of anything, which either you don’t or can’t.
Like, you cannot state or justify your position in the case of the internet recruitment by ISIS.
Can you tell me why ISIS should not be allowed to recruit new members to join in Jihad?
Going by your previously given argument that Charlie Habdo did not go the mosques to show cartoons, ISIS is also not going to anyone’s house to spread extremism. Both are using public platforms and people are free to choose what they want.
Do they not have the liberty to show solidarity with ISIS, in which way people show with Charlie Habdo in the unity rally?
Are you okay with the idea if the same numbers of people do another peaceful rally in the France, wearing the slogan that I am with those killers?
Atheris, counter my argument philosophically by better one, if you can, instead of telling me how evil and cruel you think of me. I am not that sort of person as you are assuming but just the opposite. But, i have to hit hard on some people to shake their previously form perception because they do not understand formal philosophical language. I do not talk to all people in the same way but which is the best to them.
One can peel the banana very easily not crack the coconut with that ease. It has to be hammered hard, otherwise it would not crack. Having said that, you must have noticed that i never cross my limit. That is my understanding of free speech.
Lastly, i want to draw you attention towards a very important issue.
As i used somewhat harsh language and also criticized those killed journalists, that created a bad image of mine in your mind, irrespective of the fact whether i am right or wrong. You got emotional about me just because i am criticizing who got killed by extremists.
This has not gone well with you and you thought that Zinnat cannot be a sane person because he is criticizing who were victims. How cruel he is as he is opposing who sacrificed their lives for the sake of upholding freedom of speech! He must be an evil person by heart. Right?
But, whether you will be able to realize or not, the fact of the matter is that i am right and you are wrong. But, that is not the issue anymore. This image of mine will continue in your mind even after this thread is over. And, whenever we will come in the front of one other again, you will not start afresh, but resumed with that evil image on mine. Next encounter will also add something further to that image. I am not saying that you will do that intentionally but that happens to most of the people, including me. Yes, the degree may vary.
Ideally, this should not happen but it happens. We cannot help it. Perceptions tend to start intruding in the mind as soon as emotions get involved. People became unable to think objectively and rationally and at last, emotions take over. People lost control on themselves and that causes kneejerk and insane reactions from the other side. Though, the person, who is arguing from the other side, is unaware of all this and still assuming that he has been doing the right thing all along.
This is what happened in the case of Charlie Habdo. Remember, this is not the first time when it provoked Muslims. It has done that before too. Had it has been stopped at that time, some journalists would have not been killed now. This killing is not a singular incident but a cumulative reaction of a long chain of events, which is still on.
It has to be stopped, in the first place, irrespective of the fact who is right or wrong, or less right or less wrong. That should be the first priority. And, it cannot be stopped ever if Charlie Habdo would be allowed what it is doing so far.
Forget about who is right or wrong ideologically, think about the getting the situation fixed. So, what are the solutions we have in our hand?
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Charlie Habdo is right and all fault is of those Muslim extremists. Now, what do you propose to do that such incidents would not happen again? Do you propose to eliminate the entire Muslim race from the earth, given that they either support those killing, and if not, they at least consider Charlie Habdo also guilty of provocation? Then, what is the way out?
Atheris, no matter in what way you look at the issue, at the end of the day, you have convince Muslims to stop this violence, given that you cannot eliminate them. Remember, no force would ever been able to stop Muslim terrorism from the outside, no matter how great it would be. That call must come from within the Muslim community. But, insulting their prophet would not go well with any Muslim, whether he reacts violently or not. By insulting their prophet, you are continuously darkening your bad image in their mind. Given that, why would they raise their voice against terrorism coming from their community?
At some point of time, they will also concede and think that whatever is happening, is either right or let us not interfere, at least. But, it is only they who can stop this. So, how can they be convinced ever if you cannot bring them to the table? And, how can they ever come to the table to discuss, unless and until, you would not stop provoking them?
And, lastly, groups like Charlie Habdo are assuming that they can insult Islam in the exact way which was used for Christianity, but that is not going to happen. Muslims are not the same as Christians. They will also hit back in which way they can. Christianity is a sinking ship but Islam is not, at least for now. Unlike Christians, who see Christianity more as a culture than faith, Islam is the matter of faith for Muslims.
You cannot continue insulting their Prophet yet expect them listen to you. It is not done.
Think about it.
with love,
sanjay
Just for the record, I am neither Muslim nor religious. Full support for Sanjay’s case and it is a pleasure to read well structured, well considered and wise thoughts.
Part of wisdom is how to discern the problem from distractions and how to remain focused on the actual nature of the problem. Well done Sanjay!
Thank you for your words.
First, let’s check the consistency of your position, zinnat.
A thought experiment: If there was a religion named Xlam, and it was a pantheistic religion which deemed the entirety of existence sacred, and any verbal or written/drawn attempt to represent the world with symbols sacrilegious, and they demanded that everybody, even people who AREN’T a member of their religion, abided by those rules, would you succumb to their demands and never speak, write or draw anything, OR would you point out that just because they regard something as sacred (like Muslims do Mohammed), it doesn’t mean everybody else has to as well?
I don’t think you understood what Sanjay said.
You are welcome.
The problem with the most of western people that they do not want to see this issue from the opposite side. They do not have the opportunity either. That is also a problem. But, i live and interact with Muslims a lot, thus aware of their POV. That is why i can deduct things up to the end and offer a solution.
The second issue is about wisdom, as you rightly point out. There are some qualities or understandings that come only with experience and age. There is no other way to have those. Most of the young minds at ILP like Atheris, Lev Muskin, Prism and many others live in the illusion that they have been reached at the bottom of all the issues. All codes have been cracked. Thus, instead of listening to those, who have been gone through their age and mindset, they consider people like me backward, foolish and not tuned to the modern world.
Typical modern young intellectuals, who consider every old person and notion backward, useless and wrong by default, without giving it a second thought.
with love,
sanjay
I don’t think you need to mention names (please edit out of respect for others).
I agree typical western minds are incapable of empathy of the intellect (understanding what others are thinking) let alone empathy of the heart (understanding what others are feeling). I see so much of the dialogue on ILP go in circles and often find it pointless to discuss anything,
Many of the people on ILP (the West) are not chronologically youthful as many are in their 50’s and beyond. It is the nature of individualistic societies that are in essence insecure and equate self esteem with strong opinions (hence the denial of free speech is the denial of self esteem and its associated strong opinions). I think it all depends on what a person perceives as the nature of the problem. In your discussion above, it is clear that the two of you are discussing two different problems. I support your view as your view is the only view that is getting to the heart of the problem and aims at a resolution rather than a continuation. Ultimately, this is a conflict, and a war, that the West desires more than life itself. All we can do is watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwdypLFy8Pk
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwdypLFy8Pk[/youtube]
It is ingrained within the hearts of men (and women).
Atheris,
You still are not getting what my exact intention is. You are still stuck to your narrow limit of thinking thus unable to see the whole picture.
I do not have any fix premise, except that the whole ambient should move towards more positivity.
I do not care much for the individuals. Before you get it wrong, let me clarify that it merely means that, if i have to chose between the suffering of an individual and a group, i would let an individual suffer instead of the a group. And, in the same way, i have to choose between a group and the whole of the society, i would let a group suffer instead of the whole of the society, if i cannot end the sufferings of both. But, remember, I am not talking about in the terms of present only but keeping the long term betterment of the society, as a whole.
In the case of not having a perfect solution, i would go for the better one amongst the lot, whatever it may be. If i cannot prevent the harm completely, i will try to lesson it as far as possible, at least.
Now, let me come to your post.
As you do not have any so you want to check mine. Okay, you are welcome. Let us do it.
Good. At least you are now paying attention. I appreciate that.
Atheris, there are many logical flaws in your analogy but i understood what you mean. So, instead of dismissing your argument on technicalities, which i can do very easily, let me address the crux of the issue.
Now, before i say anything, let me remind you that single premise that i have; I will do whatever either bring more goodness, or if not, will lessen the harm now and in the future, at least.
Though, your analogy poses an unrealistic situation, but let us face it and test the aforesaid premise by this.
Your thought experiment asks what I will do if there is such a religion, which takes objection to everything. Then, how i will tackle it given that it is not ready to discuss or listen anything, even within the reasonable limits. And, not only that, it also wants to dictate terms to others even in their issues. In the nutshell, you are asking what I will do if that religion is making the life of others difficult to unbearable limits.
But, contrary to you assumption, which is that this thought analogy is unanswerable according to what i proposed in the case of Muslims, the answer is very simple and clear.
Atheris, i do not believe having any fixed tools to deal with every situation. I am very flexible in that and my solutions will depend on the circumstances. I do not mind using any mean which can fulfill my only goal; I will do whatever either bring more goodness or if not, what will lessen the harm now and in the future, at least. And, that keeps me untied from strict ideologies. I can use either liberties or restriction, either discussion or confrontation, either peace of violence, whatever serves the purpose better. I also will not hesitate even using some violence if it can prevent bigger violence. Like, i have to kill a person to save the lives of many, so be it. But, that killing should bring something better. That is my only condition.
Remember, if the confrontation and harm is inevitable, which your thought analogy suggests, according to my premise, I have to minimize the harm now and in the future anyhow. Means, if there were actually any such religion, and there was absolutely no reasonable way to deal with it and it is causing harm constantly, i will not hesitate to suggest cutting it to such size, which would enforce it to come to the table and compromise on reasonable terms. That will minimize the harm. But, i will take that option only when there is no other such alternative left which can avoid violence, and secondly, all wrongdoings are from its side only. The other party is always reasonable.
Atheris, you do still not understand my exact intent. What i suggested in the case of Islamic terrorism, is not because i want to defend Islam or a religion at any cost. You are very much mistaken if you think so. Whether Islam is right or wrong as a religion, is an entirely different issue, and nothing to do with my suggestion. Here, i am seeing it as a social conflict issue only and offering a solution to deal with that, keeping both POV in the mind.
with love,
sanjay
zinnat13
IIRC, Lev mentioned that he is in his fifties. Bertrand Russell was 97-98 years old and he was an atheist, if we’re gonna be like that. Eastern mindset doesn’t comprehend the Western mindset either. And you’ve never been through what I have, nor have I been through what you have.
Your posts reek of bias and appeals to emotion.
The crux of the issue is that some Muslims, along with some Christians, think the world should revolve around their religious beliefs (with no proper evidence backing them up), and if it doesn’t the proper response is physical violence such as rape and murder.
The cartoons aren’t addressed at anybody specifically, rather at anybody interested. Know what I do when some Christians spread their propaganda, which happens regularly and I find it offensive? Take a guess. Hint: It doesn’t include physical violence of any kind. It does, however, include me getting over myself and realizing other people have the freedom to express their views even if I dislike them and yes, even if I find them horribly offensive. Muslims should get over themselves the same way, especially because, unlike my position which is rational, their is based purely on faith, so if anybody has the right to be pissed, it’s me, not them.
And again, it’s sick and repulsive to try and bring down Charlie Hebdo, mere cartoonists and satirists to the level of terrorists, saying they both intended a confrontation, as if Charlie Hebdo armed themselves and sought out the terrorists with the intention to kill them too.
Or maybe we should let Muslims have their way, give in to fear and just say “fuck freedom of speech, even though we can mock all other religions and things far less deserving of mockery, like science and basically everything else, let’s fuck freedom of speech in this particular case and ban the drawing of a pedophile, war-mongering sheep-herder for the sake of not hurting the feelings of ignorant, stubborn, malicious, aggressive, backwards group of people”. That’ll send a good message no doubt, namely that we are so afraid of them that we are willing to give up basic principles upon which Western society is built upon due to threats and violence. If they don’t like Western values, they can kindly fuck off back to the shithole they came from. Am I going to Pakistan and Iraq and telling them how to live their lives? No. That doesn’t mean I approve of everything that goes on there, but I don’t have the self-righteousness and audacity to go and disturb another culture I know little about. Yet, Muslims don’t appear to mind disturbing the West with their bullshit.
The example of France is famous because the situation escalated in a shooting spree. In Sweden Muslims, even though they constitute a minority in the country, are the majority of rapists and politicians who dare to POINT OUT that STATISTICAL FACT are removed from the office. Islam is slowly destroying the West because the West has been too nice and tolerant of Islamic intolerant bullshit, afraid to be called bigoted/racist/offensive etc. For what? Yeah, for pointing out truth and not letting Muslims shit all over their culture and country.
When Americans come into the middle-east they’re only in it for money and oil under the concealment of democracy and removing nuclear warheads etc (which I agree with) and yet when Muslims do almost the same freaking thing in the West, I’m supposed to be sympathetic?
No. I will NOT respect Mohammed for the same reason I won’t respect Hitler, I find them to be disgusting people who promoted horrible things, and Muslims and neo-Nazis can kiss my ass if they don’t like it. I don’t care if some people think of either of them as prophets or even Gods.
Why do ISIS not have the right to recruit people? Because we know they’re a real organization with real threats that they intend to carry out. If you play games over internet, specifically, Call of Duty, you can often hear kids (usually early teen/preteen) angrily screaming how they will fucking rape your mother after you kill them repeatedly in a video game. Because of the context (angry 12 year old who doesn’t even know who you are), those claims aren’t taken seriously by the government or hackers. If 12 year olds formed a real organization consisting of hackers who are KNOWN (proven) to find out your location and send people to rape your mother, THEN the threats of 12 year olds would be taken just as seriously.
All religions are sinking ships. Islam will sink much faster than Christianity if it keeps going like this, demonstrating how oppressive and inhumane it is to anybody with half a brain to observe it. Christianity is the dominant religion precisely because it is mostly peaceful and hides its sickness and maliciousness under the veil of good, Islam exposes it too much to succeed in the modern world.
Lets not condemn all religious. There are sects for reasons. For that matter, not all atheists follow the same ways or beliefs.
I’m going to weigh in on this. Free speech is beautiful… from someone who’s been banned from every message board except ILP, I can attest that free speech is wonderful. From someone who’s even had the administrators go back and delete every thread I was ever in, which is above and beyond for a message board, I can say, free speech is wonderful. The problem is violence. Now i personally wouldn’t create a cartoon of Mohammad doing things that Mohammad didn’t factually do, but if the guy factually did it… that’s not my fucking problem. And if people don’t like facts. Fuck them! We have something that the more civilized world has used for millennia… social sanctions, simply ignoring someone, after offering a theorem that disproves their behavior. If they repeat the behavior, we continue to ignore them. We don’t KILL them. and I just saw Kris’s post before mine went through… I’ll condemn all religious… everything religions claim, atheists have been doing before them. Atheists are the real target in this world, because they are the most upright, not these quasi atheists who have a God complex… real down to earth atheists. They didn’t worship Idols, they didn’t sacrifice animals, they didn’t have prejudices against races or nationalities… atheists have been at the holy game much longer than the religions, and they have a lot more to offer too. Atheists know that they act out of a purer motive than theists, theists believe that some big daddy to be scared of is going to solve all the problems for them, atheists take responsibility for themselves, and when they do something good, their motive is pure, not out of fear of some deity. No theist or deist can make that claim.
To be fair, Ecmandu, atheists are still held accountable for their actions by other people and the governing body, so we can’t really know how pure their motives are either. And atheists too sometimes have prejudices against other races and nationalities, but perhaps in smaller proportion and for different reasons.
I think that anybody who is confident in truth of their own beliefs is pro-free speech. Only people who are afraid of being exposed and who realize their beliefs are fragile would want to protect them free speech.
I am well aware of that fact they will feel somehow offended with that. I realized that at the time of writing that post, hesitated for a moment, but ultimately decided to carry on with that.
Jr, it is good to not to be personal and respect others. I agree with that but, it is also necessary to point out the mistakes of others, if they are not able to realize that on their own. Someone has to tell them that they are getting it wrong, even if they feel offended by that because that is in their interest. To me, their interest is more important to me rather than their displeasure towards me.
They may or may not understand this but i have to say what i have to say. I know from my experience in the life that silence becomes useless if used where it is necessary to speak out.
Secondly, i did not try to insult them. My intention was just to warn them not to be carried away with whatever knowledge they have. They must understand that it is not the end of the world.
That is true but my guess is that those three people mentioned by me are young.
That is precisely the problem, as one can see in the Atheris’s posts. He does not care about anything else but just want to plead for freedom of speech, irrespective of the fact that it is causing more harm than goodness. He is confusing it with ultimate goal, which it is certainly not. But, his perception ran into trouble when ISIS demanded the same freedom of speech to spread its agenda. Now, he becomes confused what to do with freedom of speech, take it or leave it.
The same issue is with Charlie Habdo. Freedom of speech has been become a prestige point for them. They are no more interested either in considering its limits or implications. They just want to push it to unreasonable limits. This has to be stopped, if we want to fix this. Otherwise, both sides will carry on with their agendas and suffer too.
with love,
sanjay
No, he is not. I am quite sure that he is lying if he says so. There are very less chances that i am mistaken about him.
I will reply the rest of the post later.
with love,
sanjay