Air & Water wrote:
Yes, but I also think people should be able to hate openly too. It’s human nature and hate serves a good purpose. I know we are taught to avoid it at all costs, because of Christianity - but hate has its purpose.
Well, I’d agree that the expression of hate has a purpose–it gets those thoughts and feelings out so they don’t turn to action–a sort of catharsis–but if the psychological state of hating (someone or some group) itself has a purpose, what do you think that is?
I’m content to allow all speech and draw the line at speech vs action. If someone incites a crowd to violence, it’s the crowd that commits the violence who should be held responsible, not the inciter. It’s unambiguous, objective, and clean. But I understand that the point is to prevent the violence, not punish those who commit violence, so I appreciate the arguments coming from the other side, but I happen to value free speech to the point where I’d be willing to tolerate hate speech if it meant maximizing our freedom to speak our minds. Unfortunately for me, what I want isn’t always what’s right.
Max wrote:
As a person who works with the Law, I think we must make a distinction between two types of “hate speech”:
a) I don’t want immigrants in my country
b) kill all the immigrants
Or we could say
a) I hate all the Jews
b) kill all the Jews
The first examples are personal opinions which not all the best argumentation in the world can change. The second examples are open examples of incitement to crime.
I think that, when most people, most sane people, criticize hate speech that’s what they’re targeting. Not simple opinions or unpopular beliefs, but the spread of ideas that can potentially lead to mindless acts of violence.
How many guys in the USA kills a lot of random people based essentially on hate speech?
There’s a line to be drawn between legality (right to personal opinion) and illegality (incitement to crime).
When you call types a) and b) hate speech, speaking as someone who works with the law, are you saying they’re both illegal? Or just type b)? And are you saying incitement to crime must strictly come in the form of b), i.e. someone literally instructs a person or a group of people to commit a crime? Or can judges use more discretion than that, as in these people committed violence in response to so-and-so’s speech (ex. J6… Trump never told them to break into the Capitol but his speech, they say, caused them to do it).
Max wrote:
None of them with so many examples of hate crimes as the USA.
And what do we conclude from that? That the US is more prone to hate? Or that now-a-days almost anything counts as a hate crime?
Air & Water wrote:
Colonisation happened because of Christianity…
Explain that one.
Air & Water wrote:
They shouldn’t have them. Not to conjure up their God anyway. That’s why the countries that resisted Abrahamism are one of the most stable countries around. Because they did not grant freedom to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I’m going to say my honest thoughts.
So if someone said “I am a Christian” they would be arrested. But the crime here is being Christian, not the fact that he said he was Christian. Is that right?
Now if someone said “I’m not Christian but I think Christianity should be legal” then he has committed no crime and will not be arrest. Am I right so far?
Air & Water wrote:
Not to those who wish to take freedom of speech and use it for war and chaos.
But you don’t think religious people believe in what they’re saying? You don’t think they’re trying to explain why their wars and their chaos, as distasteful is it may be, are justified? That would be the proper use of free speech, wouldn’t it?
Air & Water wrote:
It is DIRECT DEATH THREATS like e-mailing a Jewish politician saying one is going to kill him, or telling a Jew that you are going to shoot him with a gun.
So in addition to Max’s b) (kill all Jews) which is an instruction to others to commit a crime, there’s also c) “I’m going to kill all Jews” which is a statement of intent.
Air & Water wrote:
I also have the right to think and say I think Christianity should go away, and someone needs to destroy the Jews AND the Palestinians in Gaza so the fighting will actually stop. So there will be nothing to fight over anymore, and the world can see peace. Destroying Israel, just wiping it off the globe, along with Palestine will sting for all three narcissistic religions, since Israel and Palestine is the epicentre of it all.
That would certainly get rid of that particular conflict, but I don’t think you’d see peace. You’d probably just see new conflicts arising from the ashes. Destroying both Israel and Palestine would definitely shake up world dynamics on various fronts (political, social, religious, etc.) and probably stir up sentiments of anger and hatred all over the world against those who destroyed Israel and Palestine and their supporters and detractors. Can you imagine what the pro-Palestine activists on college campuses would do? They’d riot in the streets to the point of possibly starting a civil war. Not to mention all the relatives and family members of Israeli and Palestinian citizens around the world who will advocate for revenge. And it wouldn’t be limited to them. All sorts of factions, organizations, countries and such would engage in violence and aggression all over the world to the point of creating whole new conflicts and wars.
MrAuthoritarian wrote:
Not all, but maybe a few here and there.
Even with changing the minds of a few people is still enough a worthy goal.
You can only change the minds of those who are open to having their minds changed. Most people will enter debate with no such intentions whatsoever. The intention is almost always to prove your points right and destroy your adversary’s. In these cases, the immediate knee-jerk reaction of a mind whose point has just been challenged is to scramble for a response that rises to the challenge, even if that means quickly making something up on the spot. The last thing such a mind wants is to concede his adversary’s point.
Air & Water wrote:
You must not know how these religions operate, how they work.
THEY DO NOT NEGOTIATE.
THEY ARE SET AND STONE ABOUT HOW IT’S GOING TO BE.
They are not moldable and peaceful like Buddhism, Taoism, flexible like Hinduism
They are called stagnant religions for a reason. Those religions like buddhism are called fluid religions for a reason.
It is only up to those fortunate ones like myself who somehow miraculously get out of Christianity. It was my own choice and no one convinced me in fact most people tried and still try to pull me back into the cesspool.
Surely you must understand that belonging to a group like Christians or Muslims or whatever does not make you a cookie cutter copy of everyone else in the group. I think Mr. Auth’s point is that with a large enough group size, there’s bound to be some who are willing to change their minds if given enough reason and evidence (although they will be rare, I agree). I assume you’re one of them if your story about leaving Christianity is true.
Air & Water wrote:
No, I think it is counter-productive to kill people inside those holy places to get ones point across about anti-Abrahamism. Although when going to war with a country like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, I think mosques should be a prime target to hit the heart of the country and the people.
So you’re not ok with shooting up a church but you are ok with bombing a church in times of war? Why is one ok and not the other? You said the former is counter-productive because it doesn’t get your point across about anti-Abrahamism. Well, neither does bombing a church in times of war.
Maxx wrote:
You believe that without Abrahamism there would be much less intolerance in the world.
He gives me the same impression. While he might have a point (I can’t prove it wrong), I think the more likely outcome would be that another religion, just as fanatical, just as intolerant and bigoted, would take its place.
Air & Water wrote:
I am a scorpio as well.
Huh? How is that possible? That’s like saying “My birthday’s in March and April at the same time.”
