Hi pygoscelis
I can not feel sympathy for a person for his beliefs being attacked when his beliefs include the belief that those who don't hold his beliefs are justly tortured for all eternity.
That's funny, I haven't seen you even try to argue against any of my arguments in the other thread. So what is it you're saying here? Because I believe divine punishment for evil is just, I am not worthy of any form of sympathy from your part? Then how hypocrite are you? Because you yourself are acting as though two rights make a wrong, trying to balance out what you believe is an in-balanced situation by depriving me of sympathy, and even expressing your loathing of my viewpoints. But when God would do something the kind, oh all hell breaks loose (if you'll forgive the pun). Oh, or maybe you're allowed to, but God isn't, because you're so much better then God? Really? and I'm the one with the double standards? Or are you by any chance projecting?
And to then talk about slander and dimpomacy? Dimplomacy after you declare the other to be "evil"? The double standard simply doesn't leave any opening for it.
If you'd actually had cared to read my posts in the other thread you'll clearly see that I haven't labeled anybody as evil. However I am realistic enough to understand that evil people exist. You disagree? Or did you not bother to read my comments on the other thread before making judgement of me? Oh wait, I almost overlooked, that's right! Who's the one making judgements here! Real top-class pygoscelis, I thought you were better then that...
The eggshells surrounding religion need to be crushed. The wall of sensitivity needs to be brought down. It should not be any more taboo to criticize religious ideologies than to criticize political or economic ideologies.
Again, this has nothing to do with the right to criticise or voice opinions. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. In fact that so many people are actually unjustly hiding behind freedom of speech all the time is actually doing more damages to the concept then Islam would ever dream to. This is about slander. If the authored wanted to bring his opinions in speech there were a million other ways he could have done so. But he choose to make a mockery of a person, instead of an intellectual debate about a religion.
Yes there should be no taboos.
Yes, people should be allowed to criticize viewpoints.
No, that doesn't justifies these cartoons.
So try again, fire your best personal attacks and flawed arguments at me. Give me the best you've got.
Hi Skavau
You'll have to explain how mockery and/or insults towards belief systems can be slanderous.
Mockery and insults are slanderous by default, I don't believe that requires an additional explanation.
And you'd have to extend that defence for every belief system as a consequence of it - which would have the absolute consequence of nulling all forms of criticism and humour ever.
Are you commiting an irrelevant appeal to consequence? If for the sake of argument my viewpoint has an undesirable consequence that doesn't make it any less true.
not owned by the government have no compulsion to observe the diplomatic desires of the government. The paper in question is an independent liberal paper based in Arhus.
I strongly disagree. Newspapers have an ethical responsibility, they form the minds of the masses. If they don't live up to this responsibility, or even worse ignore it by choice; then perhaps there aught to be some form of compulsion keeping them in check.
They don't have to have any. There is no right not to be offended in free speech in any nation that recognises it. Or at least there ought not to be.
There's every right to be offended when somebody does or says something offensive. Just because some choose to forfeit their right of being offended, and consider it acceptable, doesn't mean we have to follow them and lower our standards of what's acceptable as well. And as I mentioned already freedom of speech does not cover slander It never has under any law in any country.
I'm not saying you have to accept it. I understand that it might be a blasphemy to you - but you and others ought to understand that you don't get to prohibit things based on this. You don't get to censor others based on this.
I never implied censor, again this is not about freedom of speech. It's not about the message, but rather about the form. If somebody has certain opinions about the prophet, and feels a need to publish them in a dependant paper, then let him write an argumented article, rather then resorting to slander.
That really is the case, I'm afraid. I could start making up stupid comments about historical figures that have been dead for centuries and do you honestly think I would end up in court for it? Look at the criticism of even recently deceased people by journalists. They are welcome to it, however incorrect or ridiculous they may be.
I don't think it is, I think in most countries relatives can still sue. And if they can't then that's wrong. Just because a person no longer lives shouldn't make it allright to slander them.
Indeed people speculate on Gordon Brown's motives, agendas and ideals all of the time both in the context of humour and in the context of making points. Should he take all of these to court if they perhaps get him wrong?
Again, whether or not other cases choose to go to court is up to them, but just because other people forfeit that right, and accept it, doesn't mean we should do the same.
Hi KAding
If that is so, do you believe religious texts or speech should be held to those some standards? If not, why not? In your opinion is, say, the Qu'ran not slanderous and undiplomatic towards unbelievers? In my opinion it is.
No I don't think the Qur'an is slanderous towards unbelievers. As is the case for the other posters, you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between freedom of speech and slander. I'll give you an example.
If I were to publish in a newspaper:
"people who have loud parties at their house 'till 6 in the morning are jerks"
Then that is merely voicing my opinion and falls under freedom of speech.
If I were to publish in a newspaper:
"My neighbour's a real jerk, and he throws parties 'till 6 in the morning"
Then that's slander.