Please Complain to Comedy Central

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

I don't "hate Islam" anymore than I "hate" other religious beliefs. At any rate, I certainly don't hate Muslims and I have no desire to go to war with anyone.

Moreover, I am not a cartoonist.


I understand that people can be offended. I have never disputed that. I have never had an issue with these same people pleading for media outlets to show restraint, or self-censorship either (as people have the right to do that). The only thing I am against is the demand that by law, Islam be immune from mockery, insult (and according to some) criticism if people happen to be offended.

Do u get entertainment and thrills from people that mock religions, there are many people that insulted Islam and nothing was done to them, but mockery of religous beliefs will not be tolerated therefore banned.

 

[shuraimfan4lyf]

Have you ever taken part in a war?

I lol'd at that.

 

[Skavau]

Yes. Like anybody else who is offensive.

So you don't believe in freedom of speech then. Excellent, well I take it then if someone here happens to find a Muslim promoting Islam as offensive (and you know there are lots of takers for that) you will have no problem in them being censored?

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

Gabriel, this is off-topic. I await your answer to the following question:

If I decide to promote secularism, humanism, anti-theism or something similar - should I be censored if someone finds it offensive?

Depends on how u promoted, elaborate ur question if u can

 

[Skavau]

Do u get entertainment and thrills from people that mock religions, there are many people that insulted Islam and nothing was done to them, but mockery of religous beliefs will not be tolerated therefore banned.

So in your ideal world, anyone who insulted, or mocked Islam or religious beliefs in general on the internet should have their ISP informed and threatened with the suspension of their service?

Depends on how u promoted, elaborate ur question if u can

The question was to Gabriel who made the specific claim that merely being offended is reason enough for something to be prohibited. He believes that there exists a right to not be offended. He is mistaken.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

So you don't believe in freedom of speech then. Excellent, well I take it then if someone here happens to find a Muslim promoting Islam as offensive (and you know there are lots of takers for that) you will have no problem in them being censored?

On the contrary. I would actually demand that he would be censored because anybody that is offended by Islam would never be a Muslim and this defies the purpose of Islam.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

So in your ideal world, anyone who insulted, or mocked Islam or religious beliefs in general on the internet should have their ISP informed and threatened with the suspension of their service?.

No. In my ideal world people would be mature enough to know how to speak without offending each others.

 

[DataPacRat]

Have you ever taken part in a war?

I'm fortunate in that in my country, there have been no significant external threats to our liberty in my lifetime, and the processes we have for dealing with internal threats to liberty are currently functioning. I am participating in the defence of my country's liberty in every way I am currently able; I have offered myself as a political candidate for my local riding in the next election, if nobody else in my party demonstrates they have a better chance of being elected than me. (I'm well aware that my atheism makes my chances of being elected near infinitesimal, but politics is about more than winning elections.) I have made a conscious study of war, and know, at least in abstract, some of its horrors, and am doing my best to prevent my country's situation from deteriorating to the point where war is necessary. Should my liberty, my rights, and my freedom come under serious threat, or those of my family, or my neighbours, or my countrymen, I will defend them to the best of my ability.

What might /your/ personal involvement in war be?

 

[Skavau]

On the contrary. I would actually demand that he would be censored because anybody that is offended by Islam would never be a Muslim and this defies the purpose of Islam.

Scientologists might find Xenu.tv offensive (and they do, actually). They will demand that the website be terminated because it upsets them. Christians might find the SkepticsAnnotatedBible offensive and they will demand that the website be removed. Muslims (Adnan Oktar certainly thinks so) might find Richard Dawkins website offensive and then they will demand that the website be removed. Perhaps some Evangelical Christians in the United States might find Heavy Metal offensive and insist that every single archive of metal music and every single active heavy metal band website be taken down due to their hurt feelings.

Do you not see the problem you're getting into here? Your ideals would annihilate the concept of free speech. All it would take is someone to declare some profound offense at a message and the message is censored.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Scientologists might find Xenu.tv offensive (and they do, actually). They will demand that the website be terminated because it upsets them. Christians might find the SkepticsAnnotatedBible offensive and they will demand that the website be removed. Muslims (Adnan Oktar certainly thinks so) might find Richard Dawkins website offensive and then they will demand that the website be removed. Perhaps some Evangelical Christians in the United States might find Heavy Metal offensive and insist that every single archive of metal music and every single active heavy metal band website be taken down due to their hurt feelings.

Do you not see the problem you're getting into here? Your ideals would annihilate the concept of free speech. All it would take is someone to declare some profound offense at a message and the message is censored.

I do see the problem here. Funny, not?

 

[Skavau]

No. In my ideal world people would be mature enough to know how to speak without offending each others.

It is impossible. As I said, I have directly encountered people that have been offended by my metaphysical stance. By your own logic I would have to spend my entire life stepping on eggshells around everyone to avoid causing them grievances.

 

[Skavau]

I do see the problem here. Funny, not?

It is a recipe for "nice" totalitarianism. Your friendly police state censoring all information someone deems as "inappropriate".

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

So in your ideal world, anyone who insulted, or mocked Islam or religious beliefs in general on the internet should have their ISP informed and threatened with the suspension of their service?



The question was to Gabriel who made the specific claim that merely being offended is reason enough for something to be prohibited. He believes that there exists a right to not be offended. He is mistaken.

No i would not inform their ISP and cut their services, but make sure they delete the mockery if not then I will take them to court.
Yeh but the cartoon mockery is not only offending but also discriminating a religion and other things too it is also promoting fight and war.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

It is impossible. As I said, I have directly encountered people that have been offended by my metaphysical stance. By your own logic I would have to spend my entire life stepping on eggshells around everyone to avoid causing them grievances.

Exactly. We should step eggshells around everyone. This is a very good discerption. You would see that this sort of communication would teach us to embrace the virtues of everybody on the one hand and to acknowledge our mistakes when we see that we make them.

This is the beauty of communication.

 

[Skavau]

No i would not inform their ISP and cut their services, but make sure they delete the mockery if not then I will take them to court.

So you believe in internet censorship. That's all I wanted to hear, thanks.

Yeh but the cartoon mockery is not only offending but also discriminating a religion and other things too.

All mockery, by definition that focuses on a subject is "discriminating" it.

 

[Skavau]

Exactly. We should step eggshells around everyone. This is a very good discerption. You would see that this sort of communication would teach us to embrace the virtues of everybody on the one hand and to acknowledge our mistakes when we see that we make them.

This is the beauty of communication.

No we shouldn't. You have given no reason as to why we should step on eggshells around people. Your only claim is that feeling offended or suffering hurt feelings is a good enough reason to impose restrictions on commentary. You have given no reason for why this would be the case and clearly have no idea of the ludicrious totalitarian consequences that it would entail if imposed. A crude example is simple. I enjoy heavy metal music. Why should I have my experience curtailed because some evangelical christian deep in the bible belt happens to find it upsetting? By everything you have said, I would have to. Why?

And you still haven't answered this question:

If someone is offended by me being an atheist, should I be compelled pretend to be otherwise?

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

No we shouldn't. You have given no reason as to why we should step on eggshells around people. Your only claim is that feeling offended or suffering hurt feelings is a good enough reason to impose restrictions on commentary. You have given no reason for why this would be the case and clearly have no idea of the ludicrious totalitarian consequences that it would entail if imposed.

And you still haven't answered this question:

If someone is offended by me being an atheist, should I be compelled pretend to be otherwise?

No, you should peacefully communicate with him for eternity if that it what it takes - until one of you proves the other wrong.

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

So you believe in internet censorship. That's all I wanted to hear, thanks.


All mockery, by definition that focuses on a subject is "discriminating" it.

So then discrimination is not allowed, its like calling a black ur a negro or some other things that would offend them, and doing that can put u in jail in Britain.

 

[Skavau]

No, you should peacefully communicate with him for eternity if that it what it takes - until one of you proves the other wrong.

Oh, but they are 'offended'. Your criteria was someone being 'offended'. You cannot backtrack now. Is being offended a reason for legislation or is it not?

At any rate, I edited this last part into my post just prior to seeing your response: I enjoy heavy metal music. Why should I have my experience curtailed because some evangelical christian deep in the bible belt happens to find it upsetting? By everything you have said, I would have to. Why?

 

[Skavau]

So then discrimination is not allowed, its like calling a black ur a negro or some other things that would offend them, and doing that can put u in jail in Britain.

Have you read the articles on race on these parody encyclopedias?

At any rate, satirizing religion is not discriminatory. There's no such valid methodology as being 'discriminatory' to a religion that exists. The cartoonists are mocking and insulting concepts and beliefs. They are not inciting violence towards others and they are not proposing death towards others.