'Freedom' of speech

[_sabotage_]

Yes, you are the one who started talking about Jesus:

I'm not really interested in responding to you anymore after your contemptuous posts earlier in this thread. I'll just say that if Jesus thinks men having sex with men is a sin and that this an impulse that needs to be repressed, then f*ck Jesus.

You gave Jesus an opinion he never expressed. I called you out on it.

[mrswdk]

If i fart on your kid for fun and the next day you come at my house with an AK47 to murder me and my family, would your defense be "he incited me to murder"?

Don't you guys have crime passionnel, where people can be acquitted of murder because of their emotional state? Unless that's just some historic thing.

[mrswdk]

Religion is something you choose to do. It is a belief you have, and it is a nonsensical one at that.

1 - your position that there is no deity is also a belief, given your lack of means for proving that non-existence

2 - many would say that your belief that pig farming and human slavery can somehow be equated is also nonsensical

[Metsfanmax]

Yes, you are the one who started talking about Jesus:

I'm not really interested in responding to you anymore after your contemptuous posts earlier in this thread. I'll just say that if Jesus thinks men having sex with men is a sin and that this an impulse that needs to be repressed, then f*ck Jesus.

You gave Jesus an opinion he never expressed. I called you out on it.

I think you missed the word "if" in that sentence.

[Metsfanmax]

Religion is something you choose to do. It is a belief you have, and it is a nonsensical one at that.

1 - your position that there is no deity is also a belief, given your lack of means for proving that non-existence

I did not express the position that there is no deity.

2 - many would say that your belief that pig farming and human slavery can somehow be equated is also nonsensical

I know that. People did say exactly that in another thread. What is your point?

[betiko]

If i fart on your kid for fun and the next day you come at my house with an AK47 to murder me and my family, would your defense be "he incited me to murder"?

Don't you guys have crime passionnel, where people can be acquitted of murder because of their emotional state? Unless that's just some historic thing.

not sure we had that in france long ago or not, if we did that was probably 18th or 19th century material. I know that somewhere in the early 20th century italians were still doing that concerning cheating wifes/husbands and stuff.

[mrswdk]

Religion is something you choose to do. It is a belief you have, and it is a nonsensical one at that.

1 - your position that there is no deity is also a belief, given your lack of means for proving that non-existence

I did not express the position that there is no deity.

So your position is that a deity possibly exists? Then why do you look down on people who believe there is one?

2 - many would say that your belief that pig farming and human slavery can somehow be equated is also nonsensical

I know that. People did say exactly that in another thread. What is your point?

The point is that it's just, like, our opinions, dude. No need to be condescending.

[Metsfanmax]

So your position is that a deity possibly exists? Then why do you look down on people who believe there is one?

For the same reason that I look down on people who believe in invisible garden fairies or the Loch Ness monster. People normally don't just believe that a "deity exists," they have a specific conception of one and a specific conception of how that deity has affected our world, without providing sufficient evidence for this claim. It is possible that invisible garden fairies exist, but I don't bank on it much.

2 - many would say that your belief that pig farming and human slavery can somehow be equated is also nonsensical

I know that. People did say exactly that in another thread. What is your point?

The point is that it's just, like, our opinions, dude. No need to be condescending.

It's not just, like, our opinions, dude. People's lives are made worse or destroyed because of these "opinions." Religion is a negative force on this world because people change the way they live because of their belief in these deities. Preferring the New York Jets is an opinion; believing that the Abrahamic God exists and has directed you how to live is more than just an opinion.

Aside from that, this is a scientific question. And just as I would be unflinching in calling someone incorrect who denies the reality of general relativity, I am unflinching in calling someone incorrect who makes claims such as that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[Phatscotty]

Goes back to protected species. Free speech is fine, along as you don't mention - ......., .........., .........,

You can't exclude some topics from conversation and pretend that you have free speech. When it comes to the difference between flaming and baiting. Commentary and opinion are one thing. Saying something is something. Can be libel, countries with both free press and strong libel laws have less faux outrage and more constructive and brave discussion.

yup, if there are limits, then it's cant truly be Freedom. Others may go ahead and say limits are needed, and that's fine so long as they don't do so in the name of Freedom or still claim to be Free. That's why i like it plain and simple, for all to understand, nothing tricky to be litigated about what a certain word may or may not mean. '...Shall NOT be infringed, period'

[Phatscotty]

Yes, you are the one who started talking about Jesus:

I'm not really interested in responding to you anymore after your contemptuous posts earlier in this thread. I'll just say that if Jesus thinks men having sex with men is a sin and that this an impulse that needs to be repressed, then f*ck Jesus.

You gave Jesus an opinion he never expressed. I called you out on it.

Honestly, I don't mind. It's people that go around spouting 'what Jesus thinks' according to their own personal narrow wants and needs of course, that I tended to avoid in the first place.

[Phatscotty]

Far be it from me to stop Mets from exposing his hypocrisy. I'd be happier if he was as open all the time.

He uses a wide brush to paint all of Christianity inherently homophobic and in doing so is using the same approach that the Christians who are homophobic use to be homophobic.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

[Phatscotty]

Those kamikaze fundamentalist were doing coke, earing pork, hanging with strippers and drinking alcohol just prior to the event.

Several field agents were running investigations on them but got called off. The guy who most resented being called off was dismissed, and got a new job in WTC security in September 2001.

There is more evidence linking them to the US than to any other group or organization.

I don't know why you don't educate yourselves on the event but instead continually spread whatever imaginings you have.

Remembering I am from Minnesota and paid a lot of attention to Zaccarias Maussawi and how that situation went do-wn just before 9-11, I remember hearing the coke and stripper stories too. But how do we know that was true. I never seemed to doubt it, but have always figured it was one of those things, once implanted in the mind, take root whether true or not. Kinda like the way when Uday n Qusay Hussein were taken out, the little tidbit about how they found the bodies with soiled underwear and bags full of viagra...... cannot unsee. To me, just including something like that is interesting in the first place. What was the source for the coke n hookers stuff, in Miami was it?

[Phatscotty]

Sorry cowboy, but Jesus said to be aware of those who came in his name and that we shall know them by their fruits. Paul's one of yours, enjoy him as you will.

Again, there's no direct evidence Jesus said that, or anything else he is reported to have said. Jesus left no inscriptions, no writings, no videotape, not even a bit of graffiti in the sand.

Any words reported to us as the words of Jesus came from (maybe) second-hand, and (mostly) third-hand and fourth-hand sources. The line you cite came from someone who wrote anonymously. The name "Matthew" was not ascribed to him until sometime in the 2nd Century; he certainly did not claim to be the apostle Matthew, nor did he write any events in the first person. He was a third-hand source at best, and his reporting of what Jesus may have said is highly suspect.

I'm with you on all the Dukky, keeping in mind what human beings tend to do with things they are in control of and hae the power to alter as they see fit, for whatever reason they seem fit. and I don't want to get into the underlying topic for this, but I wonder, even though there is no proof Jesus said anything he has been said to have said....cannot an idiom still be wise words, regardless of who said them or who didn't?

[Phatscotty]

Sorry, I'm not a Jew, nor do I esteem Paul's writings as anything other than Roman revisionism of Christianity.

And you didn't say a book, you referred specifically to Jesus. As you are suggesting he is promoting hate crimes, you could be sued for libel and for making false accusations.

Your first statement makes me wonder, since you recognize that modern christianity and essentially all its practices are heavily influenced by roman revisionism, how can you be a believer?

This is something i have discussed a little with some of the christians i actually know and thus far i hane yet to get an explanation.

Gimme a crack at it. I recognize the influences you speak of and probably many more. Firstly, does that mean automatically the results or the messages passed down are bad? Or that the Romans, for one, did it with bad intentions to harm mankind? Perhaps one aspect was intended to address a real ill of humanity? I grant many were likely focused on making ruled subjects more docile, but what about the other way around.

[mrswdk]

So your position is that a deity possibly exists? Then why do you look down on people who believe there is one?

For the same reason that I look down on people who believe in invisible garden fairies or the Loch Ness monster. People normally don't just believe that a "deity exists," they have a specific conception of one and a specific conception of how that deity has affected our world, without providing sufficient evidence for this claim. It is possible that invisible garden fairies exist, but I don't bank on it much.

I consider the bunch of arbitrary moral rules that you have made up for yourself to be pretty Loch Ness-esque. You don't see me getting on my high horse about how much of a clown you are though.

2 - many would say that your belief that pig farming and human slavery can somehow be equated is also nonsensical

I know that. People did say exactly that in another thread. What is your point?

The point is that it's just, like, our opinions, dude. No need to be condescending.

It's not just, like, our opinions, dude. People's lives are made worse or destroyed because of these "opinions." Religion is a negative force on this world because people change the way they live because of their belief in these deities.

And many more people's lives and societies benefit from their religious principles. How can you sit there and say that religion's overall effect on humanity is negative?

[Metsfanmax]

I consider the bunch of arbitrary moral rules that you have made up for yourself to be pretty Loch Ness-esque. You don't see me getting on my high horse about how much of a clown you are though.

You made like 15 separate responses to me in that thread telling me I was wrong, during which you implied that I am naive, hypocritical and that I don't understand logic. (And now you're calling me a clown, so I think your point answers itself.)

But at any rate, the great thing is that as people who are interested in truth and not in pissing contests, we can ignore all that and focus on the actual question: is it rational to believe in a personal god? If you would rather focus on how condescending you think I am being by saying "no, it is not rational," all it demonstrates is that you'd rather not actually engage the content, in which case I am not interested in having the discussion with you.

And many more people's lives and societies benefit from their religious principles.

No. Many people believe that they are happy because of their religion. However, we don't have the counterfactual, so it's impossible to evaluate the truth value of your claim. What we do see are people who are raised from a very young age to believe that God is watching over them, thinking that God is an important part of life and that it brings comfort and joy to them. But they may very well have been even happier if they hadn't in fact been born being told that YOU ARE A SINNER and always will be, and that an ancient guy got nailed to a cross 2000 years ago because of it. If you present someone with the idea of giving up something that has been a core part of their identity for their entire conscious lives, of course that is going to feel threatening. That doesn't mean that their religious principles actually provide a benefit, compared to the situation where they hadn't been raised with them at all.

In fact, if the evidence says anything at all, it is that the people who are the happiest (for example, the Nordic countries) that are also the least religious. Religion may provide a source of comfort for those who live in places where their lives are already miserable, but it's often (organized) religion that is causing their lives to be so miserable.

[mrswdk]

But at any rate, the great thing is that as people who are interested in truth and not in pissing contests, we can ignore all that and focus on the actual question: is it rational to believe in a personal god? If you would rather focus on how condescending you think I am being by saying "no, it is not rational," all it demonstrates is that you'd rather not actually engage the content, in which case I am not interested in having the discussion with you.

I didn't engage you to object to your lack of belief, I engaged you to address your objectionable attitude (i.e. your saying that you think less of people if they are religious and then equating following a world religion to a belief in garden fairies or the Loch Ness monster). I don't see what you think puts you in a position to judge other people.

And many more people's lives and societies benefit from their religious principles.

No. Many people believe that they are happy because of their religion.

Perhaps you could explain to me what the difference between believing you are happy and actually being happy is.

Religion may provide a source of comfort for those who live in places where their lives are already miserable, but it's often (organized) religion that is causing their lives to be so miserable.

Assuming that you can substantiate this claim with more than just a selection of anecdotes, what you are talking about is not the existence of religion itself but the practices of (some) religious institutions. And just as governments, enterprises, lobby groups, unions, employers and one's extended family can have a negative effect on an individual's life, so too can religious institutions. Give anyone power over someone else and it increases the numbers of ways in which their behavior could adversely affect the other person. I don't see why you get to use that as evidence that religion itself is bad.

[_sabotage_]

Those kamikaze fundamentalist were doing coke, earing pork, hanging with strippers and drinking alcohol just prior to the event.

Several field agents were running investigations on them but got called off. The guy who most resented being called off was dismissed, and got a new job in WTC security in September 2001.

There is more evidence linking them to the US than to any other group or organization.

I don't know why you don't educate yourselves on the event but instead continually spread whatever imaginings you have.

Remembering I am from Minnesota and paid a lot of attention to Zaccarias Maussawi and how that situation went do-wn just before 9-11, I remember hearing the coke and stripper stories too. But how do we know that was true. I never seemed to doubt it, but have always figured it was one of those things, once implanted in the mind, take root whether true or not. Kinda like the way when Uday n Qusay Hussein were taken out, the little tidbit about how they found the bodies with soiled underwear and bags full of viagra...... cannot unsee. To me, just including something like that is interesting in the first place. What was the source for the coke n hookers stuff, in Miami was it?

The information comes from their records, from receipts in Florida and Vegas, from interviews with those who knew them, from strippers in Vegas and Florida.

Some of this was collected prior to 9/11. They sparked many investigations prior to the event. The investigations were always closed down, both those conducted prior and following the attacks.

They had to be:

7 of the supposed hijackers were still alive.
Most received visas to the US through a single official.
They were found incompetent in handling planes, and some maneuvers we're describe as extremely difficult to impossible by highly trained pilots.
Their back stories didn't further the idea of radical fundamentalists.
7 had received US military training.


The explanations given for these things don't hold up either.

The US was receiving warnings of a imminent attack on US soil involving planes. The FBI had already flagged and in some cases pursued reports on several of these hijackers receiving training.

The story didn't fit, but it was not all there. The WH refused to release information, the media who expressed doubts were demonized: we were being given snippets of small info and whoever didn't compliment the emperors new clothes was "one of them".

So as the info started to become tangible chunks, no one bothered pursuing it.

What the media did do is tell us unequivocally it was Bin Laden. L Paul Bremmer happened to be giving an interview during the attacks instead of dying in his office and within half an hour we were told by him that Bin Laden was responsible and we needed to invade Iraq. The same thing was being said on Howard Stern within 40 minutes. By the end of the day, it was being said by baby Bush.

The members of the media who did suggest it may have been an inside job, such as hunter S Thompson were ridiculed. Dan Rather says the media dropped the ball, but didn't get specific.

All of it, start to finish was info manipulation and any part that didn't fit the official story wasn't reported. Not only should this bring the question of who is guiding the media, but why they were guided this way. It highlights the need for free speech and open minded investigations.

[warmonger1981]

What ever happened to the reports of three non white people being caught on the George Washington Bridge with explosives on 9/11? It was on the news that day and never heard from again. You think the media would be all over it as America had been attacked by so called terrorist three times that day.

[thegreekdog]

I would trust him (but I'm Catholic). The Pope is fine with homosexuality; he's not fine with gay sex or gay marriage. Eventually, I think the Catholic Church gets there (like it did on evolution, etc.). Catholics are good at ignoring what is in the Bible.

How can someone be "fine" with homosexuality but not be fine with gay sex?

Well yeah, that's the question. This is also the religion that is fine with heterosexuality, but not with unmarital sex.

You clearly don't understand religion or religious people. Obviously (or maybe not to you, secular person that you are), "modern liberal society" is based upon religious views. The belief in the metaphysical is limited to how the world is or the world ought to be; it's what has happened before and what is to come. Further, while I agree that religion is a world view, it is not THE worldview nor is it the only worldview that one may hold. I am not defined by my religion (as you are not defined by your lack of religion). Osama bin Laden and George W Bush were not defined by their religions and their worldview and acts taken were not defined by religion only. There may be people that only define themselves based on their religion or lack thereof, but good luck trying to find those people. Your insistence that religion defines a person, ironically, will give you a very narrow worldview. Of course, you would likely say, for example, that I'm not really religious because I don't believe or ascribe to every single thing in the Bible (or every single thing the Catholic Church says I should do). But, again, you clearly don't understand religion or religious people.

This is a major straw man. It is easier for you to disagree with me if you think I am taking the stance that your religious view is the only one you hold. Obviously it is not, since you ignore many of the things in scripture that tell you to be violently opposed to many of the freedoms we have today. You cannot point me to a statement I made that indicates that I think that everyone who is religious defines themselves solely based on that religion, because I did not make such a statement. The source of the current conversation was my claim that there are many people for whom their religion is such an important part of their identity that they would take violent action in the name of their religion, even today. Somehow you have twisted this into me saying that anyone who is religious is 100% Christian all the time and so therefore I am wrong about everything I say about anyone who is religious. Like, what the f*ck? Can we talk about the actual topic of conversation instead of whatever it is you imagine I am actually thinking?

No, we clearly cannot. Obviously there are some people who will use the justification of religion to commit violent acts. You said that religion is a worldview; I don't think it's a worldview. I don't think someone views the world a certain way because of their religion and that there are other, WAY more important factors.

I don't know man. What would Osama bin Laden have done if he wasn't Muslim?

Can you imagine any individual actually flying a plane into a building full of innocent people, of their own volition, if they don't believe something so fanatically such as that their God literally commands them to do so? There are some examples of such actions that aren't based on this motivation, but they're extremely rare compared to the constant suicide bombing we see carried out in the name of Islam. (The only one I can think of in my lifetime was the Norway shooting a few years back, and even then, Breivik didn't exactly have the average person's beliefs on religion. There could be more though.) Even if we accept that the source of bin Laden's anger against the West is their incursion into the Arab world (and I do not for a second believe that), it takes a special kind of worldview to do that. Religion (and Islam in particular) is a machine for cranking out people who believe things because God told them to believe them. Not every mass murderer does so in the name of religion, but it's way too many to think that there's some sort of coincidence going on here.

Would he have planned an attack against the United States? I think so, yes.

There are a whole lot of people in the Middle East who are angry with the role the United States has played in that region. How many examples can you find of people who took that anger and turned into large-scale violence without invoking their religion as justification for the targeting of innocents?

Yes, I think people will comit violent acts, even suicidal acts, in the name of something other than religion. There are terrorists that engage in a variety of violent activities that do it for some reason other than religion. The basque terrorists and the IRA come to mind (although I suppose you would argue the IRA do what they do in the name of religion). Do I think that the individuals who actually flew the planes into the world trade center were acting in accordance with their religion? Sure.

I hear this argument a lot that religion doesn't do anything positive that wouldn't otherwise be done by the non-religious (whether dealing with morality or helping the poor or whatever) and then I hear, from those same people, that religion is the root of a lot of evil done in the world and that the lack of religion would result in less evil. I think "invoking their religion as justification" is just that - a justification. It's not a motive. Why do Islamic terrorists do the things they do? Is it primarily because their religion tells them to? There are millions of Muslims who don't do anything violent. There are lots of people who are religious who commit violent acts that have nothing to do with their religion. So, my question back to you is why don't millions of Muslims engage in large-scale violence when they merely have to invokve their relgion as justification?

[_sabotage_]

The folks who actually flew the planes. Do you mean those at the remote controls?

There is zero evidence that the alleged hijackers were ever on any planes. The only footage was taken boarding a flight from Maine to Boston. In the case of the pentagon, there is no evidence of a plane, according to 70+ cameras and the CIA. In the case of WTC 7, there was no plane and in the cases of WTC 1 and 2, they were designed to withstand multiple impacts by the largest planes at the time of their design. That the towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds respectively, too near to free fall to be explained by anything but controlled demolition.

These issues could be clarified by releasing info on the black-boxes, camera footage, the process that NIST used to determine that the buildings weren't brought down by bombs, against hundreds of first hand, and in many cases expert, witness statements, and thousands of experts statements since. These statements were caught on camera in situ. Who the "alleged" terrorists actually were, religious or whatever, cannot be determined by any facts that have been released in regards to them.

All of this should be standard procedure. Another part of standard procedure is preservation of evidence. Federal law dictates it must be preserved. It was hauled away at 800 truckloads a day and shipped to China to be recycled. I know the US is strapped for cash, but it seems odd to BREAK the LAW to recover the scrap value and odder that it couldn't be done in the US.

So when you say, the men who actually flew the planes, who are you referring to? If referring to the 19 alleged hijackers, please give your source that allows you to say that it was based on religion.

[betiko]

Goes back to protected species. Free speech is fine, along as you don't mention - ......., .........., .........,

You can't exclude some topics from conversation and pretend that you have free speech. When it comes to the difference between flaming and baiting. Commentary and opinion are one thing. Saying something is something. Can be libel, countries with both free press and strong libel laws have less faux outrage and more constructive and brave discussion.

yup, if there are limits, then it's cant truly be Freedom. Others may go ahead and say limits are needed, and that's fine so long as they don't do so in the name of Freedom or still claim to be Free. That's why i like it plain and simple, for all to understand, nothing tricky to be litigated about what a certain word may or may not mean. '...Shall NOT be infringed, period'

if you take the concept of freedom so litteraly; then there should be no laws nor law enforcers. no society lives in full freedom, not even true hippies with a feather sticking out of their ass as unique posession. You can be fully free only if you live like a hermite. Living in society strips you from doing exactly what you want t any time.

We have removed from our freedom of speech the fact of "revising" the fact that the hollocaust existed. Dieudonné is in the movance of those revisionists and promotes the idea that jews are all scumbags that made up all that stuff so we can feel sorry for them and let them do all they want in israel. Call that a french jew conspiracy if you want.
Why should we allow people to spread dangerous ideas that negate tangible facts?

[Phatscotty]

I'd say the IRA is more in the name of Ireland than anything?

[Phatscotty]

Goes back to protected species. Free speech is fine, along as you don't mention - ......., .........., .........,

You can't exclude some topics from conversation and pretend that you have free speech. When it comes to the difference between flaming and baiting. Commentary and opinion are one thing. Saying something is something. Can be libel, countries with both free press and strong libel laws have less faux outrage and more constructive and brave discussion.

yup, if there are limits, then it's cant truly be Freedom. Others may go ahead and say limits are needed, and that's fine so long as they don't do so in the name of Freedom or still claim to be Free. That's why i like it plain and simple, for all to understand, nothing tricky to be litigated about what a certain word may or may not mean. '...Shall NOT be infringed, period'

if you take the concept of freedom so litteraly; then there should be no laws nor law enforcers. no society lives in full freedom, not even true hippies with a feather sticking out of their ass as unique posession. You can be fully free only if you live like a hermite. Living in society strips you from doing exactly what you want t any time.

We have removed from our freedom of speech the fact of "revising" the fact that the hollocaust existed. Dieudonné is in the movance of those revisionists and promotes the idea that jews are all scumbags that made up all that stuff so we can feel sorry for them and let them do all they want in israel. Call that a french jew conspiracy if you want.
Why should we allow people to spread dangerous ideas that negate tangible facts?

I hear ya. But if it's not free, then it isn't. I understand literal 100% Freedom is virtually impossible. I meant to go a little further in the last post, that really what it all comes down to are varying degrees of Freedom. More Free or Less Free, usually always moving along one with or the other on the scale of Freedom. i understand the 'total Freedom' thing as it relates to 'well that means you can kill whoever you want' but certainly Freedom has to be understood, it's so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone's else's Freedom. And like you said, in the city you can't really escape it, especially with technology.

Wherever we are on the scale of Freedom, I will be pushing from that point to the next point to be more Free. That's really about all we can do.