User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 146

  1. #11
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Awww thank you. I merely try my best.

  2. #12
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    I said it because it sounds just like the argument one could expect from a fundamentalist Muslim, or anyone who is primarily religious.
    I never said you were a fundamentalist, but there is a rift here between secular values and fundamentalism that your original statement does not address. Nor does your deference to ancient authority.

  3. #13
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    I was asking Mystic Tater his reasoning behind asserting freedom of speech as more sacred than anything else; and I further explained why I asked the question. Fundamentalism had nothing to do with my inquiry. As far as Im concerned, fundamentalism and secularism are both byproducts of modernity that feed off each other.

  4. #14
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    The Christians have been taking it in the nuts from the media for years. I don't see why the Muslims shouldn't learn to take their share.

  5. #15
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    As far as Im concerned, fundamentalism and secularism are both byproducts of modernity that feed off each other.
    I would agree. They're opposite sides of the same coin. I doubt that fundamentalism of any kind would be so influential as it is today if not for the fact that secularism has become a belief system which self-affirms its superiority over all others, and has the power to enforce that belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I have always been confused about censorship, and why people are offended about the expressions of certain things that violate sacred subjects. I suppose my confusion stems from the fact that I think that free speech should be more sacred than anything, whether a person is slandering a subject, or promoting it. The freedom to express oneself should be the highest common denominator in any society, imho. But of course, I'm speaking from my own cultural bubble.
    You're kind of answering your own questions here. Take away the a priori belief in the "sacredness" of free speech, which is probably for a religious person going to be a misuse of the term, and what are you left with?
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  6. #16
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Muslims, unlike the secular progressives, are at least making a valid argument. In a diverse society, all beliefs are worthy of respect. Therefore, Muslim beliefs are worthy of respect. A valid argument if we have ever seen one!

    Of course, the argument is unsound-- not all beliefs are worthy of respect. But wimpy, self-hating progressives cannot consistently affirm this, since it contradicts their egalitarian prejudices about tolerance, open-mindedness, fairness, Social Justice^tm, the intrinsic value of multiculturalism, etc. Tolerating the intolerant has always been a theoretical problem for liberalism, both classical and modern.

  7. #17
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Modern progressives talk of tolerance, but in practice it's different: All beliefs are equal, but some beliefs are more equal than others.

  8. #18
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    The Christians have been taking it in the nuts from the media for years. I don't see why the Muslims shouldn't learn to take their share.
    Apart from the fact that's an entirely separate argument, I agree.

    It is irrational to take offence, when an unbeliever in some way defames your god; the fact that he does not believe in the god, rather makes the “insult” irrelevant; to truly insult the prophet, you’d need to qualify as a Muslim.

    By the same token, it is equally absurd to depict something which one does not believe in - complimentary, derogatory or somewhere in between. The intention is clearly to offend: the question is whether Muslims can use this constantly as an excuse to veto Western norms.

    What we have here are one set of loonies busy trying to offend and another set of loonies getting offended over something that makes no sense.

    The freedom of speech argument is a red herring: specifically it is the right to offend. Oberon is quite correct, a nice thick skin is required for all kinds of believers these days.

    Presumably, those Pakistanis who really struggle without utube can learn how to use a proxy server. The ban is a pointless one.

    A last point: the last thing Google want is their utubes getting pulled over large sections of the planet. It's bad for business. I suspect that will be the clincher.

  9. #19
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Smile

    Pakistan has so many problems on the material and social level, you would wonder why they would get so excited about Facebook.

    It seems ridiculous until you realise they have nuclear weapons and that they have been using terrorism against their democratic neighbour, India. And that they are supporting terrorism in Afghanistan in order to make it a client State. And that they support and train terrorists for the West.

    Then, all of a sudden, Facebook starts to matter.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    Muslims, unlike the secular progressives, are at least making a valid argument. In a diverse society, all beliefs are worthy of respect. Therefore, Muslim beliefs are worthy of respect. A valid argument if we have ever seen one!
    You do realize that the position you describe is reactionary. It's a reaction to people who believe everyone else is inferior and they are that way because they were born the wrong color, religion, country, etc...and they're going to hell. It should be obvious why such positions were formed, even if they are flawed.

    Of course, the argument is unsound-- not all beliefs are worthy of respect. But wimpy, self-hating progressives cannot consistently affirm this, since it contradicts their egalitarian prejudices about tolerance, open-mindedness, fairness, Social Justice^tm, the intrinsic value of multiculturalism, etc. Tolerating the intolerant has always been a theoretical problem for liberalism, both classical and modern.
    It's difficult to take someone seriously who can't write a single post without spewing their emotions in such a fashion.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. Asperger's, ADD/ADHD, and Response to Sensory Information
    By Totenkindly in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 05-05-2011, 07:24 PM
  2. Emotions in response to movies/tv shows
    By raindancing in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-13-2009, 01:06 AM
  3. [MBTItm] NFs/NTs: What would ____ do/think in response to ____?
    By DigitalMethod in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-22-2008, 11:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO