Running to Mommy

Ok time for a steaming pile of shit photo If anyone doesn't get the inference please say so as I find it very clever and want to share.

So, are you saying that symbols belonging to the majority should be more protected than those of a minority? Isn't that a kind of moral relativism which is itself a form of intolerance against minority views? I'm not being facetious here. My aim is to show that emotional reactions to these kinds of things are counterproductive and are their own form of intolerance.



That is a very valid point, but what you're really objecting to is the motive rather than the statement. That's fine, but do you distinguish between provocative statements whose motive is to provoke thought and statements whose motive is to provoke insult? It's often hard to tell the difference. I think the big difference between you and I is that I err on the side of thought provocation rather than insult. Erring on the other side tosses out too much valid discussion for the sake of comfort. I just think ideas (even provocative ones I don't like) are more important than individual comfort levels. I don't feel it's my place to expect others to conform to my comfort level.

If Ulrika had posted something about a specific person, like "so and so is an ignorant twit who should be fed to sharks," I would consider that intolerant. I do not consider dissenting views of religions, philosophies, or politics to be intolerant, and I believe that claiming that they are is far more detrimental to humanity in the long run than an individual being offended that someone's views are the opposite of their own.

They aren't required to worship in my religion, or to have the same reverence for its symbols.

Just as I'm not required to worship in other religions, or to share their reverence for their symbols.

But their symbols of their religions which they hold dear are not representative of intolerance for my chosen belief system. To suggest that they are, and then to use that as justification for destroying their symbols, is counter to the principle of freedom of religion, and the type of thinking that has preceeded many a war. We are required to leave each other's symbols alone.

coco

if you look carefully you can almost make out the cat house!

I get it but have a more important question. Do you think anyone would notice that a moon dust texture wasn't sand?

I'm a nihilist. Forcing me to respect symbols is an infrindgment of my religious rights.

If you're a nihlist, then you don't believe in actually having any rights, so that should be ok.

This isn't about me.

Ahahahahah, and the thread twists even further ! I hope not as I plan to use this texture myself in my sand castle build.

"We are nihilists, Lebowski! We believe nuffing!"

Sorry. Came to mind.

Course not, and nothing I said would indicate I was saying that.

I pointed out that defacing symbols of lesser value to a community will bring on less of a response than defacing symbols of more central value to that community.

You asked if inciting vandalism against the symbols of Valentine's Day would also be a sign of intolerance, and I said yes, it would. It just wouldn't be as big a deal as, say, burning people's Christmas trees or their prayer shawls.

Emotional reactions to those kind of things may be counterproductive?

Depends on your point of view, and on the situation.

Maybe if some guy stands up in a crowded bar and shouts that some other guy's date is a hairy slut who will sleep with anything, it would be counterproductive for the other guy to take offense. Indeed, you could say the entire fracas that follows would be counterproductive, certainly from the bar-owner's point of view.

But from the guy standing up for his and his girl's honor, I don't think he would bother much to think of how productive or counterproductive it would be to react emotionally. Or, if he did give it any subconscious or conscious thought, he would doubtless conclude that his right to enjoy being in the bari without suffering verbal abuse from a stranger to be a greater right than the other guy's right to shout said abuse.

And you would be right if you said the second guy was being intolerant. He would be being quite intolerant of having his girl called a hairy slut who would sleep with anything.

I would maintain, though, that the greater intolerance came from the guy who made the unnecessary statements of intolerance in the first place. Ashappens to be the case in the original thread under discussion here.

I maintain that just as the man with his date has a right to enjoy the bar without unprovoked verbal abuse from some stranger, it is similarly our right to enjoy being in the public arena of these forums without suffering constant verbal abuse from others for our religious beliefs, our ethnic backgrounds, or anything else.

I object to the motive AND to the statement, and I object to the statement itself on a number of levels.

Yes, I distinguish between provocative statements where the motive is to provoke thought, and statements where the motive is to provoke insult.

In case of the thread in question, the insult was the entire fact of the post. If it only APPEARED to be the fact of the post, and was really not INTENDED that way, that's not my problem. That is the problem of the writer. That the post itself was intolerant is all that concerns me, and all that needs concern me.

In the bar situation above, perhaps the guy yelling the insult had some other motive and actually meant no offense at all. Maybe it was just "thought provocation." But probably most people would not agree.

And I doubt that most people would agree that, "Burn or take a Bible" is intended to inspire a thoughtful discussion, either.

I don't consider dissenting views of religion, politics, or philosophy intolerant either. Else I wouldn't have all the friends I do, and enjoy all the discussions with them that I do. I doubt most people consider someone's having a different view of religion, philosophy, or politics than their own to be intolerant, either.

Nor am I offended by someone who's views are different from my own. How could I be? How could I POSSIBLY be? I have too many friends and relatives of too many vastly different political and religious persuasions to possibly be offended by the fact that someone thinks differently from me.

But I am offended by people who treat my beliefs with contempt, and, particularly, by those who would like to abolish my beliefs from existance, by any method, including burning books.

I'm offended by blatant hate speech directed at no one in particular, but just spouted to get a rise out of people, and to start fights. That's uncivilized, and it's intolerance in a nutshell.

I don't care if the motive is, "Oh, that really isn't hate speech, it's just her cute little way of . . . " doing something or other. You don't get to commit the crime and then plead innocence because you really didn't mean it that way; you meant it as performance art, or some sort of other W-hatty type nonsense.

coco

You aren't being forced to respect symbols. Or to revere symbols, to like symbols, to embrace symbols, or anything of that nature.

You are expected, though, to leave other people's symbols alone. Going around burning and stealing them infringes on other people's right to enjoy their symbols in peace.

coco

What I mean, Gabe, is we don't get to go around burning them and destroying them to express the fact that we don't share in the same belief.

coco

I agree with you about the above without hesitation. I think any reasonable person would. The point I'm trying to make is that these things are all subjective unless we can psychicly divine the motive of the poster. Sometimes it's obvious. Often it's not. If we err too far on the side of trying to make sure no one is uncomfortable then a lot of truly interesting and beneficial discussion becomes impossible.

As to your guy in the bar analogy, I don't see it as a good correlary. The bible is not a girl. It doesn't have honor or feelings to be hurt. I don't anthropomorphize it and I don't automatically equate disagreeing with it (even vehemantly) with being hateful to those who do agree with it. I suspect our positions are actually a lot closer to each other than either of us think. I'd just ask people who are offended by particular posts in a topic to take issue with the poster, not the topic.

So I can go get married to the woman of my dreams then?

Coco, i think why you're driving half this thread absolutely apespit is that your'e once again confusing "I don't appreciate this" with a right .

rights are few and far between in this world. Expressing one's opinion, at least in most countries, is one of the few actual rights guarunteed us.

Which is why this girl is pleased to stand up for her own goddam "honor." And, especially if I were, say, Maeve Morgan? That self-standing-up-for would result in the offending party's ass being in a sling for about eighty-four months.

~ Memory Harker <--- a hairy slut who will sleep with anything she pleases.



"Quick --- someone call the Girl Police and file a report!"

SURE!

...in Canada, Massachusetts, Spain, Belgium and Denmark.

You can opt for Domestic Partnership/Union in many countries around the world.

You can live together unmolested by the law in MOST countries of the world.

You can be executed for being an abomination in 6 countries. (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Mauritania)

As for the "Getting married" thing, tho...are you sure you want to DO that? That activity, if you are using the current definition used by the US Gov't, is a religious symbol not currently espused by nihilists...

They (The US Gov't) use the Judeo-Christian (Can't even call it Abrahamic, since the Moslems have a different definition.) version.

You think not? Ask a Mormon how his second wife is doing?

/Rant ON

A little off topic, so sorry about this - but OMG I SO agree about the Valentine's day thing. Add to that St. Patrick's day, Secretary's Day, Boss's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day and every other freakin other "Hallmark" manufactured day.

It's not that I don't think people who love each other shouldn't give each other flowers once in awhile it's just that I don't think Hallmark needs to tell them when to do it.

/Rant OFF

Pox on beggarween too!

Well, the laws regarding these message boards are as espoused in the TOS. And free speech laws in the U.S. have limits as well.

Not only do I not appreciate religious hate speech, anything deemed as such by the mods is also removed as being against the TOS.

So, according to the TOS, I have a right not to be confronted with religious intolerance on these forums, as determined by the mods. Whereas others do not have a right to say whatever they want to on these forums.

coco

We all have the right to say anything we want - as determined by the mods.

You're selectively applying your logic, dear.

No, the bar analogy isn't perfect, but it was good enough. The girl is not a Bible; that's true. But it is also true that the girl is something the guy may or may not hold dear, and the Bible is something that others may or may not hold dear.

Because we can't psychicly (sp?) divine the motive of a poster, we have to go on the words themselves. If I'm going to err on either side, I'm going to err on the side that the person who advocates that others burn Bibles is probably advocating that other burn books, and specifically, that those books be Bibles, rather than other books.

If there is some other clever, subliminal message, I would say that because it is humanly impossible to discern any other meaning, one must go on the meaning of the words themselves. If someone said, "I want ice cream," I would expect those words to be understood a someone wanting ice cream. If they have some other meaning or intent, the speaker needs to learn to express himself better, lest others conclude that he does, in fact, want ice cream.

Interesting though this conversation has been, I think I've probably contributed about all I have to say to it.

Except to say: Is there very much difference between burning Bibles and bombing synagogues? (Even without people inside.) I think they both exemplify the same sort of thinking; just on a different scale. I speak out against all such thinking, or inciting others to think or do similar things. I don't care if it supposedly too clever by half, or some kind of a spoof, and in fact, I don't believe for a minute it is.

coco