Sensitivity Training

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

NotALiberal:

Nikolaz72:

NotALiberal:

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale.

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives. Inaction is to me, more neutral than negative-action. And the negative action deserves far more hatred.

Arif_Sohaib:

NotALiberal:

or because they're xenophobic turds looking for any excuse to put the boot in on a religion they don't even begin to understand.

This is politically correct bleeding heart liberalism at it's finest. Islam deserves EVERY single goddamn ounce of hate it gets. Speaking as someone who's family lived under the boot of an Islamic theocracy, where you could be executed for having a Bible in your family home (my family is Christian, and this very nearly happened), I understand Islam more than some bleeding heart liberal who spouts the same politically correct, inane bullshit about how Islam isn't "different from any other religion". Christopher Hitchen's would disagree.

Also, tying Islam to race by your use of the word "xenophobic" is racist in itself. I'm of Middle Eastern descent, yet no one in my immediate and extended family are Muslim.

Shit like this sets me off, when people of privilege who don't have to deal with the absolute misery Islam as a whole still brings to the world (It's not the Middle Ages anymore, so the "BUT OTHER RELIGIONS DID BAD STUFF TOO!!11!" argument doesn't really hold up), get on a moral high horse and condemn us as "bigots" for hating a religion of bigotry and hatred.

I am very sorry about what happened to you but I would like to clarify that if you lived in a Muslim county, Islam says it is the responsibility of the government to protect you.
If the government that you lived under ignored this part then they are not just terrible people, they are terrible Muslims.
When Pakistanis burnt Hindu temples in response to the Babri Masjid verdict in India, our government actually paid to repair those temples and they were following Islam when they did this. I can't provide links to this news but this was something my old history teacher(who came from India to Pakistan in 1971) told the class.
Again I am very sorry for what Muslims did to you and your family and your community.

If you are Muslim, then no offense intended. To be clear, if someone tells me they're Muslim, I won't treat them any differently, I will merely treat them the way I would want to be treated. I hate most major religions, but I will NEVER hate it's adherents blindly because they believe in something I do not. I will only hate those who give me reason to, like the idiots burning down embassies, or more recently, those fundie Christians in Greece(I think?) who assaulted press for watching a "blasphemous" film.

Agayek:

Arif_Sohaib:
Lets say I am in a position of power and am able to spread information very fast and I insult or spread bad rumors your mother or father or whoever your most beloved person or thing is. Are you not allowed to be angry? Are you not allowed to punch me in the face out of frustration because in the hypothetical scenario you are not in a position that anyone will listen to you. That is why some people respond violently to comments.
This is the situation most uneducated Muslims found themselves in after the video was posted on Youtube.
Those who could respond peacefully did. Like the response to Newsweek's Muslim Rage article on twitter.

Of course you're allowed to be angry when someone maligns you or yours falsely. What you're not allowed to do is haul off on someone for stating their opinion. You can argue your case, and if they've lied you can prove them wrong, but you are not in any way justified in attacking them.

When someone says something you don't like, there's 2 possible scenarios that can play out.

1) It's the truth
2) It's a lie

If #1 is the case, then the solution is ridiculously simple: Accept it or change it. Either you like it, in which case good on you, or you don't like it, in which case the onus is on you to do something about it. Neither of these responses involve violence, rioting, or really much of anything beyond some introspection and possibly a change/focus in your efforts in the future.

If #2 is the case, then they can safely be ignored (as clearly the holder of said opinion has false information or is deliberately lying, either way they're not worth the effort), or if you're feeling petty, proven false. Again, neither of these options involve violence.

At the end of the day, responding to someone's opinion with violence is inherently flawed, and you do not in any way have the right to do so. The initiation of violence is inherently wrong, with a very small handful of exceptions that almost all fall under the category of "the victim was planning to initiate violence upon me".

TLDR version: Settling arguments, especially such pointless ones as "which ancient text that's been translated so many times and across so many cultures that practically nothing of the original remains is the ONE REAL TRUTH", with violence is fucking atrocious, and anyone that does so needs to be beaten to death before their stupidity can take even more of a foothold amongst the human race.

Sometimes people's emotions get the best of them and they resort to violence in frustration.

And I really don't want to mention Hitler again but he spread rumors about Jews before killing them. So no, if the person spreading rumors is in a position of power, it can't be ignored.(I am not talking about the guy who posted the video, I am talking about Youtube arbitrarily defining what is and what isn't hate speech on their own whims, no response video is going to get as many hits or media attention as the original and more attention would have been on the violent protestors).

Agayek:

Cavouku:
I'm willing to totally agree, but we can extend that to; the problem also comes when people with different beliefs or no beliefs are not being civil towards people with certain beliefs, right?

That's more or less what I was driving at under "discuss", so yea sure.

Edit: To clarify a response to your second quote of me, I am in fact promoting violence against those who initiate violence. Violence is a tool, and just like any other, it has its place. Defending you and yours is the most widely acknowledged of such, but it also extends to the realm of punishment. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility and accepting punishment for wrongdoing, 'tis one of the reasons I support the death penalty and whatnot.

If someone is willing to commit violence, they implicitly accept the responsibility for that choice, and should therefore have violence committed unto them for doing so.

Violence just always seemed like an ineffective tool of punishment. It causes physical pain, yes, but what is physical pain? Well, in a lot of cases, it's something one can't actually remember. I can't call back the pain I felt when my arm was broken. Or the second time. If I smacked my head into a wall, I know it hurt, but I don't remember the hurting itself. It's something that isn't hard to put behind you, in terms of your actual pain.

Violence is an act that is more often than not, emotionally charged, especially as punishment. To hurt someone who caused you pain is to be vengeful, to be unable to let go. True action is in education, to try and break through the emotions that caused the other's violence, and to get to the reasonable person that almost everyone is capable of being.

Failing that, one is better to let go. They are their own problem. If they harass your person, or any other persons further, they should be condemned into a situation where they cannot do so anymore. There are two options - incarceration, or death.

Incarceration I've also always felt is ineffective, time consuming, expensive, and wholly uneducational. There's no opportunity to learn from what you did, or develop empathy for those who you've hurt. I don't yet know the best ways to put these into practice, but I like to believe prisons in the future will truly be a place of emotional rehabilitation. If not, then it would be best to put these people to some sort of work, as cruel as it sounds. Their being there is a detriment, and that would best be compensated for by labours or services rendered.

However, I think that should be choice. Refusing that choice, and refusing the choice to not harass others, death... is really the most ideal outcome. We can't let them hurt others, we can't let them rot away time and money, and the choose to do nothing to better either of these. A death that is not emotionally charged, but merely death...

*sigh*, sorry, got somber there. I understand if you're emotional about this, and disagree, but try and look and see if you disagree because you're emotional about this. If so, I ask that you don't respond to me until you feel more relaxed. I'm not so much arguing with you as trying to bring in a viewpoint that I'd appreciate you examining.

Nikolaz72:

NotALiberal:

Nikolaz72:

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale. Liberalism and Conservatism are the only political stances that exist.

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives.

I'm very much aware of this, thanks for the condescension though.

I'm what I like to call a "Brainist", I use my brain, and then decide what I believe to be correct. I do not adhere to any all encompassing labels or ideologies. I may adhere to certain parts of some (like for instance, I'm very much in support of gay marriage and drug legalization, but then I swing to the "right" on issues like abortion because I believe abortion to be murder, not because I believe in some sky daddy). Technically I could be called an "Objectivist" but I'm not because I still think labels are fucking stupid.

NotALiberal:

Nikolaz72:

NotALiberal:

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale. Liberalism and Conservatism are the only political stances that exist.

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives.

I'm very much aware of this, thanks for the condescension though.

I'm what I like to call a "Brainist", I use my brain, and then decide what I believe to be correct. I do not adhere to any all encompassing labels or ideologies. I may adhere to certain parts of some (like for instance, I'm very much in support of gay marriage and drug legalization, but then I swing to the "right" on issues like abortion because I believe abortion to be murder, not because I believe in some sky daddy). Technically I could be called an "Objectivist" but I'm not because I still think labels are fucking stupid.

Labels are useful, also since I now know you to be an objectivist I think tis smarter if I end the conversation here. Wouldnt want anyone (especcialy me) to get suspended... At for the thanks, right back at ye. Even if it was a tad bit more subtle.

Arif_Sohaib:
Sometimes people's emotions get the best of them and they resort to violence in frustration.

Loss of self control does not excuse violent behavior. It simply means you lack discipline and self control, and should probably be punished for that on top of being a violent dick.

Arif_Sohaib:
And I really don't want to mention Hitler again but he spread rumors about Jews before killing them. So no, if the person spreading rumors is in a position of power, it can't be ignored.(I am not talking about the guy who posted the video, I am talking about Youtube arbitrarily defining what is and what isn't hate speech on their own whims, no response video is going to get as many hits or media attention as the original and more attention would have been on the violent protestors).

Eh, somebody had to invoke Godwin's Law, don't worry about it.

And yes, he did. Know what else he did? He conspired to visit violence upon them. As I mentioned in my post, right here in fact:

The initiation of violence is inherently wrong, with a very small handful of exceptions that almost all fall under the category of "the victim was planning to initiate violence upon me".

It is acceptable to commit violence to prevent it from being visited to you. I take absolutely no issue with someone walking up and outright murdering the likes of Adolf Hitler, Fred Phelps, or anyone else actively promoting that others be attacked. They are inciting violence, and a violent response to that is perfectly acceptable.

However, if you were to walk up to, say, firebomb the apartment of a man who drew a cartoon of Mohammad blowing up a building, then you would be stepping over the line.

Also, you should always keep in mind that while other people are able to make broad sweeping generalizations about whatever, you have that exact same power. You can just as easily as they do stand up on a soap box and pull out all your evidence that they're either lying or misguided. If someone puts out a video condemning Muslims and you find it false, then you put out a video disproving their points.

It's really not complicated. If someone says something that offends you, grow the fuck up and get over yourself. And if someone says something that paints you in a bad light, stand the fuck up and prove them wrong. If you can't even do that much, then you're clearly on the wrong side of the argument.

Violently lashing out doesn't accomplish anything but piss more people off and prove yourself incapable of behaving like a rational being.

wasneeplus:
So what? We gonna boot out all the christians and hindus next?

Oh, if only...

I wish I'd be alive when there's no more religion.

Nikolaz72:

NotALiberal:

Nikolaz72:

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives.

I'm very much aware of this, thanks for the condescension though.

I'm what I like to call a "Brainist", I use my brain, and then decide what I believe to be correct. I do not adhere to any all encompassing labels or ideologies. I may adhere to certain parts of some (like for instance, I'm very much in support of gay marriage and drug legalization, but then I swing to the "right" on issues like abortion because I believe abortion to be murder, not because I believe in some sky daddy). Technically I could be called an "Objectivist" but I'm not because I still think labels are fucking stupid.

Labels are useful, also since I now know you to be an objectivist I think tis smarter if I end the conversation here. Wouldnt want anyone (especcialy me) to get suspended... At for the thanks, right back at ye. Even if it was a tad bit more subtle.

I'm not an Objectivist though, not as defined by Ayn Rand. Labels can be useful, but trying to label human thought and belief, and people who adhere to these like they are dogmatic truth are fucking stupid. That's pretty much the gist of it.

Is funny because it is true.
Ha. Zing. Burn.
*sulks off into the corner*

Cavouku:
Violence just always seemed like an ineffective tool of punishment. It causes physical pain, yes, but what is physical pain? Well, in a lot of cases, it's something one can't actually remember. I can't call back the pain I felt when my arm was broken. Or the second time. If I smacked my head into a wall, I know it hurt, but I don't remember the hurting itself. It's something that isn't hard to put behind you, in terms of your actual pain.

Violence is an act that is more often than not, emotionally charged, especially as punishment. To hurt someone who caused you pain is to be vengeful, to be unable to let go. True action is in education, to try and break through the emotions that caused the other's violence, and to get to the reasonable person that almost everyone is capable of being.

It's not about rehabilitation or retribution, or even punishment really. It's about the fact that the perpetrators made a choice, and should therefore be made to face the consequences. Like I said, I'm a massive believer in personal responsibility and accountability. If one decides they will visit violence upon others, they implicitly accept that violence will be visited upon them. Thus, it should be fulfilled.

Cavouku:
Failing that, one is better to let go. They are their own problem. If they harass your person, or any other persons further, they should be condemned into a situation where they cannot do so anymore. There are two options - incarceration, or death.

Incarceration I've also always felt is ineffective, time consuming, expensive, and wholly uneducational. There's no opportunity to learn from what you did, or develop empathy for those who you've hurt. I don't yet know the best ways to put these into practice, but I like to believe prisons in the future will truly be a place of emotional rehabilitation. If not, then it would be best to put these people to some sort of work, as cruel as it sounds. Their being there is a detriment, and that would best be compensated for by labours or services rendered.

However, I think that should be choice. Refusing that choice, and refusing the choice to not harass others, death... is really the most ideal outcome. We can't let them hurt others, we can't let them rot away time and money, and the choose to do nothing to better either of these. A death that is not emotionally charged, but merely death...

*sigh*, sorry, got somber there. I understand if you're emotional about this, and disagree, but try and look and see if you disagree because you're emotional about this. If so, I ask that you don't respond to me until you feel more relaxed. I'm not so much arguing with you as trying to bring in a viewpoint that I'd appreciate you examining.

In my ideal world, people would punish themselves (part of the whole accepting responsibility thing and all).

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, so we've gotta make do. I don't particularly care about prison one way or the other, to be honest. My personal take on punishment is closer to "eye for an eye". Someone robs someone, they should be made to return the value of what they stole, and then fined for that value plus the value of everything they could have potentially stolen. Etc, etc.

I'm not much of a fan of prison, it's mostly just a waste of time and money with the exception of repeat violent offenders, but whatever.

Ok, even as an Erin hater, this strip was cute. Her clueless face was cute and the lemming was supercute.
If only all Erin comics were like this.

image

OH JESUS SOMEONE CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT QUICK.

Funny comic though. Always nice to agree with comedy.

*waits five seconds for the unseen 4th pannel to reveal the conferencce table covered in Lemming "confetti" * Yay! :3

Well that quite instantly is my favourite strip of Critical Miss.
And one of her hallucinations is Kratos, so a god is her imaginary friend too.

wasneeplus:

ccdohl:
What's for a xenophobic turd to fail to understand? Some people get murderously violent because of a religion, about 99% of the time, it's a certain religion. I don't have to get a degree in Islamic Studies or anything to want to put a boot to it.

Except it ain't muslims 99% of the time. At the moment, Islam is probably the most violent large religion on earth, but only by a small margin. So what? We gonna boot out all the christians and hindus next?

Eastern religions don't bother anyone, but from what I saw in Slumdog Millionaire, if indian people are actually so violent to eachother when it comes to religion, absolutely.

As for Christianity: you bet! Then Islam, Judaism, basically any and all abrahamic religion and all its offshoots and sects and cults need to be wiped off the face of the Earth for the good of mankind.

Agayek:

mdqp:
I like to talk with Groucho Marx. He is really insightful, and fun to hang around, and he isn't telling me to do anything dangerous or violent. You should all convert to Marxism right now, your life will improve by a 100% margin, or even by a 200% margin (those numbers are completely made up and might not reflect reality).

Oh god damnit. Now you've put in my head the mental image of Karl Marx with Groucho's glasses, 'stache and cigar. It's hilarious in all the wrong ways.

It's like those "Communist Partay" t-shirts...

OT: Ah, Erin. I love you, you insensitive clod.

Mahorfeus:
Second panel was beautifully drawn. That came to mind first for some reason. :P

This is a joke I've heard many times, but seeing it coming from Erin just seemed hilarious. Especially given her own past situation.

It's doubly funny that she had to be told that by the hateful bitch Sharon, in her usually sensitive manner.

#1 niko-mimi ears! #2 Great yet contraversal punch line #3 Keep it up :D and remember "there is no such thing as bad publicity"

Agayek:

Cavouku:
*snip*

It's not about rehabilitation or retribution, or even punishment really. It's about the fact that the perpetrators made a choice, and should therefore be made to face the consequences. Like I said, I'm a massive believer in personal responsibility and accountability. If one decides they will visit violence upon others, they implicitly accept that violence will be visited upon them. Thus, it should be fulfilled.

Usually this choice is made in a state of duress, though. One does not think of consequences when their emotions take them over, or they develop that tunnel vision. They should, they always should, but they don't, and you can't fault someone for that as much as you'd think you could. We all get into that "fight or flight" mode, if we feel strongly enough about it, and that form of thinking doesn't account for consequence. They didn't know what they were doing, they just did it. The punishment should most appropriately be more so, learn how not to do it again. Choosing not to learn from an action should be punished, more so than committing an action. And even then, prevention of further problems is preferable.

Agayek:

Cavouku:
*snip*

In my ideal world, people would punish themselves (part of the whole accepting responsibility thing and all).

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, so we've gotta make do. I don't particularly care about prison one way or the other, to be honest. My personal take on punishment is closer to "eye for an eye". Someone robs someone, they should be made to return the value of what they stole, and then fined for that value plus the value of everything they could have potentially stolen. Etc, etc.

I'm not much of a fan of prison, it's mostly just a waste of time and money with the exception of repeat violent offenders, but whatever.

I understand the desire for equivalency, but the factors that make up an equation can often be so much more complicated than x = y. They were poor, hungry, they had children, they had no knowledge of hunting or gathering, or scavenging, even if they did, they were far and wide from a rural area, and they have no street savvy, and I don't know the reasons for not taking welfare, but that's assuming you're liable for it, or it's available to you. A person left their house unlocked, or their window open, and a vagabond was acting on what they needed, not what the law asked.

Even without these circumstances, you take into account their history, their genetic predispositions, their mental state, any untreated conditions they may have. Mordin Solus said it best;

"...focused on big picture. Big picture made of little pictures. Too many variables."

If they choose not to accept the help offered, prevention is really the only option. I understand the lack of enthusiasm for prison. These people chose to do something terrible, and even worse, they chose to ignore help, removing them as a functional member of society, and they become a leech in a cell. That's why prisons should focus not only on rehabilitation, but also on reconciliation in the form of labour and services, or at least that's my ideal.

...I suppose we could talk about ideals all day and not get anywhere, couldn't we?

NotALiberal:

Arif_Sohaib:

NotALiberal:

This is politically correct bleeding heart liberalism at it's finest. Islam deserves EVERY single goddamn ounce of hate it gets. Speaking as someone who's family lived under the boot of an Islamic theocracy, where you could be executed for having a Bible in your family home (my family is Christian, and this very nearly happened), I understand Islam more than some bleeding heart liberal who spouts the same politically correct, inane bullshit about how Islam isn't "different from any other religion". Christopher Hitchen's would disagree.

Also, tying Islam to race by your use of the word "xenophobic" is racist in itself. I'm of Middle Eastern descent, yet no one in my immediate and extended family are Muslim.

Shit like this sets me off, when people of privilege who don't have to deal with the absolute misery Islam as a whole still brings to the world (It's not the Middle Ages anymore, so the "BUT OTHER RELIGIONS DID BAD STUFF TOO!!11!" argument doesn't really hold up), get on a moral high horse and condemn us as "bigots" for hating a religion of bigotry and hatred.

I am very sorry about what happened to you but I would like to clarify that if you lived in a Muslim county, Islam says it is the responsibility of the government to protect you.
If the government that you lived under ignored this part then they are not just terrible people, they are terrible Muslims.
When Pakistanis burnt Hindu temples in response to the Babri Masjid verdict in India, our government actually paid to repair those temples and they were following Islam when they did this. I can't provide links to this news but this was something my old history teacher(who came from India to Pakistan in 1971) told the class.
Again I am very sorry for what Muslims did to you and your family and your community.

If you are Muslim, then no offense intended. To be clear, if someone tells me they're Muslim, I won't treat them any differently, I will merely treat them the way I would want to be treated. I hate most major religions, but I will NEVER hate it's adherents blindly because they believe in something I do not. I will only hate those who give me reason to, like the idiots burning down embassies, or more recently, those fundie Christians in Greece(I think?) who assaulted press for watching a "blasphemous" film.

I am not offended at you, I am offended at the people who use the name of Islam to prevent you from practicing your religion in a Muslim country.
Islam is against doing that.
When Jerusalem was conquered by Muslims for the first time, the Caliph Hazrat Umar(R.A.) refused to offer Islamic prayers in a Church to make sure that it would not set an example for future Muslims to forcibly convert Churches into Mosques.
This is a fact that should have been known to the people who persecuted you and should have prevented them from doing that. Those people should be punished not only for doing what they did but also for marring the name of Islam by doing it.

Arif_Sohaib:

ravenshrike:

wasneeplus:

Except it ain't muslims 99% of the time. At the moment, Islam is probably the most violent large religion on earth, but only by a small margin. So what? We gonna boot out all the christians and hindus next?

Citation needed. Specifically a citation relevant to the last 20 years. Now, if you only consider honor killings, then you would have a point. Course, even there Islam still takes the plurality, if not the majority. However, excluding honor killings, Islam is very much in the lead concerning violence. Definitely over 90%, quite possibly well over 99%.

Honor killings have nothing to do with Islam(maybe not even with Hinduism or Sikhism). They are an ancient Indian tradition. That is why Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are all guilty of it.

Which is why you get a bunch of arabs and persians doing them too. Specifically honor killings are one way of enforcing population control among subsistence populations which then ossify as tradition when no longer needed.

Agayek:

Arif_Sohaib:
Sometimes people's emotions get the best of them and they resort to violence in frustration.

Loss of self control does not excuse violent behavior. It simply means you lack discipline and self control, and should probably be punished for that on top of being a violent dick.

Arif_Sohaib:
And I really don't want to mention Hitler again but he spread rumors about Jews before killing them. So no, if the person spreading rumors is in a position of power, it can't be ignored.(I am not talking about the guy who posted the video, I am talking about Youtube arbitrarily defining what is and what isn't hate speech on their own whims, no response video is going to get as many hits or media attention as the original and more attention would have been on the violent protestors).

Eh, somebody had to invoke Godwin's Law, don't worry about it.

And yes, he did. Know what else he did? He conspired to visit violence upon them. As I mentioned in my post, right here in fact:

The initiation of violence is inherently wrong, with a very small handful of exceptions that almost all fall under the category of "the victim was planning to initiate violence upon me".

It is acceptable to commit violence to prevent it from being visited to you. I take absolutely no issue with someone walking up and outright murdering the likes of Adolf Hitler, Fred Phelps, or anyone else actively promoting that others be attacked. They are inciting violence, and a violent response to that is perfectly acceptable.

However, if you were to walk up to, say, firebomb the apartment of a man who drew a cartoon of Mohammad blowing up a building, then you would be stepping over the line.

Also, you should always keep in mind that while other people are able to make broad sweeping generalizations about whatever, you have that exact same power. You can just as easily as they do stand up on a soap box and pull out all your evidence that they're either lying or misguided. If someone puts out a video condemning Muslims and you find it false, then you put out a video disproving their points.

It's really not complicated. If someone says something that offends you, grow the fuck up and get over yourself. And if someone says something that paints you in a bad light, stand the fuck up and prove them wrong. If you can't even do that much, then you're clearly on the wrong side of the argument.

Violently lashing out doesn't accomplish anything but piss more people off and prove yourself incapable of behaving like a rational being.

You think everyone is capable of that much discipline and self-control. And the people we are talking about are uneducated, poor and desperate. Some of them were doing what they did just for the loot. Our TV channels showed people forcing open shop shutters and taking anything they could get their hands on. Police here were too afraid to do anything about it.
And yes, the violent do deserve to be punished, the police deserve to be punished for not doing anything.

And you think the guy who posted the video wasn't planning to cause violence in Muslim countries? You think he didn't know what would happen?
And Youtube did nothing to stop that.
So youtube and the guy who posted the video, knowing fully what would happen as a result of it, deserve to be punished as well.

ravenshrike:

Arif_Sohaib:

ravenshrike:
Citation needed. Specifically a citation relevant to the last 20 years. Now, if you only consider honor killings, then you would have a point. Course, even there Islam still takes the plurality, if not the majority. However, excluding honor killings, Islam is very much in the lead concerning violence. Definitely over 90%, quite possibly well over 99%.

Honor killings have nothing to do with Islam(maybe not even with Hinduism or Sikhism). They are an ancient Indian tradition. That is why Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are all guilty of it.

Which is why you get a bunch of arabs and persians doing them too. Specifically honor killings are one way of enforcing population control among subsistence populations which then ossify as tradition when no longer needed.

I'm sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit. Don't ever bunch Persians with Arabs ever again.

ravenshrike:

Arif_Sohaib:

ravenshrike:
Citation needed. Specifically a citation relevant to the last 20 years. Now, if you only consider honor killings, then you would have a point. Course, even there Islam still takes the plurality, if not the majority. However, excluding honor killings, Islam is very much in the lead concerning violence. Definitely over 90%, quite possibly well over 99%.

Honor killings have nothing to do with Islam(maybe not even with Hinduism or Sikhism). They are an ancient Indian tradition. That is why Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are all guilty of it.

Which is why you get a bunch of arabs and persians doing them too. Specifically honor killings are one way of enforcing population control among subsistence populations which then ossify as tradition when no longer needed.

I haven't heard of any Arabs doing it, but Persia's history and culture is linked with ours.
And the second thing makes in the context of how it may have started.
But its origins lie in cultural traditions, not religious ones.
As far as I know, the only crime punishable by death ,according to Islam, is murder which is what honor killing is.

Arif_Sohaib:
You think everyone is capable of that much discipline and self-control. And the people we are talking about are uneducated, poor and desperate. Some of them were doing what they did just for the loot. Our TV channels showed people forcing open shop shutters and taking anything they could get their hands on. Police here were too afraid to do anything about it.
And yes, the violent do deserve to be punished, the police deserve to be punished for not doing anything.

I perfectly understand why people are doing such. That does not excuse their behavior. As obvious as this sounds, unacceptable behavior is unacceptable. Is it suddenly alright for me to walk around shooting people, so long as I explain to everyone that asks that I had some kind of mental trauma that gives me the uncontrollable urge to shoot people?

At least in that example I'd have a valid excuse for doing so (read: uncontrollable neural impulses) instead of choosing to do so to vent.

It doesn't matter what your reasons are, visiting viol

Arif_Sohaib:
And you think the guy who posted the video wasn't planning to cause violence in Muslim countries? You think he didn't know what would happen?
And Youtube did nothing to stop that.
So youtube and the guy who posted the video, knowing fully what would happen as a result of it, deserve to be punished as well.

I have no idea. I've never seen the video, and frankly I don't care to. To be honest, I'm not even sure precisely what video you're talking about. Last I heard, the only recent big fuss being kicked up by Muslims is about that Innocence of Muslims thing that was only ever showed to a dozen people, and if that's the one you're talking about, it's practically guaranteed that no one involved here has actually seen it, and I'm not prepared to assume intent from something I've only heard third-hand reports about.

Denamic:

wasneeplus:

Mike Fang:
I hear that. I think it's cause as far as Stout goes, she's not anti-Muslim, she treats all religions with equal contempt. Referring to religious people as ones who have "an imaginary friend" is a cheap shot at anyone who believes in a higher power that can't be unquestionably proven to exist.

Two words: Unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Are you saying an unfalsifiable hypothesis is proof?

Pretty sure he's saying the opposite. The principle of falsifiability states that any proper scientific theory or hypothesis has be falsifiable to be considered 'good' science. Popper also said that no scientific theory could ever be proven, only disproven, and that the best state a theory could be in is "not yet disproven". In this, a theory that has stood for a long time can be considered true, but not undeniable. Meaning that a falsifiable hypothesis that resists falsification would be proof, but an unfalsifiable hypothesis would only be helpful insofar as to help create a falsifiable hypothesis.
Rant over.

OT: Great strip, especially liked the lemming. Because lemmings are cool.

wasneeplus:

Mike Fang:
I hear that. I think it's cause as far as Stout goes, she's not anti-Muslim, she treats all religions with equal contempt. Referring to religious people as ones who have "an imaginary friend" is a cheap shot at anyone who believes in a higher power that can't be unquestionably proven to exist.

Two words: Unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The most tedious concept I've ever known. It basically shits on hundreds of thousands of years of humanity exploring.

"Man, I know you figured all that shit out but why not just believe man. Things are true if we want them to be true."

Grape_Nuts:

I'm sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit. Don't ever bunch Persians with Arabs ever again.

Reminds me of when folks just point at anyone east of Europe and says "look an Asian person!"

Yeah uh...it's a wee bit more complicated than that >_>. I get annoyed when people group all American's together as one demographic, I can't imagine how infuriating it would be to have basically the entire height of the globe worth of folks grouped in to a single category.

Blargh McBlargh:

wasneeplus:
So what? We gonna boot out all the christians and hindus next?

Oh, if only...

I wish I'd be alive when there's no more religion.

I'm sure I'm being naive but I imagine if educations become more common across the planet and less people are oppressed you'll find that faith will begin to fade away. It isn't that faith is bad necessarily, but generally it is used as a patch on the large scale to cover up some kind of injustice or pain.

At that point it becomes a religion.

Really the thing about religions that makes them a problem is they forget that groups are inverse squarely relevant to the population of their group. You get 2 people together and they likely can share a lot in common, maybe basically everything. Get 4 people together and you have only half as much, 8 people half that, 16 people half that, etc.

Actually I think I'm using inverse square wrong, but you get my point, once a group is beyond a dozen people it's only relevant on the most basic of levels. "We all are against rape." That kinda thing, extremes that everyone can agree on in the group.

A hundred people and its mostly a group on the faith that everyone is a copy. A thousand and you only share names, ten thousand and you don't even believe in the same path.

Every religion, and every political party, and every group in general, is a series of people under the illusion that they are in a pact with a lot of other like minded individuals. Really its just a hive of MANY much smaller groups, as small as two to three people potentially. The power comes from the illusion and the corruption comes from the reality that the odds of you sharing the vision that the leader of the group has is incredibly small. You are more likely to be hit by lighting in each of your eyes I'm sure.

So yeah, faith on the surface isn't a problem and if its a personal matter its probably both safe and healthy. But the moment you try to take something so ultimately subjective and build a consensus around it problems ensue. Cognitive Dissonance on a scale of millions is not usually positive, you get anger from some and complete surrender from others. Fantastic example is US politics these days, you only really find those two outcomes from the vast majority of folks involved.

300 million people making up 150 million tiny groups (probably) under the illusion that there are 2 groups that share anything more than a sliver of their ideals.

Oh crap...I just noticed I was babbling. Enjoy I guess.

Agayek:

Arif_Sohaib:
You think everyone is capable of that much discipline and self-control. And the people we are talking about are uneducated, poor and desperate. Some of them were doing what they did just for the loot. Our TV channels showed people forcing open shop shutters and taking anything they could get their hands on. Police here were too afraid to do anything about it.
And yes, the violent do deserve to be punished, the police deserve to be punished for not doing anything.

I perfectly understand why people are doing such. That does not excuse their behavior. As obvious as this sounds, unacceptable behavior is unacceptable. Is it suddenly alright for me to walk around shooting people, so long as I explain to everyone that asks that I had some kind of mental trauma that gives me the uncontrollable urge to shoot people?

At least in that example I'd have a valid excuse for doing so (read: uncontrollable neural impulses) instead of choosing to do so to vent.

It doesn't matter what your reasons are, visiting viol

Arif_Sohaib:
And you think the guy who posted the video wasn't planning to cause violence in Muslim countries? You think he didn't know what would happen?
And Youtube did nothing to stop that.
So youtube and the guy who posted the video, knowing fully what would happen as a result of it, deserve to be punished as well.

I have no idea. I've never seen the video, and frankly I don't care to. To be honest, I'm not even sure precisely what video you're talking about. Last I heard, the only recent big fuss being kicked up by Muslims is about that Innocence of Muslims thing that was only ever showed to a dozen people, and if that's the one you're talking about, it's practically guaranteed that no one involved here has actually seen it, and I'm not prepared to assume intent from something I've only heard third-hand reports about.

Wait, I thought the joke of today's comic was about the overreaction of Muslims about the "Innocence of Muslims Video". And all my arguments were based on that.
So I seriously misunderstood what you were talking about and I misunderstood the comic, sorry.
Just yesterday, I did a Media Studies assignment about Media and Religion and the whole thing is fresh in my mind.

captcha: walk the plank
It wasn't that big of a mistake!

maninahat:

ccdohl:
Now, admittedly, there are other religiously motivated terror groups. But they don't operate on the same scale. There also aren't any Christian theocracies out there than put people to death for adultery or blasphemy.

Places like the Central African Republic still execute people for witchcraft, whilst many Christian African nations are notorious for applying the death penalty to homosexuals and sodomites. Women are denied or discouraged from education in many places, and conflicts between Muslim and Christian groups are common.

And all of this is supported by a doctrine of global jihad, which basically classes all outsiders to certain sects as barbarians and therefore, declares open warfare on them. And yes, this is a religious notion, not just a political one. People died when a cartoon was drawn of Mohammed and a Koran was burned in Afghanistan. These aren't any less religiously motivated than politically...

...What it does mean, I think, is that condemning the religious institutions themselves for the actions of its followers is appropriate and that doing so does not necessarily make one a xenophobic turd or a prejudiced person. It certainly doesn't mean that everyone who criticizes the religion is completely ignorant of it either. I probably know more about Islam than many of the violent Muslims who are largely illiterate and get their information from religious leaders who are trying to convince them to be violent. This is a widespread problem, not something that is isolated to a few small groups who have perverted their faith.

There isn't much I can disagree with there. My only concern is that Islam gets regarded as somehow exceptionally and intrinsically violent whilst similar examples of religious (and for that matter, non-religious) motivated violence goes unreported/unnoticed.

Good point. I never meant to imply that Christianity or any other religion is completely innocent, and I was wrong in saying that there are no Christian countries where that stuff happens. I remember hearing a lot about a law in Uganda that would put homosexuals to death. I'm not as familiar with those countries, but it's certainly just as bad to base atrocities on the Bible as it is to base them on the Koran.

Arif_Sohaib:
Wait, I thought the joke of today's comic was about the overreaction of Muslims about the "Innocence of Muslims Video". And all my arguments were based on that.
So I seriously misunderstood what you were talking about and I misunderstood the comic, sorry.
Just yesterday, I did a Media Studies assignment about Media and Religion and the whole thing is fresh in my mind.

captcha: walk the plank
It wasn't that big of a mistake!

As far as I can tell, it is. But unless I missed something, and I don't think so as it's stated right here on this site, less than a dozen people have even seen the film in question.

My point in that regard was simply that while the film may well have been meant to incite violence against/from Muslims, I am not in a position to make that judgment, seeing as I have nothing but third- and fourth-hand accounts of it.

I'm just anal like that, I don't like making conclusions without at least having seen the evidence first hand. I'll freely admit that there's a good chance the guy was attempting to generate controversy if nothing else however.

Renegade-pizza:

Mike Fang:

Xan Krieger:

That aside that was a real zinger, even as a christian I felt that.

I hear that. I think it's cause as far as Stout goes, she's not anti-Muslim, she treats all religions with equal contempt. Referring to religious people as ones who have "an imaginary friend" is a cheap shot at anyone who believes in a higher power that can't be unquestionably proven to exist.

To be fair,I may be a Christian, but I find some religions like Wicca to be absolute crap. I understand where Erin(or rather the people who make this comic, since she's a fictional character) is coming from. Also, God isn't imaginary, he's just invisible. :P

Wicca's crazy, but the virgin birth of a child who is both God and the son of God, and when you go to Church on Sunday you're drinking his blood and eating his flesh and all evil in the world comes from a woman made from a rib who was tempted by a talking snake in a garden when the world was created 6000 years ago isn't crazy? Right, sure, let's go with that.

Ok let me see, the topic of religion got brought up and...yeah sure enough
image

You know it's kind of depressing of how predictable the Escapist raging about things can get. The second that the word "Muslim" was said, I could hear the flame war a mile away. Seriously...can we just stop? Can we please just stop? Seriously, is this acomplishing anything? Is it changing people's opinion on things? Is it making this place more friendly. Because as I seem to notice, flame wars tend to make forums more hostile, make you more frustrated, and it just makes you enemies. As someone once said, winning an argument on the internet is like winning the special olympics. You feel good for a second, then you realize that no one cares. SO WHY DO WE DO IT!? And this is going to change nothing, I know that. No one is going to listen to what I have to say, I don't know why I'm bothering, but I am.

Arif_Sohaib:

Flames66:

Mike Fang:

I hear that. I think it's cause as far as Stout goes, she's not anti-Muslim, she treats all religions with equal contempt. Referring to religious people as ones who have "an imaginary friend" is a cheap shot at anyone who believes in a higher power that can't be unquestionably proven to exist.

I think it is the equivalent of a religious person saying "you don't believe what I believe therefore you are going to hell". Neither is a pleasant comment and both should be kept out of general conversation.

That is a really good way to put it. In criticizing religion some atheists start doing the exact thing they criticize religious people for.

People may disagree with each other, but there is no reason to be obnoxious about it.

ravenshrike:

wasneeplus:

ccdohl:
What's for a xenophobic turd to fail to understand? Some people get murderously violent because of a religion, about 99% of the time, it's a certain religion. I don't have to get a degree in Islamic Studies or anything to want to put a boot to it.

Except it ain't muslims 99% of the time. At the moment, Islam is probably the most violent large religion on earth, but only by a small margin. So what? We gonna boot out all the christians and hindus next?

Citation needed. Specifically a citation relevant to the last 20 years. Now, if you only consider honor killings, then you would have a point. Course, even there Islam still takes the plurality, if not the majority. However, excluding honor killings, Islam is very much in the lead concerning violence. Definitely over 90%, quite possibly well over 99%.

That is just pure nonsense. I know that over 90% of terrorist attacks in Europe are committed by non-muslims. And what about all the violence in Punjab, Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland? What about all the witch hunts in Christian Africa, or our friend Joseph Kony and his peers? And that's just the things we hear about in the media that are clearly atributed to religion, that's not including Bosnia and all the fires and bombings in mosques in the west.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 4442)