18 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoe"Offensiveness" is a terrible standard for censorship. All you have to do to get a post removed is to claim that it offended you. Who can claim otherwise? People get offended over such a wide variety of things that nobody would be able to take a position on anything if 'offensive' posts aren't allowed.
Your conclusions are not correct. I don't think your initial thread belongs in a "Spirituality" forum, not even if the joke's subject claims to be spiritual.
I suggest to open a new forum for stand-up comedians and their jokes.
By the way you explained your reasons and agenda to post your joke in the initial thread so stop whining if you get comments that criticises your intents and actual behaviour.
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrAgain, it is an open question whether there are other competing rights of the State, the students, etc. that are furthered by this restriction.
Nobody is preventing the expression of religion tout court. The restriction is on one form of religious expression in one specific public arena. Again, it is an open question whether the right of religious expression is so broad that this restriction is wrong. Again, it is an open question whether there are other competing rights of the State, the st ...[text shortened]... tion of religious expression itself, as though that was valuable to the French in and of itself.
In your opinion, what would these "competing rights" be?
No, obviously this is not evidence of an "attack on religion". First, the restriction only concerns one narrow form of expression. Second, the restriction only applies to one narrow public arena. Third, I see no reason to think that restricting X is equivalent to an attack on X. Fourth, the intent of the law is not the restriction of religious expression itself, as though that was valuable to the French in and of itself.
The question you're answering is whether such a law is equivalent to, or proves, an attack on religion. My question was about supporting evidence - does the existence of the law strengthen or weaken the argument that religion is under attack in Europe (all other things being equal - say, to the US)?
18 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou should practise your own beliefs, included tolerance, whether they are being returned or not.
Just hold on there. If a christian posts on hell-fire and damnation specifying how atheists such as myself are immoral and heading for the flames then I find this offensive. If they specify that my children, brought up outside the church, are candidates for hell then I find this offensive. However, I truly believe in toleration, sadly the toleration I extend to others is not returned.
Some fundamentalists also said to me I am going to hell because I am a Roman Catholic, and thus (?) an idol-worshipper, etc etc.
If they want to air this opinion I do not mind at all. You know why ? Because I absolutely do not agree with them, I do not regard this to be a truth and because they have no intent of offending me. They state what their belief is.
The absence of the intention to offend cannot be ascribed to the insults, abuse and other offensive remarks thrown in my direction for instance by certain opponents.
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThe criterium of deliberate offensiveness and not being part of the necessary reasoning in a certain debate could be criteria used to establish whether a certain statement is clearly violating the ToS.
"Offensiveness" is a terrible standard for censorship. All you have to do to get a post removed is to claim that it offended you. Who can claim otherwise? People get offended over such a wide variety of things that nobody would be able to take a position on anything if 'offensive' posts aren't allowed.
I'm sure there are even more criteria to add to establish whether a statement is offensive in the context and meaning of the ToS.
18 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere are any number of competing rights here. There are the rights of students to freely express their religious affiliation, of parents to raise their children religiously, of children to be free from repressive religious indoctrination, of the State to take measures to prevent potentially dangerous radicalism, etc. These are matters not merely settled a priori, by asserting that some right or other is violated. It is often the case that conflicts of this sort are such that legitimate claims are made by both sides. So, I doubt this amounts to anything as simple as an "attack on religion". While, of course, I disagree with this restriction, I suspect that the intention here is to combat the alleged radical islamification of France and to support the rights of women to be free from the hajib. This first rationale is more racist than indicative of any anti-religious sentiment. This second rationale is indicative of a very naive feminism (in that real feminists will point out that forcing young women not to wear the hajib is just as repressive as forcing them to wear the hajib).
Again, it is an open question whether there are other competing rights of the State, the students, etc. that are furthered by this restriction.
In your opinion, what would these "competing rights" be?
No, obviously this is not evidence of an "attack on religion". First, the restriction only concerns one narrow form of expression. rgument that religion is under attack in Europe (all other things being equal - say, to the US)?
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeGreat, even more completely subjective standards for 'offensive'. Who can tell for sure if the offense is 'deliberate'? The offended party will, of course, claim that it was, simply out of resentment towards the 'offender'.
The criterium of deliberate offensiveness and not being part of the necessary reasoning in a certain debate could be criteria used to establish whether a certain statement is clearly violating the ToS.
I'm sure there are even more criteria to add to establish whether a statement is offensive in the context and meaning of the ToS.
Ok, so in the aardvarkhome thread, you might claim it was 'deliberate', because the thread title had the very word 'offensive' in it (and even this is not as clear as you might think!), but you're not doing well on your other criterium. The spirituality forum is not limited just to debates. Joke threads related to religion thus should not be expected to contribute to a debate of any kind.
Even scarier is the statement that a statement must be 'part of the necessary reasoning in a certain debate'. Again, who is to say what reasoning is necessary? People reason in their own way. Even if you view the reasoning as fallacious and/or completely inapplicable, that doesn't mean that others hold the same view. This is especially true for matters of 'Spirituality', the discussion of the metaphysical, where it's possible for several very smart people to come to widely different conclusions.
Back to the aardvarkhome post. I contend that the word 'offensive' in the thread title can be looked at in more than just 'offensive to religious people'. The jokes are a product of the offense caused (to christians and non-christians alike!) by the Catholic's Church dreadful handling of a scandal. This is an offense that will linger no matter how many 'offensive' threads you strike down on a chess website's forum.
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstomp*Note to self: always read thread to the end before posting.
one thing about halitose is he , unlike many of the religious people here, doesnt think he has a right to be offensive either.
Thanks FS. That is my position, although when provoked I tend to throw caution to the wind.
18 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBDP: "Who can tell for sure if the offense is 'deliberate'?"
Great, even more completely subjective standards for 'offensive'. Who can tell for sure if the offense is 'deliberate'? The offended party will, of course, claim that it was, simply out of resentment towards the 'offender'.
Ok, so in the aardvarkhome thread, you might claim it was 'deliberate', because the thread title had the very word 'o ...[text shortened]... ill linger no matter how many 'offensive' threads you strike down on a chess website's forum.
The mods will have to decide this and please don't tell me that it is impossible to decide whether an insult or offense is meant to be an insult or offense or not. For instance repeated insulting and offensive behaviour usually is intended, unless of course one is suffering from Tourettes. But as you probably will know this syndrom does not have any influence on the writing skills of people.
BDP: "Even scarier is the statement that a statement must be 'part of the necessary reasoning in a certain debate'."
I'm sure the mods will be able to distinguish between what I call "necessary" and "unnecessary".
The usual insults by certain people for instance are absolutely unnecessary in a debate. These insults just keep coming back no matter which issue one is discussing. Usually they boil down to the same old Ad Hominems and I hope you do not look upon Ad Hominems as "necessary" in a debate.
Since the marauder area insults and other Ad Hominems have become an integral and accepted (!) part of debating at RHP.
In my view this is not a very promising PR policy for a chess site that wants to be a chess community and a quality chess site.
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBDP: "The jokes are a product of the offense caused (to christians and non-christians alike!) by the Catholic's Church dreadful handling of a scandal. This is an offense that will linger no matter how many 'offensive' threads you strike down on a chess website's forum.
Great, even more completely subjective standards for 'offensive'. Who can tell for sure if the offense is 'deliberate'? The offended party will, of course, claim that it was, simply out of resentment towards the 'offender'.
Ok, so in the aardvarkhome thread, you might claim it was 'deliberate', because the thread title had the very word 'o ...[text shortened]... ill linger no matter how many 'offensive' threads you strike down on a chess website's forum.
Fighting offense by offending isn't quite the correct course of action I would say. If you want to discuss the sex-scandal in a serious and non-offensive way you will notice that lots of Roman-Catholic people are perfectly willing to do that. However, people have had very bad experiences with this and the result will be that instead of opening up to a discussion they will close and turn away from it.
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou start something and then cry like the stuck pig that you are, when anybody offends you.
BDP: "The jokes are a product of the offense caused (to christians and non-christians alike!) by the Catholic's Church dreadful handling of a scandal. This is an offense that will linger no matter how many 'offensive' threads you strike down on a chess website's forum.
Fighting offense by offending isn't quite the correct course of action I would sa ...[text shortened]... result will be that instead of opening up to a discussion they will close and turn away from it.
The truth is the truth whether it's told in joke form or in serious context and the truth is : The RCC has hushed up incidents and made it difficult for parents to know what the risks are in allowing priests to be around their children.
What really IS offensive is watching the RCC act like it's above criticism while it passes off it's Fascist philosophy as Christianity.
And don't tell me there are good Christian priests and Bishops while you idolize a Pope that spend his life suppressing them and everything else too, excepting the right wing in the church.
The RCC lost more than a few "heretics" in 325 a.d. , It lost the Spirit and hasn't been able to get it back , and it won't as long as the right wing runs it.