On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 17:36, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 3, 2011 4:52 PM, "Paul M Foster" <pa...@quillandmouse.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Jun 3, 2011 3:48 PM, "tedd" <tedd.sperl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > At 1:02 PM -0400 6/2/11, Daniel Brown wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 22:13, Bill Guion <bgu...@comcast.net>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> So if I understand, you want an explode() with empty parameters
> >> > > >>> to
> >> > > explode
> >> > > >>> the host machine?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> That's correct. If it causes too much userland confusion, we
> >> > > >> can
> >> > > >> alias it as detonate() as well.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yes, to be preceded with:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > echo('Alaho Akbar');
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Nice ... any idea how many people you just insulted there?
> >> >
> >> > I'm guessing no one with an actual sense of humor.
> >> >
> >> > I suspect most people snickered at the joke and admired the chutzpah
> it
> >> > took to post it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Admiring people that insult an entire religion? Really, it does not take
> >> chutzpah, it just takes ignorance or stupidity to do something like
> that.
> >> Nothing admirable about it.
> >
> > There's everything admirable about it. Religion is not special, and does
> not
> > deserve any special treatment when it comes to critical comment. I can
> say
> > anything I want about a particular political party and that's ok, but I
> > can't express an opinion about a particular religion because it may cause
> > offence?
>
> Tedd's comment suggested that muslims are suicide bombers. That's not
> a comment on religion, that's an insult to a large group of people.
> Learn to tell the difference.
>
I think you need to read it again. He said those who detonate would say
that, not the other way around.
> And that's not to mention the fact that tedd's comment is a fact - more
> than
> > a few people have detonated in the name of their religion, and chances
> are
> > that if someone does detonate themselves it will be in the name of their
> > religion.
>
> And the vast majority of religious never have, nor never will detonate
> in the name of religion. Yet they are being targeted and put to hate
> just the same - then afterwards told to shut up and not feel offended.
>
You've just expanded the scope way beyond where it was. Religions don't
detonate anything, people do, whether they do it because their religion
encourages violence against non-believers or not. My point was and is
limited to a) my interpretation of tedd's comment did not extend to it being
a comment on a whole religion, and b) what you find offensive is not
objectively offensive.
> He didn't imply that everyone who follows that religion would do
> > the same, but that's the only interpretation I can think of that would
> cause
> > offence, so surely the offence is in the interpretation not the actual
> > words.
>
> Ahh, I see, that's why he wrote "Praise Jesus" and not "Alaho Akbar" -
> he really didn't mean to say anything about muslims or islam as a
> whole, he only wanted to comment on religion in an abstract way.
>
I never said his comment wasn't related to a particular religion, just that
it didn't appear to me to be a comment on the religion so much as on those
who detonate themselves in the name of that religion.
> Offence, like all things, is in the eye of the beholder. If something
> > offends you, take responsibility for the fact that it's because someone
> is
> > challenging a belief that you don't want to be challenged so you're
> reacting
> > against it. It's not because it is objectively offensive. There is
> nothing
> > that is objectively offensive*.
>
> The fact that someone offends someone else is neither more nor less an
> issue just because the offence is subjective. If I hold a certain
> belief and you choose to stuff that down the toilet, you're a complete
> dick, whether or not my belief makes sense.
>
And this is where we disagree. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and
they're also entitled to express that opinion, whether through humour or
simple statement. Tedd did not aim his comment at anyone in particular. He
didn't imply that anyone was guilty of anything they haven't done, or that
they hold beliefs they don't. He made a joke based on the fact that people
have detonated themselves in the name of their religion, specifically
muslims in this case, probably because it's topical. He could easily have
chosen other examples, but it wouldn't have been as humorous.
And for the record, Tedd did not challenge any beliefs. He just made a
> stupid joke at the expense of muslims.
>
All humour is at the expense of something, but why can I make a joke about
the clothes you choose to wear and get a laugh, but make a joke about your
religion and I've committed a crime? And that aside, I repeat that tedd did
not say anything about the religion, he simply referenced factual events.
>
> > * Nothing is objectively anything. Everything is subjective.
>
> Pure, unadulterated BS.
>
You're entitled to your view of reality, but I don't share it. I will,
however, defend your right to express it.
-Stuart
Please note that these comments reflect my opinion only, not those of my
employer.
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
