what happened to free speech

[xoggoth]

MIT. It really is absurd to suggest that a major polical threat from a billions strong community can somehow be countered by treating all members as individuals or entering into dialogs with sub-groups, it ain't practical.

I agree there are plenty of moderates and probably even more who, as in most religions, don't take much of it too seriously, and it is damaging to those to suggest they are all a problem. However, to indulge in a pretence that little or no problem exists, or that any that do are down to tiny handful of extremists as some do, will also make matters much worse. If a problem with any group is never addressed, resentment will build and eventually people will say a plague on all their houses.

Islam is a problem because it is veered towards religious conservatism accross the whole distribution. Sure, only minorities want Shariah law or a subordinate position for women, but they are far greater minorities than you will find among other groups. It does not make complete sense to distinguish between the extremist attitudes and the very conservative views from which they spring. Both conservatism and extremism are affecting our society in adverse ways and freedom of expression, as in this case, is only one of them.

We have spent centuries evolving our society towards what many of us regard as enlightened principles - secular society, democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and sexuality, equality of women - why should we not object when this progress is threatened by beliefs imported from other societies? Why is any defence of one's beliefs only permitted for the religious?

PS And I'm going to add being nice to animals just to annoy d00000000000000000000gh.

[sasguru]

You are essentially uttering sophisms to deny a reality that you don't like.

Muslims are overrepresented in crime involvement and prison population. This is common to most Western countries. That's the truth. Live with it.

Your point, and motive for uttering it, would be more believable had you not resorted to lies and over-exaggeration.

[Mich the Tester]

MIT. It really is absurd to suggest that a major polical threat from a billions strong community can somehow be countered by treating all members as individuals or entering into dialogs with sub-groups, it ain't practical.

I agree there are plenty of moderates and probably even more who, as in most religions, don't take much of it too seriously, and it is damaging to those to suggest they are all a problem. However, to indulge in a pretence that little or no problem exists, or that any that do are down to tiny handful of extremists as some do, will also make matters much worse. If a problem with any group is never addressed, resentment will build and eventually people will say a plague on all their houses.

Islam is a problem because it is veered towards religious conservatism accross the whole distribution. Sure, only minorities want Shariah law or a subordinate position for women, but they are far greater minority than you will find among other groups. It does not make complete sense to distinguish between the extremist attitudes and the very conservative views from which they spring. Both conservatism and extremism are affecting our society in adverse ways and freedom of expression, as in this case, is only one of them.

We have spent centuries evolving our society towards what many of us regard as enlightened principles - secular society, democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and sexuality, equality of women - why should we not object when this progress is threatened by beliefs imported from other societies? Why is any defence of one's beliefs only permitted for the religious?




everyone on an individual basisszdddddsx

I'm not pretending no problem exists; there is a real problem; I hope that those muslims who aren't radical in their actions or beliefs will get the upper hand, but if muslims are continually painted as being dangerous zealots and loons, what you get is more dangerous zealots and loons, as young people grow up thinking the society in which they live hates them and rejects them. It's not easy. Yep, problems need to be addressed, but they need to be addressed in a way which works; I don't know what works, but I know that exaggeration and wild prejudices won't work.

By the way, I think some muslim societies will reach 'enlightened principles' similar to our, but it will take time, as it did here.

[d000hg]

Hey. You are right. At worst, it's only 50% of the 12-24s . Phew.

Shock, 50% of some arbitrary group have been suspected of committing a crime. The fact that group is not even close to being described as "the Muslims" is clearly spurious to the debate...


I think I see willy's argument... there are Muslims in the country AND there are criminals so simple logic says they're the same people.

And yes I know what blasphemy is, we could say it's saying something insulting to God. Christianity has at its heart things which a Muslim would find blasphemous, shall we start that Christianity says Islam is a false religion and Jesus is of more importance than Muhammed?

[Pondlife]

So mrdonuts starts another jonny foreigner bashing thread but gets told to wind his neck in by Admin, then this climbs out from under his rock.



Quel surprise

What was the name of the that used to do this to "encourage debate", David Camp? Sommat like that.

[d000hg]

We have spent centuries evolving our society towards what many of us regard as enlightened principles - secular society, democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and sexuality, equality of women - why should we not object when this progress is threatened by beliefs imported from other societies? Why is any defence of one's beliefs only permitted for the religious?

PS And I'm going to add being nice to animals just to annoy d00000000000000000000gh.

I'm not sure why I would be annoyed about being nice to animals

I would say we look back on society progressing as a continued increase in equality and personal freedom. Because most of those things - abolishing slavery and setting the axiom that every person is of equal worth - are agreed to be moral and good, we therefore are taught that more freedom is inherently better. I'm not sure that's true.

Anyway your point seems to be that simply because another culture's beliefs are different to ours, we should push against them. Does that mean that it's equally valid for an entrenched Islam/Christian nation to reject sexual freedom and so on, for the same reasons?

[fckvwls]

So mrdonuts starts another jonny foreigner bashing thread but gets told to wind his neck in by Admin, then this climbs out from under his rock.



Quel surprise

To be fair to KaiserWilly he at least has a vocabulary and can construct a sentence, even if his maths is dismal. I've never read a donuts post that hasn't been very poorly written and usually full of grammatical and spelling errors.

[chef]

What was the name of the that used to do this to "encourage debate", David Camp? Sommat like that.

Chico

Edit: ahhh Chico, those were the good old CUK days when sockpuppets were entertaining

[BankingContractor]

Getting bored with this thread - its been done to death now.

We need to be fair in our dealings with people, whatever their background and engaging in an inclusive debate is better than creating animosity.

Seems like some people only play the freedom of speech thing against minorities and foreigners. When was the last time you read something good about migrants or muslims in the mainstream media? Are we saying these people are all bad.

And what's with freedom of speech anyway, what do you say to:

- someone who shouts "fire" in a crowded threatre - should he have their freedom of speech?

- what about someone who laughs at your misfortune whilst you're at your lowest point, like a funeral - does he have the right to his freedom of speech? And if you attack him are you also one of those nutters?

- what about the holocaust deniers - should they have their freedom of speech? In some European countries its a criminal matter so a custodial is a likley outcome.

Freedom of speech has to be used in a befitting manner and in line with social and custom norms and not used as a political tool to further the bigotry of some people.

[Mich the Tester]

Getting bored with this thread - its been done to death now.

We need to be fair in our dealings with people, whatever their background and engaging in an inclusive debate is better than creating animosity.

Seems like some people only play the freedom of speech thing against minorities and foreigners. When was the last time you read something good about migrants or muslims in the mainstream media? Are we saying these people are all bad.

And what's with freedom of speech anyway, what do you say to:

- someone who shouts "fire" in a crowded threatre - should he have their freedom of speech?

- what about someone who laughs at your misfortune whilst you're at your lowest point, like a funeral - does he have the right to his freedom of speech? And if you attack him are you also one of those nutters?

- what about the holocaust deniers - should they have their freedom of speech? In some European countries its a criminal matter so a custodial is a likley outcome.

Freedom of speech has to be used in a befitting manner and in line with social and custom norms and not used as a political tool to further the bigotry of some people.

This is too sensible for CUK general. You might find one or two people here can't get their heads around some of those concepts.