88 replies to this topic

[TheLegendOfMart]

PGHammer, on 05 March 2013 - 22:02, said:

If criticizing others due to NON-racial differences (I mentioned Jewry and Muslims to make a point) CAN be (and is) considered "hate speech" - though neither is a race - why is criticizing the United States in general, and Americans in particular, fair game?

If criticism based on religion or race is barred, then why is criticism based on nationality acceptable? THAT is the REAL question I asked.

If you continue to put up that sort of skewed law, then no criticism of the United States (or the folks that live in it) can be seen as anything other than jealousy and/or tribalism disguised as nationalism.

And yes - the same applies to all OTHER nationalities.

Get over yourself, criticising something isn't hate speech at all, I am just finding fault with the way your laws and culture are, I'm not vilifying or inciting violence against Americans just because you are American.

[+hedleigh]

PGHammer, on 05 March 2013 - 21:54, said:

seta-san did not mention race in her argument. It's a debate I've had with seta-san outside of Neowin, and I actually get it. It has nothing to do with race - however, it has EVERYTHING to do with the same sort of lack of civility that has been the case in the Middle East (especially between certain Arab nations and Israel). The vast majority of African governments are not democratic in ANY sense of the word - let alone as close to a republic as even South Africa is today; worse, all too many have practiced, or tried to practice, the same sort of genocide associated with Hitler, despite most being far away from any of the battlefields of World War II. How is the African Union handling these multiple near-genocides? Largely they aren't - their unstated policy is to let the two sides kill each other.

Throw in a lack of resources for most of the nations of Africa, along with that determined isolationistic streak of the AU, and you have to wonder why SHOULD the rest of the planet intervene if they themselves won't?

Race has NOTHING to do with it.

Off Topic I know.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that he was talking about all Africans including the white population.
Also apparently your definition of a democracy differs from mine as IMO there are very few democracies anywhere. (My definition is:- The poorest persons voice carries the same weight as the richest.)

It's not as if the western world hasn't contributed to their plight either. Bleed a country dry then leave them to sort out the problems on their own.

Last but not least, civilised caring countries/people should always offer help to those less fortunate than themselves.
But that's okay, it's my moralistic atheism showing it's ugly face.

On Topic:

When someone can be discriminated against for the reason in this post, proves conclusively that religions of all ilks are no better than the ones they decry. Regardless of any silly clauses they feel they have the right to put into employment contacts.

John Kerry did some it up best I suppose then.

[ricodico]

PGHammer, on 05 March 2013 - 21:34, said:

Exactly, seta-san - it's called "pot and kettle".

Here's what I find mind-boggling: the SAME folks that decry the established religions not only are acting just as restricting as the folks they criticize, they are often much worse in their closed-mindedness. Mormons, Scientologists, and even Catholics are among the favorite targets; still, despite my OWN issues with the Roman Catholic Church, I don't target ALL religions - let alone all MAJOR religions - with the same brush.

Oh please. Cry me a river. If those who are religious didn't want to get **** on, maybe they should think about moving forward with their religious beliefs instead of living 2000 years in the past. Once they can do that, maybe someone will give 2 craps about what religions think.

[seta-san]

hedleigh, on 05 March 2013 - 22:21, said:

Off Topic I know.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that he was talking about all Africans including the white population.
Also apparently your definition of a democracy differs from mine as IMO there are very few democracies anywhere. (My definition is:- The poorest persons voice carries the same weight as the richest.)

It's not as if the western world hasn't contributed to their plight either. Bleed a country dry then leave them to sort out the problems on their own.

Last but not least, civilised caring countries/people should always offer help to those less fortunate than themselves.
But that's okay, it's my moralistic atheism showing it's ugly face.

On Topic:

When someone can be discriminated against for the reason in this post, proves conclusively that religions of all ilks are no better than the ones they decry. Regardless of any silly clauses they feel they have the right to put into employment contacts.

John Kerry did some it up best I suppose then.

that's an interesting comment. Africa isn't bled dry. It's resources have largely been untapped including a vast mineral wealth

[Torolol]

metallithrax, on 05 March 2013 - 20:37, said:

I'm gonna go back to this one.

Nothing in that article mentions religion. So why come up with the "other religions" part? Just because she is from Indonesia doesn't mean she isn't Christian.

very likely she and her son are muslims, from this information:

Quote

An Indonesian woman drowned her nine-year-old son in the bath,
...
The 38-year-old woman from the capital Jakarta told police her son had had a small penis prior to being circumcised,
but that it appeared to shrink further after the operation, police spokesman Rikwanto

the circumcised is the keyword, muslims pride themself being circumcised,
which is quite odd IMO as nowhere in qur'an mentioning circumcision.

Unlike the jews who doing the circumcision to 8-days male-baby in accordance to torrah laws,
the male muslims usualy doing circumcision during pre-teen to early-teen age.

Circumcision also part of Islamic socio-culture, as boy usually mocked by their muslim peers, if hasn't undergoes any circumcision yet.

Circumcision are foreign concept for non-muslim in Indonesia, they almost never doing that.

[FloatingFatMan]

Torolol, on 06 March 2013 - 09:37, said:

very likely she and her son are muslims, from this information:


the circumcised is the keyword, muslims pride themself being circumcised,
which is quite odd IMO as nowhere in qur'an mentioning circumcision.

Unlike the jews who doing the circumcision to 8-days male-baby in accordance to torrah laws,
the male muslims usualy doing circumcision during pre-teen to early-teen age.

Circumcision also part of Islamic socio-culture, as boy usually mocked by their muslim peers, if hasn't undergoes any circumcision yet.

Circumcision are foreign concept for non-muslim in Indonesia, they almost never doing that.

I think you've replied to the wrong thread...

[+McKay]

gzAsher, on 04 March 2013 - 08:51, said:

No in reasonable countries, an employer can fire an employee anytime they want without giving any reason. In reasonable countries, when said emplyee goes to court to sue the employer, least they get is laughed at and escorted out of the premises.

Because not only is it immoral, it's hypocritical if you're preaching celibacy while one of your employees is going around getting into everyone's pants. Had she been in some other country where having premarital sex is illegal, losing her job would have been the least of her concerns. When in rome, you should do like the romans do i.e. not have sex if you work at a religious institute.

No, I'd say its fairly reasonable to require a reason to fire somebody. And who are you to say having sex before marriage is immoral? I'm sorry but if you're getting your morals and judging others from a 2,000 year old book that tells you to stone gays to death, burn cities to the ground for worshipping another God, to murder a female rape victim because its her fault she didn't scream loud enough, sell your daughters into slavery, own slaves, forbids people who wear glasses from going to Church, forbids you from wearing clothes made from a blend of fabrics, forbids round haircuts, forbids farmers planting 2 crops in the same field... I could go on... for a long, long time. If you're getting your morals from a book that teaches all that and more, any reasonable person would laugh you out of the room.

And don't give me any guff about "Thats in the Old Testament!" According to Jesus in the New Testament, the Old Testament still applies.

[+chconline]

McKay, on 06 March 2013 - 12:06, said:

No, I'd say its fairly reasonable to require a reason to fire somebody. And who are you to say having sex before marriage is immoral? I'm sorry but if you're getting your morals and judging others from a 2,000 year old book that tells you to stone gays to death, burn cities to the ground for worshipping another God, to murder a female rape victim because its her fault she didn't scream loud enough, sell your daughters into slavery, own slaves, forbids people who wear glasses from going to Church, forbids you from wearing clothes made from a blend of fabrics, forbids round haircuts, forbids farmers planting 2 crops in the same field... I could go on... for a long, long time. If you're getting your morals from a book that teaches all that and more, any reasonable person would laugh you out of the room.

And don't give me any guff about "Thats in the Old Testament!" According to Jesus in the New Testament, the Old Testament still applies.

You have absolutely ZERO idea of cultural-historical context. Also, you made up a few of your own that has no reference. There is no reference in the OT with regards to stoning rape victims. You're mistaking that for the Quran.

The OT does apply. That's right. I said that. Jesus validated the canonicity of the OT. The OT is the foundation of the NT. There are three types of laws in the OT. First are moral laws. It adheres to the very character of God, and are direct commandments. This includes things like you should not steal, murder, etc. Second ones are civil laws. It provides a guideline of how people should live, but may not be applicable directly today -- but there are timeless principles. Third are ceremonial laws. These directs on how to worship.

With regards to farmers and mixed clothing, these are not moral laws. There is nothing in Hebrew context that suggests these are moral laws, nor does it carry over to the NT in direct context. For example, weaving two types of cloths together in clothing is a pagan practice that regards fertility. And of course, counting how people worship other gods at the time (Temple prostitution, human sacrifices, etc) I doubt even these will be tolerated today. This is no different than saying you should not wear the symbol of peace backwards in Germany and stretch out your right arm at a 45 degree angle. 2000 years later people would think you're retarded for making such a law, but there are principles to it that are timeless.

The strict laws of the OT shows the importance of God's saving plan and God's intention to ensure it will be established (Jesus), the strict requirements of God's kingdom, sin and human weakness, and the need for grace (Also Jesus). Salvation is by faith alone, and the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus atoned for all sins. All sins are forgivable except for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (Which is a sin that cannot be committed in modern day context, another discussion).

I could go on... for a long, long time. If you're getting your ideas with absolutely no background knowledge on what you're reading, and make up a few of your own, any person who has spent about 5 minutes on the internet researching will laugh you out of the room.

I do not believe morals will change over time. Everyone has their own set of morals, and are distorted to different extents. But there are absolute standards. The Bible holds morals to God's standards, and it's reasonable and logical. We can all agree on how we should not lie, rape, cheat, steal, murder, whatever. Some people don't hold to that. Some people have no problems eating other people, and honestly, if there are no absolute and reference standard we can hold to, then I will see no issues with any of the listed items. However, in real life, this does not, and should not, change. If you're tempted to take me out of context, then I have no words for your practices but to shake my head in disgust.

NOTE: I have no background in theology. I am just a guy who does a lot of reading and a lot of research on everything.

[+McKay]

chconline, on 08 March 2013 - 01:11, said:

You have absolutely ZERO idea of cultural-historical context. Also, you made up a few of your own that has no reference. There is no reference in the OT with regards to stoning rape victims. You're mistaking that for the Quran. The OT does apply. That's right. I said that. Jesus validated the canonicity of the OT. The OT is the foundation of the NT. There are three types of laws in the OT. First are moral laws. It adheres to the very character of God, and are direct commandments. This includes things like you should not steal, murder, etc. Second ones are civil laws. It provides a guideline of how people should live, but may not be applicable directly today -- but there are timeless principles. Third are ceremonial laws. These directs on how to worship. With regards to farmers and mixed clothing, these are not moral laws. There is nothing in Hebrew context that suggests these are moral laws, nor does it carry over to the NT in direct context. For example, weaving two types of cloths together in clothing is a pagan practice that regards fertility. And of course, counting how people worship other gods at the time (Temple prostitution, human sacrifices, etc) I doubt even these will be tolerated today. This is no different than saying you should not wear the symbol of peace backwards in Germany and stretch out your right arm at a 45 degree angle. 2000 years later people would think you're retarded for making such a law, but there are principles to it that are timeless. The strict laws of the OT shows the importance of God's saving plan and God's intention to ensure it will be established (Jesus), the strict requirements of God's kingdom, sin and human weakness, and the need for grace (Also Jesus). Salvation is by faith alone, and the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus atoned for all sins. All sins are forgivable except for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (Which is a sin that cannot be committed in modern day context, another discussion). I could go on... for a long, long time. If you're getting your ideas with absolutely no background knowledge on what you're reading, and make up a few of your own, any person who has spent about 5 minutes on the internet researching will laugh you out of the room. I do not believe morals will change over time. Everyone has their own set of morals, and are distorted to different extents. But there are absolute standards. The Bible holds morals to God's standards, and it's reasonable and logical. We can all agree on how we should not lie, rape, cheat, steal, murder, whatever. Some people don't hold to that. Some people have no problems eating other people, and honestly, if there are no absolute and reference standard we can hold to, then I will see no issues with any of the listed items. However, in real life, this does not, and should not, change. If you're tempted to take me out of context, then I have no words for your practices but to shake my head in disgust. NOTE: I have no background in theology. I am just a guy who does a lot of reading and a lot of research on everything.

This book is also responsible for the misery of gays everywhere who are persecuted and unable to marry the person they love, the Christians only argument? "The Bible says so" That by itself is enough for me to find anyone who needs to their morals from the bible laughable.

[kronckew]

gzAsher, on 03 March 2013 - 23:45, said:

Nah under Taliban rule, she'd just get 80 lashings if the guy she had sex with was unmarried too. If not, well then she would have been stoned to death.

Edit: Same for the guy.

Edit 2: If she was pregnant, they'd wait until she'd given birth to the kid and the kid had grown out of breastfeeding age and then the punishment would be administered.

then her family male members would take turns to rape her, then cut her throat, chop her into small pieces and throw her in a canal for bringing dishonour on her family.

[AsherGZ]

kronckew, on 08 March 2013 - 09:01, said:

then her family male members would take turns to rape her, then cut her throat, chop her into small pieces and throw her in a canal for bringing dishonour on her family.

Haha, are we talking about the same woman here? I bet her family doesn't give a damn who she's doing because they're afraid she would sue them for being too nosy. But no, under taliban rule, she would likely convert to Islam. And then, US troops would come to save her from such old beliefs, but first they'd rape her and threaten her to prevent her from raising her voice against the oppression. If she goes to someone for help, she would be told to stuff it because it's unpatriotic.

[FloatingFatMan]

^ I'm not sure what you two are smoking, but you should stop. It's rotting your brains.

[Dan~]

Simple, ban religion.

[+McKay]

Dan~, on 08 March 2013 - 12:32, said:

Simple, ban religion.

If you ban it, it'll only grow stronger. Christianity is dying out in most Western Nations anyway as it becomes less and less relevant so I say let time take its course.