Renegade343 Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 1.) Not every relationship needs to be warm and cuddley in order for society to prosper. But it would go along a better way to do that. 2.) You can respect a person's life, health, family, and property without respecting any of their beliefs. True, but that does not mean you should say it in front of said person repeatedly after said person kindly asked you to not talk about it. You still can, because you have the right to do it, but if said person then starts attacking you for it, while he would have almost all of the blame, you too would have a small bit of the blame to handle for not listening to the other person as well (note: Not because you keep on talking about the subject). In the end, free speech, when directed to other people (which is often the case), or at least the people who often support free speech, should realise that using free speech also means taking a bit of responsibility for what you say, but you can still say anything under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalenath Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Again. The mature response when somebody disrespects you is to stop listening to them. This isn't the freaking middle ages where you have a social obligation to challenge people to duels if they insult your family. Newspaper says something you find offensive? Stop reading. Now you're not being offended by it. Problem solved. Versus, what you just said there seems dangerously close to trying to justify murder with "but they were warned". But some people WANT this to BE the Middle Ages again. Complete with no indoor plumbing. Edited January 14, 2015 by Kalenath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 But some people WANT this to BE the Middle Ages again. Complete with no indoor plumbing. Just look at the crazy people in the SCA. http://www.sca.org/ So, while reading this I got to thinking, what is the point of satire? According to the internets, it's to point out flaws in the moral and political landscape and hope it brings enough attention to push a change or at least get people to think about what they're seeing and doing. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-satire.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire http://literarydevices.net/satire/ http://literary-exploration.com/2013/05/05/understanding-satire/ From what I've seen and read, the magazine did not target the Islamic religion with malicious intent, just an attempt to effect changes. Even if there had been malicious intent behind those comics, their murders were uncalled for and wrong, nothing they printed warranted what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade343 Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 Just look at the crazy people in the SCA. http://www.sca.org/ After looking at it, it is not that crazy. Bit weird, yes. But it looks like a healthy club to join for just finding something to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 After looking at it, it is not that crazy. Bit weird, yes. But it looks like a healthy club to join for just finding something to do. I've spent some time around Scadians, they're crazy lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalenath Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) I've spent some time around Scadians, they're crazy lol I know a bunch of SCA people too. And yes, they are crazy. But there IS a difference. They know when to be violent and when not to. And very few of them would resort to terrorist tactics. Slap you in the face in public? Sure. Shoot you, your co-workers, your families and pets over printed words? No. THEY mostly understand the whole concept of 'Honor'. Something that is anathema to fundamentalists everywhere because it makes people THINK. Not saying they are not crazy, but it is a VERY different type of crazy. Even the SCA wouldn't want FULL PROPER Shariah law to be enforced on everybody like the fundamentalists do. Not even going to say what the Old Testament fundamentalists want. There are limits for public forums. Frankly? THEY scare me more than any Islamic fundamentalists. There are FAR more of them. They are sneakier, but no less viscous and murderous on occasion. Edited January 14, 2015 by Kalenath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade343 Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 I've spent some time around Scadians, they're crazy lol I do not know, because China does not have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalenath Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) I do not know, because China does not have them. Yeah, it is mostly a North American thing with some forays into Europe. Or vice versa depending on which group you talk to. They are crazy, but generally not dangerous crazy. Edited January 14, 2015 by Kalenath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade343 Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 Yeah, it is mostly a North American thing with some forays into Europe. Or vice versa depending on which group you talk to. Apparently, they have one small one in Japan. And possibly Korea, if the website says it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Apparently, they have one small one in Japan. And possibly Korea, if the website says it true. Check this out; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsic_War My family went a couple years, said it was worth the money and hassle. I wasn't trying to draw a parallel between Scadians and the Charlie Hebdo situation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom_Bunny Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) While it is true that the right to free speech allows one to speak their opinion, that does not mean that one is free from any responsibility that could come from voicing out their opinion, nor does it protect anyone from being commented on by other people. In short, free speech ≠ no responsibilities for what one says. This why I like what we have in Australia. We can speak all we want but if we "offend, insult and humiliate" on racial and ethnic grounds, then people can prosecute us. This is because when you insult a person in that way, you don't just insult them but everyone that falls into that category you insult. No you're not hunted by police, tackled to the ground and gaged. Only those people offended (belonging to the category) can choose to prosecute. These cases end in a fine, a slap on the wrist to say mind your manners. Arfter the Charlie Hebdo case there was some concern as to our free speech but should we have the right to insult people? This was the same arfter the Sydney cafe case, "if they had guns, they could've avoided this" no! You know when our last (large/mass) massacre was? 1996. Edited January 14, 2015 by Postal_pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 This why I like what we have in Australia. We can speak all we want but if we "offend, insult and humiliate" on racial and ethnic grounds, then people can prosecute us. This is because when you insult a person in that way, you don't just insult them but everyone that falls into that category you insult. No you're not hunted by police, tackled to the ground and gaged. Only those people offended (belonging to the category) can choose to prosecute. These cases end in a fine, a slap on the wrist to say mind your manners. Arfter the Charlie Hebdo case there was some concern as to our free speech but should we have the right to insult people? This was the same arfter the Sydney cafe case, "if they had guns, they could've avoided this" no! You know when our last (large/mass) massacre was? 1996. But the magazine was printing satire, not insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalenath Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 But the magazine was printing satire, not insults. And can the average fundamentalist tell the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom_Bunny Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) But the magazine was printing satire, not insults. What would seem satire to us. Can be humiliating to others. -stuff said before the edit- Except when it's not trying to push for change but rather a column of "funnies" it's practically an insult. Edited January 14, 2015 by Postal_pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) And can the average fundamentalist tell the difference? Apparently not. : / Edited January 14, 2015 by Noamuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade343 Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 But the magazine was printing satire, not insults. True, but when you continue to do it after a few other, more rational groups asked to stop it, and not listening to them for the most part, you might be overstepping your boundaries a small bit. Not enough to warrant getting murdered (and nothing should warrant that), but you still have a very few bits that you can be blamed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagPrime Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 True, but when you continue to do it after a few other, more rational groups asked to stop it, and not listening to them for the most part, you might be overstepping your boundaries a small bit. Not enough to warrant getting murdered (and nothing should warrant that), but you still have a very few bits that you can be blamed for. Even though the point of satire is to illuminate certain flaws in society? I'd see it as even more of a reason to continue, just to bring more light to what's going on. Granted, I'd probably change tactics though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade343 Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 Even though the point of satire is to illuminate certain flaws in society? That does not mean that one can keep on writing without considering a bit on how other people react. Unless you are writing satire to let no one see, then fine, but what is the point of that, aside from privately venting your frustrations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalenath Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Even though the point of satire is to illuminate certain flaws in society? I'd see it as even more of a reason to continue, just to bring more light to what's going on. Granted, I'd probably change tactics though. The satire is going to get worse now. That IS the usual reaction to such. Push a person and they generally push back somehow. Kill someone for such a thing and there will be repercussions. Maybe it will be muted for a time, but not long. And the fundamentalists made some martyrs for the satirists to flock behind. Oops. Edited January 14, 2015 by Kalenath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokkania Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 funny thread True, but when you continue to do it after a few other, more rational groups asked to stop it, and not listening to them for the most part, you might be overstepping your boundaries a small bit. Not enough to warrant getting murdered (and nothing should warrant that), but you still have a very few bits that you can be blamed for. you're focusing too much on your "groups" If we were to take it as you nearly imply it, we wouldn't be able to speak of any kind of sensible subject because it would offense maybe 1 out of 10 people, because some are able to understand and some would misinterpret/don't have the right mindset/cant fathom the point or get offended. When a message is public you take account of what is considered standard and thus the "majority's potv" for the current society, in a lot of case you can nearly never put a message outside of impersonal ones, to a large public without having some exceptionnal bad cases. That's how thing come out to be thanks to a bunch of contextual things. That's why your notion of respect is misplaced because considering global population and publicity, what can be respectful for some, can be irrespectful for some others, how is one supposed to do then? That's why freedom of speech is a complicated issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePresident777 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) You are free to say what you want until you dis my tender sky fairy, then you die, because morality. Sounds legit, like nerfs, and Chicken Overlords.. Edited January 14, 2015 by ThePresident777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade343 Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 That's why your notion of respect is misplaced because considering global population and publicity, what can be respectful for some, can be irrespectful for some others, how is one supposed to do then? That's why freedom of speech is a complicated issue. We do it in moderation? For one thing, you cannot say something and expect that to not insult everyone (that is a fact), but you can say something to be respectful towards most of the community. And even if you want to say something disrespectful (or maybe have a small jab) at someone, you still can, but doing it too much would just overstep social boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokkania Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 We do it in moderation? For one thing, you cannot say something and expect that to not insult everyone (that is a fact), but you can say something to be respectful towards most of the community. And even if you want to say something disrespectful (or maybe have a small jab) at someone, you still can, but doing it too much would just overstep social boundaries. moderation mean limiting freedom of speech, that's why it's complicated ; and since always, not just for this case but for a lot of others. It's still the same thing from my previous post, when exactly is it that it can be considered respectful, when is it out of bound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade343 Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 moderation mean limiting freedom of speech, that's why it's complicated ; and since always, not just for this case but for a lot of others. It's still the same thing from my previous post, when exactly is it that it can be considered respectful, when is it out of bound? It is called self-moderation, not global, forced moderation. Yes, it is difficult to determine when is it considered respectful at times, but that does not mean because of that, one can just keep on holding onto the right for free speech, and ignore how the majority (or significant groups) may feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokkania Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 It is called self-moderation, not global, forced moderation. Yes, it is difficult to determine when is it considered respectful at times, but that does not mean because of that, one can just keep on holding onto the right for free speech, and ignore how the majority (or significant groups) may feel. the two parts are together, if you have to moderate yourself because of "minorities", the real result is that you don't have any more freedom then, for that case you actually consider that, it was irrespectful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts