Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Exposes Advertisers To Hate Speech
NewsCloud writes "Does Facebook believe that no publicity is bad publicity? Why else would they leave a group called, "F**k Islam" open since July 21, 2007 despite more than 53,482 members joining an opposing group called petition: if "f**k Islam" is not shut down..we r quitting facebook group? Furthermore, advertisers such as Sprint, Verizon, T Mobile, Target, and Qwest wouldn't be too happy to learn that they are paying for ads on the 'F**k Islam' group pages. Shouldn't a startup like Facebook, reportedly worth more than a billion dollars and with over a hundred employees, be expected to enforce its own Terms of Use in less than six weeks?"
I bet 99% of those people couldn't quit Facebook even if you paid them.
What about the large amount of anti religious speech on Digg.com?
Yes, you have the right to say what you like, but I have the right to kick you out of my club if you start saying things I don't like.
I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
And the right not to. Which so far they have upheld.
Shouldn't this article be under the censorship icon? That's what we're talking about, isn't it?
props to the slashdot strawman.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
I guess I'm just not sensitive to plight of religion.
::shrugs::
/. I expect plenty of comments telling me exactly what it is and why I'm such a turd for believing that my feelings and my Facebook groups are mostly MY business.
I really don't see a problem with a "Fuck Islam" group, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to go far enough. How about a "Fuck believing in Deities" group. And more to the point, what's really wrong with that?
Should child molesters be able to rally against a "Fuck child molesters" group?
I hate KKK members. I can't stand them. Listening to their boring, monotonous, unfounded, uneducated diatribe and rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach. Am I wrong?
Can I not hate?
Damn Baby Boomers, they got the whole world in this 'touchy-feely' vibe. Sorry guys, free speech, ironically, means protecting ideas you don't like, including a person's right to feel however the FUCK they want to feel about any particular subject. It'd be cool if there were an objective standard where 'less hate' made you a better person (a la Star Wars, and the Force), but there's not, and there's really no reason NOT to hate, other than the fact that it, probably is a waste of your time, and your energy and can be an unhealthy source of stress.
I know plenty of people that hate black people, Jews, Muslims, etc. but as long as they don't DO anything about it (like kill/hang/enslave/deny employment & education/conscript) I guess I don't really care.
I'm sure I'll be modded down because the world today tells you that 'hate = suxzorz' but quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with people who hate. We all hate sometimes. Try not to let it effect your actions, and how people perceive you, and try to let it go because it's a personal hangup but don't encourage corporations to begin fiating legislation that tells me what emotions it's okay for me to have and express.
If there's a fiscal argument (a la ads) to be made, I suppose that'd be where I'd find the argument persuasive, but honestly it's a cloak for a moral judgment, and I'm sick and tired of being told how I should feel about things. Facebook, you let me keep in touch with my friends, I'm a big boy. I'll decide how I feel about things.
As for being hated, I'm sure it sucks, but again, if it's not having any actual consequences, don't sweat it. If you're getting turned down for a job because you're Islamic, that seems pretty crappy to me, but if some numbnuts has decided that him and his hater friends wanna circle jerk each other's ideas on FB, screw em. Don't join the group. Don't talk with them.
I just don't see what the big deal is, but, being
Some of those fuck Islam people might even live in our town! Quick, create a petition to drive them out of their homes as well! I'm a buddhist, and I'd be quite annoyed if a 'fuck buddhism' group were removed. I'd probably even join if they'd have me, I don't think any honest person can look at his religion and not see huge room for criticism. But trying to force someone into your own belief system is a dangerous path to walk. I think this group is flirting with turning into the exact thing they intend to get rid of.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Remember that it's acceptable to make fun of Geeks, Christians, Buddists, Jews, Scientologists, Atheists, and LoS (Libertarians on Slashdot). But never make fun of Islam, the religion of peace, because they might cut off your head and car bomb your friends.
Am I wrong when I think that if there were a site on Facebook call F*ck Chistianity, with a similar petition of outraged Facebook users saying they would quit unless the site was taken down, that the story would get the entirely opposite spin when it ran on Slashdot, with the writer coming down on the side of free speech over protecting outraged religionists from being offended? And I am no Christian zealot, either. However, sites like Slashdot and Digg skew to the liberal/moonbatty side, and unfortunately there is an all-to-apparent double-standard / hypocritical attitude that Islam deserves special treatment compared to Christianity and Judaism. Free speech should come first in all cases -- I don't care which group is offended.
This is a fucked up world of american political correctness, man. Let me be brave and bold to say....
FUCK FAT People. They are just UGLY.
The group Fuck Islam can't be racist. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. Even if it said Fuck Muslims, it still wouldn't be racist. The religion of Islam accepts members of any race, and the term Muslim encompasses all followers of Islam. Calling it racist points you out as an ignorant follower of stereotypes also; the majority of Muslims in the world aren't even middle Eastern, they're in SE Asia and Indonesia.
I don't see a problem with this group, or any others. Censorship is more offensive to me than anything I've ever seen someone wanting to censor. Full disclosure, I'm an Antitheist and anything working against the institutions of religions is fine with me (as long as it's peaceful of course).
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
The submitter is obviously just trying to drum up traffic to his page with a troll post. The submitter linked to his own news site. Great for SEO.
I am extremely angry they took down the F*ck Islam thread. It's a win for censorship, and from all accounts it was a critique of Islam more then a needless hate thread. Islam need some very aggressive critiquing. It has many modern flaws systemic within it and has it's head buried far far far into the sand. Mod me down but it greatly angers me that no one can critique Islam. That people die for doing nothing more then pointing out it's flaws. At some point we need to push back. Poor beleaguered Muslims in US, probably. But Almost any country that is Muslim majority is a oppressive to it's religious and ethnic minorities. From indonesia to UAE. Muslims aren't bad people but they are set up systemically to be used by what ever power broker can incite religious fervor. And most of the Muslim power broker are bad people.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Yeah, and the KKK claims they are a civil-rights group!
Cause you know, it's obvious that casualty count = violence from the other side. Body armor, squad tactics, heavy armor, and better weapons don't play any part at all, it's obvious that the side with the fewest casualties is the more violent one.
.002% of the population, and claiming that .002% of any population isn't a claim I for one would dispute.
Yeah...that's not even close to logical. You may be right, US soldiers may be the ones being violent and the media may be playing it off as the iraqis being more violent. You can't derive that from a casualty count however, not even if you try really hard. Because what it comes down to is that there are 26 million iraqis and many, many fewer US soldiers. 71,000 dead is a lot, a whole lot, but it's also
Yes they might be a minority, an extremely small minority in Iraq, and they might account for every one of those dead. Pure numbers, large as they may be, mean nothing unless accompanied by total numbers.
Note that I'm not trying to make any political statement here, I figure my views are easily found with just a few of my other comments. I am merely trying to show how using a figure like 71,000 casualties on one side (a side that is, for better or worse, known for killing many of it's own members which leads me to question how many of those casualties are directly linked to US soldiers) and only 3,000 on the other proves nothing and shouldn't be used to support, or criticize, any viewpoint. It's a meaningless statistic because a lot of important facts are missing.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
I'm just wondering why you're attributing car bombs and other terr^H^H^H^H insurgent actions to Americans?
1) We buy oil at fair market value, even after the countries in question nationalized their oil production - which was by and large owned by western corporations at the time. In effect, the countries in question stole from the West.
2) Really by the time there are no living humans with memory of an event, it's time to stop demanding retribution/reparations/repayment/etc.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Seriously. Aren't we big enough, as a species, to realize that there are people out there that hate us (no matter whom the "us" are), and that, fundamentally, it's their right to do so? If you don't like me because I'm a male, an American, without a degree, overweight, a Christian, from Texas, or whatever, I just flat don't care. I have more important stuff to worry about, and criticism to notice from people whose opinions actually matter to me. A life so empty of strife an conflict that it can be shaken just by someone forming a group called "Fuck <some group that I happen to identify with>" is a life to be envied, I suppose.
Nobody is going to please everyone he meets in life, and if you don't make any enemies along the way, you're probably not doing anything meaningful. If someone is going to waste time and energy hating me, I don't feel threatened. I don't feel endangered. If there existed a group called "Fuck all fat egocentric Texan assholes," I'd get a good chuckle out of it. Because, really, we can be pretty overbearing at times; we all can, though you'd probably never see fat egocentric Texan assholes shooting up the place and lighting fires because someone circulated cartoons of Sam Houston or Stephen Austin.
I mean, really, what's the harm? Short of the US military, there isn't a single group of people organized and equipped to exterminate or even cause widespread inconvenience to all fat egocentric Texan assholes--or all adherents of Islam, for that matter. And, really, if I were Islamic, I'd be a lot more worried about the US military than a club on a social networking website.
We need to all grow up (grow a pair, as the saying goes). Every person on this planet is a pathetic loser in one way or another. Thankfully we're all pathetic losers in different ways. Grow from the worthwhile criticism, and laugh at the rest. Whining for censorship is picking a fight in the parking lot because you lost on the mat. Call me an asshole, and be happy you can; I'll gladly return the favor.
The day we can't is the day we really have something to worry about.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
Is more speech, not censorship. Yes, I understand that this is not a First Amendment issue. Facebook is not the government, and is fully within its rights to enforce any conditions it sees fit (within the constraints of the law) on their user base. However, that does NOT take this out of the arena of free speech issues.
Free speech should, in every case, be promoted wherever possible, especially in online outlets of communication. Regardless of whether or not you like the "fuck muslims" group, approve of their message (or not), there is a non-zero possibility that they have some new ideas that nobody's introduced into the marketplace, or have a new way of thinking about old concepts. Hell, even if they don't, they obviously believe what they endorsed via membership in the group, and that should be enough to trigger our desire to protect it.
The ideas contained in speech we find offensive don't go away just because we shut them up. The "fuck muslims" group will move on, maybe list their ideas somewhere else, probably with a smaller readership, but they won't disappear. If you want to combat them, read their args, make your own, defeat them with logic and reason.
Also, the last bit of the squib on the article seems like kind of a whiny thing to say. "Why won't X Company enforce Y provision of their User Agreement?" Well, because they haven't chosen to. They're not OBLIGATED to. The User Agreement is pretty one way. And I'm willing to bet that the poster and people who agree with him would have a HUGE problem if Facebook decided to shut something that they believe in down.
Long and short, free speech is good, always, and man up and argue things you don't like on their merits.
Dude, this is Slashdot, it doesn't have a ridiculous policy on "Forbidden Words", nor the ridiculous belief that replacing some letters with symbols somehow robs words of their meaning.
Say it with me: the group is called "Fuck Islam".
sic transit gloria mundi
Yes, that's exactly what keeps me from murdering and raping everyone I meet. Religion, and religion alone.
My own morality and sense of good judgment has absolutely nothing to do with it.
If someone I disagree with isn't allowed to express their views in an open forum they will find some other way of promoting their viewpoint.
If one person is willing to express a view then many other people probably also believe the same thing. If they are allowed to express their views openly then those views can be openly rebutted. That's the reason I never mod down people I disagree with on slashtot. Its better to post my on response or mod up a good response.
"If the fear of reward or punishment in the afterlife is the only thing that makes people good, we are a sad lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein
Circumcision is child abuse.
"The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion."
IOW it's mainly Muslims killing each other, so the GPs point about us "still killing them in mass" is bullshit. The main reason we're still there four years later is to try to stop Muslim deaths. (Of course, whether our continued presence is actually helping is very debatable.)
I also have to wonder what exactly the numerous Islamic terrorist atrocities commited before any western involvement in Iraq or Afganistan were "fighting back" against.
Since when is Islam a race? Islam is a religion whose practitioners are called Muslims. Muslims can be of any race. Just like followers of Christianity are called Christians, and there are Christians of every skin color. So, cursing a religion does NOT make a person RACIST, nor does it qualify as HATE SPEECH.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
1/6th of the worlds population is online!!
I don't understand why people can't tolerate hecklers and idiots without getting all offended. It is the Internet after all and being a panzy cry baby because someone insults you, your mother or god forbid your religion is just a sign of your own stupidity and insecurity.
Personally I think our efforts are best spent mocking Scientology and the brainwashed cult-wannabee idiots who follow it.
Based on common sense? Are you COMPLETELY retarded? WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me. Which piece of 'common sense' tells me that I shouldn't steal? As far as rape goes, why should I care whether someone else wants to do something or not? If I want to, and I have the power to do it, why should I not? (Note: I know why I should not. It isn't because of any 'common sense', though) Whether you like it or not, if there is an absolute moral code, it doesn't come from nature or common sense. If there isn't, then theft and rape are not wrong. You CANNOT have it both ways.
http://xkcd.com/386/
...and none of the petitioners have actually left.
What is their deadline anyway? "Stop that group or we'll quit Facebook somewhere in 2084"?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Oh, I thought the group was called "F**k Islam". Color me surprised that anyone on Slashdot would care to protect my innocent eyes from the word FUCK.
> WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me.
So your argument is that religion harms people by causing to act against their own self interest? Interesting, but much as I dislike most forms of religion, I don't think they're that bad. (At least not all the time.)
The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
The whole idea of removing the group because some people are offended is insane; some people will be offended by almost anything Hell, I'm offended that the barbaric sharia law is still practiced in some areas. But they're just words, and I wouldn't support the removal of a facebook group advocating imposing, say, sharia on the United States!
Words, even offensive words, harm nobody. Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong. Censoring criticism (no matter how bigoted) of religion is even worse, though, because it spreads this idea that religious thought is somehow special.
The only special quality about religious thought is the effectiveness with which it spreads itself by removing reason from the mind of the believer.
Who gave you the power to fix the meanings of words? What makes you think that the meaning of terms is a function of their "definitions" in the first place?
You're making a completely pointless argument. As any half-trained social scientist will tell you, the concept of "race" in the sense of the term "racism" is a socially constructed concept; a way of explaining social difference by appeal to an attributed biological difference, which may not in fact exist. But the bigger point is that "race" is just one ingredient in the palette of things that discriminatory ideologies appeal to; religion and language are no less important.
In short, there really isn't any principled important dividing line to be drawn between "racism," "xenophobia" and "anti-Islamism." Calling anti-Muslim attitudes "racism" isn't a big abuse of the term, because the (a) differences are relatively minor, given the context of the discussion, and (b) it's not like vulgar racist thought itself cares about such precise distinctions.
Are you adequate?
Despite a lack of belief in your sky fairy, I have never killed, stole or committed adultery. Amazing! Apparently I can be a normal functioning person without the threat of pain and suffering hanging over me.
Better to rely on the goodwill and common sense and love for his fellow man inherent in each and every one of us.
Well now that you mention it, if the only reason you havn't done those things is an irrational fear of pain and suffering in an imaginary afterlife you're a sociopath, so perhaps we do need to keep the mentally unstable members of the population subdued with religion.
Some of us can managed to be moral without having to believe in punishment by a superior being.
What was that about the spirit of Free Speech? Sure, this isn't a "do it and go to jail" situation, so it's not a First Amendment issue, but I keep hearing about people shutting down Christian topics because they're too controversial, but allow the 'Jackass(TM)' mindset to flourish, skinning knees, breaking legs, and leaving a 'cool' video.
Sure, the name has an obscured curse word in the title, but so what? I've heard a hundred times, "If you don't like the content [gratutious sex, violence, adult topics on broadcast], change the channel". Well, now I don't watch TV at all.
If this bothers you so certainly, I suggest you do the same. Isn't that the 'enlightened' thing to do, my liberal friends?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
I'll tell ya what all the fuss is about: Political Correctness (PC) and the erosion of First Amendment rights as a result.
I think PC sucks. I think censoring people because they might say something that bothers or offends me is completely anti-First Amendment. I may not like what the group Fuck Islam has to say, but they have a right to say what they want to say, no matter whether it's offensive, hate speech, politically incorrect, racist, or anything else.
Fuck Political Correctness should be the next group to organize, though the closest I could come was http://www.subgenius.com./
There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code, absent religious reasons.
Evolutionary genetics and simple game theory lead to the conclusion that morality is an inevitable consequence of living in social groups.
In this case, your common sense is kinda short sighted. Because, extrapolating that, it should tell you that the next guy can do the same to you. So you have to expend resources to protect what you gained. In the long run, you're worse off and invest more resources that way.
For reference, see the prisoner's dilemma.
Some pretty smart guys realized that and thought, if they could make their people to conform to that, they could easily gain an advantage over other tribes. But how? I mean, you have to make sure your people heed that without watching them constantly (i.e. expend resources). The genius idea was to fill them with the believe that some omnipresent, allmighty being is peeking at them constantly.
Since promising them any goodies would've meant expanding resources again, they didn't invent Santa Clause but rather thought God is a better idea. He promises you goodies in afterlife (for which you don't really need to expend any resources since, well, try to sue if you don't get jack).
And behold, that trick worked! Look around you and you'll see that cultures who believe in religions that keep you from killing and stealing from your peers (not necessarily from other people/religions/cultures) are the most successful ones.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Isn't slashdot contra-censorship ? Of any kind ? I mean how can you argue FOR the universal availability of stuff like mein kampf and the quran, and be against this sort of thing ?
...
Lots of books that slashdot "fights" for are a lot more controversial, and less childish, than this
We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
No, we don't need him anymore. Today we replace him with surveillance cams. They're essentially serving the same purpose, but they don't promise you anything for your afterlife.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The important difference is that off-in-a-group-on-a-website hecklers are easier to avoid than in-your-physical-face hecklers. As long as they're not pestering you directly by spamming your wall/blog/whatever, it is a lot easier to avoid the online kind of numbnuts.
And if you have some social need to provide said numbnuts with some clue, joining the group and working from the inside is usually more effective than ZOMG-must-ban!
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
"All of our law, and our society, is based on a moral code handed down by religious people."
You know this how? Ever hear of Hammurabi? Moral codes existed long before the gods. They just weren't recorded until writing was invented. So, you basically have it backwards, Religions based their moral codes on common sense moral codes already extant and tries to usurp the high ground.
"There is NO LOGICAL REASON that we should ALL follow the SAME moral code..."
Only if you're a pedant. Golden Rule, we should all follow it. All else is icing on the cake. Others have provided the evolutionary logic behind the GR, I won't repeat. So, we have logically determined why there are basic moral codes. It's the Byzantine flourishes that are somewhat unexplainable.
Referring up-post: Of course there is no a priori good and evil...
I agree with you this is blatantly false. Murder, brutality of any nature... I can think of any number of evil things. Those who can't need to sit in front of a mirror for a very long time and ask the reflection just how they justify the acts.
People should be able to express themselves no matter what. Otherwise it's start with a lil' facebook group shutted down, then when you come to say publicly that your governement is breaking a law by wire-tapping every1, you can't, and you get your face face on Fox News with a label under it saying you're threat to national security.(see John Stewart)
Bit by bit they take your rights away, starts whit free speech, then heabeus corpus. You do know that next is the right to live.
Except my title would be too far beyond most of the religious folks ability to recognise a description of themselves.
My morals come from the way I was brought up, it's the responsibility of parents and the education system to teach right from wrong. Religion, at the end of the day, was a means to control the population before laws were used to do the same. The biggest problem with religion though, is the people who misinterpret (intentionally or not) the meaning of religious texts and doctrines. The Christian bible supposedly teaches tolerance, so how are the crusades justified? My children are free to choose their beliefs and I'm thankful that here in Britain religion is taught as a belief, not fact. It horrifies me that in some parts of the states it is now compulsory to teach "intelligent design" as fact.
Good point.
If you want to know why I hate what Islam stands for, go read their Holy Book.
Listening to bigotry and hatred should not be called for. Simply reading what the Quran says will show you the hatred and intolerance.
3:4 those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom.
3:19 Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.
3:73 believe not save in one who followeth your religion
3:118 O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater.
Just a taste of what the Quran hides.
Bleh.
However, I wanted to take issue with some of your characterizations:
It is important to understand that in Jewish law, things are divided into permitted and non-permitted, and obligatory and non-obligatory. Jewish law is quite binary, there are few shades of grey... as an exception to this, the Hassidic/Hareidi cultures of the past two hundred years introduce a WHOLE BUNCH of grey, because they prohibit things via Minhag (binding custom) or Mensorah (custom) to their followers, but because a Beit Din (House of Law) has no jurisdiction outside of their area, you have things prohibited to followers of one Rabbi that are permitted to another. This introduces a LOT of grey areas of things that aren't permitted but are to be avoided. However, the areas you are addressing come from basic Jewish law.
1. Women were not allowed to speak in places of worship
While American Protestants and Liberal Jews have turned their places of worship into general social halls, basically as social clubs that have religious services on Sunday/Saturday respecfully, that was not historically the case. In Catholic Europe, the Churches held daily services and were fundamentally focused on religious matters, including matters that many today would consider secular in nature, but both Jewish and Christian Law is ALL encompassing on matters (roughly two Thirds of the Jewish Talmud and Shulchan Aruch cover matters of business -- not things considered "religious" in the post enlightenment world). If you look in Israel, where Jews are the majority, the Beit Knessets/Schules (Hebrew/Yiddish for synagogue) are places of worship and learning, not community centers. One would go to a synagogue for Morning or Afternoon/Evening services, or to the study hall during the day for Torah learning, not to discuss community affairs.
As a result, the "speaking in place of worship" is referring to either A) leading services, or B) teaching words of Torah. Now, under Jewish Law these are both privileges and honors to the person that does them, but also obligations upon the people doing them. Because women are generally exempt from time-based obligations for a variety of reasons, they are NOT required to do these commandments. Because Jewish law does not separate obligation from privilege, women are not permitted these functions. In other words, if you permit women to lead services and teach Torah, then the obligation falls on them. It isn't really fair to expect women to fulfill ALL the female oriented obligations (which are just as time consuming and all consuming as the male ones) PLUS the male ones, so the prohibition holds.
Think about it, how quickly did it go from "women are allowed to hold jobs" to "women are expected to hold jobs" in modern America? Few married women with children would consider working outside the home a privilege, but now an obligation. The "extended adolescence" of singles in their 20s and several years married before having children has affected how women view themselves, but it has also put obligations on them that previous generations didn't have. Few homes divide housework or child rearing evenly,
>I guess somebody else will have to start a new petition to get the "f**k Christianity" group taken down.
Probably won't happen or if it does it will be much smaller reaction to perceived disposition towards an overprotecting and favouring of Islam. Christians are more open to, and tolerant of, criticism of their religion and more willing to engage in debate rather than trying to shut down dissent. I'm not saying there aren't those who think such groups should be shut down but that there is much less of this attitude among its adherents.
I should perhaps also point out in the interests of fairness that many of those campaigning against the "F**k Islam" group were possibly not even Muslims but left-leaning, hand-wringing, western "liberals" who would, ironically, be quite happy for a "F**k Christianity" group to stay up.
The only sane restriction is whether or not the statement is true. For example, I shouldn't be able to tell people that you molest children, unless you do. For all other matters, such as for an opinion, there should be no restriction. For example, I believe all AC's smell funny - like grandma's basement.
Define "we" please? The major issue I have with speech restrictions is who decides what is acceptable speech. The group "we" doesn't exist other than as an imaginary peer group modeled after our own likes and dislikes.
That won't ever happen. You don't have the right to not be offended, only to not read what offends you. No restrictions needed - just look away! It is possible to live how you want without forcing others to conform to your values at the same time.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
There's a world of difference between "you are incorrect", and "I disagree". I respectfully suggest that you look into it.
Believe what you want, beliefs aren't usually a good argument. Anywho, the burden of proof is on you to find a counterexample. The idea here is that we are trying to be more social than your average animal. Answer: diversity. Now look up evolutionary theory as to why this is important. Example: Have you ever known any skinny guys who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but could do more calculus before breakfast than you can do all day? We only need a few, we don't need this to be a norm for it to have a significant impact on how we create societies. I would argue that protection from hunger is important too. Besides, this only counts for agrarian cultures anyway. Uh, as a general rule: yes they are. Especially if I'm not completely sure they won't steal from my society, and if they have done it before to someone else, why wouldn't they do it again to me? No. He is simply stating that there is a non-religious basis for society. No, all moral codes have their roots in society. You keep confusing religion and society. Society is not a construct of religion, rather religion is a construct of society. I think you misread much of what he was saying. If anything he is saying they are natural laws of society. Maybe not in an obvious way, but you have to realize that as a societal creature we view society as very important, and as such we may sometimes sacrifice ourselves (not directly in our individual best interest) for the society (in our species and offspring's best interest). Not always true. Often societal rules are much much more complex. For example, if I steal a gun from someone who was going to go on a random shooting rampage, is that immoral? Yes. (hey, I had to throw in a little humor) But seriously, morals are relative to the society as different societies are structured differently and have different needs. Though, societies seem to be homogeneous, so we can afford to make generalizations. Final answer: morality is about the balance between serving your self interest and societies interest.
Free speech as defined by? If you're talking about the bill of rights, no it doesn't, that only applies to the government. If you're talking about Facebook TOS, it makes no promise of Free Speech. If you're talking about some great philosophical concept of Free speech, then again, it doesn't either... it just says you're free to say what you want and pay the consequences for what you've said... that consequence can even be being censored.
So, what version of Free Speech have you anthropomorphized into demanding free speech without any consequence?
The reality is that Roman religion was diverse and some particular cults were anti-sex and ascetic, some were hedonistic, but MOST promoted what we would call today "traditional family values". Most of the ancient tribal customs that remain in some form in traditional Judaism (wrapped in a complex Rabbinic layer) and the Church (wrapped in a Roman layer) only seem sexist looking at them backwards. They don't seem sexist, they ARE sexist. The big question I have for you is: If you acknowledge that most of the moral teachings of the Torah are basically nonsense, why isn't it ALL nonsense? Genesis pretty obviously didn't happen, the Exodus almost certainly didn't happen. Since it's all fictional, why follow any of it? Religious marriage laws may not have been "equal" in a 21st Century sense, but they were all designed to protect women who were being used by men that were stronger than them, and had no protection under pre-Christian European customs. Modern Jews/Christians mostly base their opinions of pagan culture on anti-pagan rhetoric by early church fathers and religious leaders. The reality is quite different. Romans introduced divorce, one of the most important women's rights innovations in history. For the first time, women could own property, declare heirs, and have significant political representation in Rome. One of the first things the Christian emperor Constantine did was eliminate divorce and women's rights. The only "modern" religion built in response to the current day environment is Scientology... and while Scientology appears to harness and direct modern desires (worship of celebrity, pursuit of money without limitation, sexual freedom), I don't think that many people would want society to become more like Scientology, would they? Scientology does not claim to be a modern religion, but an ancient religion "revealed" to a modern man. Scientology is primarily concerned with "personal growth" and self-help (eliminating addictions and mental health problems). Scientology does not worship celebrity, they see celebrities as a marketing tool. The pursuit of money is not a major VALUE of Scientology, though they are greedy for money in the way that all churches are. Scientology opposes sexual freedom and homosexuality.
Given the choice of Scientology, which most people recognize is a money-making scam, and Judism, which most people DON'T recognize as a money-making scam, I'd pick the former.