when those repercussions are FUCKING ILLEGAL. You can't assault someone for saying something, you can't rob them, you can't kill them, you can't intimidate them.
feel free to boycott them, feel free to yell at them back, feel free to write a fucking letter to the editor.
i'd say, it's our responsibility as citizens that believe that a diverse democracy is stronger than a homogeneous one, that dissenting voices of ANY kind aren't silenced.
the only way i can be sure that the next MLK isn't imprisoned for speaking a distasteful truth, is if the neo-nazis now can spread their distasteful "truths".
it's not up to me to decide what is true and what is false for others, we all gotta make up our own minds, and that only happens when we hear all voices.
well, if he punches me in the nose, i'm at liberty to punch him in the nuts, he's at liberty to pull a knife, and i'm at liberty to shoot him in the face.
i think he just promoted a policy of escalation. Pope approved escalation.
for the most part that's because christianity is dominant in the countries that have free expression to make fun of things. jehovah's witnesses, mormonism and scientology mean anything to you?:) abortion clinics. and the murder of doctors. thanks for playing, but christians get bent too.
the pope, and you, are literally blaming the victim. they weren't "asking for it" by printing what they wanted to print. They thought they lived in a free country where that was a freedom they enjoyed. That we have an entire set of people, religious in this case, with distinct subsets, that don't feel as if they should abide by the rules of the countries in which they live doesn't mean we should cater to their whims.
i think the issue is that by blaspheming you might lead other souls to damnation. or i hope that's the issue, it's my charitable interpretation of it, the less charitable one has to do with worldly wealth, power and the shaky foundations that religions rest on.
... he's saying that it's an appropriate response that people take religious criticism this seriously. in saying he understood the reaction, he's granting tacit approval to the actions carried out. or saying that the magazine got its just desserts for criticizing faith.
"But that right has limits: ‘You cannot make fun of the faith of others,’ he said." from the article?
I think it is in his job description to say that no amount of words can ever justify violence of any kind.
but no, he outs himself as ultimately a petty person by saying that he'd "punch someone" for insulting his loves ones...
"turning the other cheek" involved pretty much not only getting spit on but also getting "slapped;" meet physical violence with restraint and understanding and, god forbid, piety.
but no, the vicar of christ says meet words with force.
you realize in some states and some cities, blacks outnumbered whites right? i'm pretty sure they would have been free to join the union if they decided to.
in the united states, i can say whatever the hell i want. people can choose to interact with me if they so choose, and the government can't interfere. I'd advocate the government protecting citizens from the tyranny of the masses. brendan eich's ousting for example, but that's the price of freedom i suppose.
the price of freedom is that people can react to what you say as they will. beating you up will certainly sometimes follow, but is already illegal too.
was being slightly hyperbolic, but what makes murdering someone for hate worse than murdering them for financial gain? we already criminalize all things that can fall under the umbrella of hate crime.
it's not a easy line to walk, but at least we're trying to walk it.
when the sarah palin released images of rival politicians with hunting targets overlayed over their faces. well, we thought she was incredibly ignorant of the danger, but we didn't think it was necessarily intentionally inciting imminent violence either.
we have a active neo-nazi party, and the klan has rallies. half our political system seems to want to drive the latinos out of our country with pitchforks and fire and the other half can be quite bitchy with anyone not towing the line of political correctness.
i would not have it any other way, because any other way would not be as honest.
we're talking about something that would be necessarily massive in volume. and consisting of a material that is almost completely unaffected by the energy that a star puts out. eating necessarily means stealing matter in some way, so there's that... considering the matter is 5500K at the surface of our sun and carbon sublimes at 4000? not to mention gravity, and the difficulty in resisting becoming part of the star itself. you'd need to evolve a propulsion system in space... that can put out more thrust than a star while part of you is touching said star. the surface gravity on the sun is what.. 27 times earth gravity?
you can just redefine life and thus the earth becomes an organism. and then as stated above, the dyson sphere would be a cultural organism consuming a star.
i think it'd be fairly conclusively proven if say, we decrypted segment of our DNA and it spelled out "GOD was here" that'd be fairly conclusive, or you know exhibit enough control over causality, physics and the laws of nature to be indistinguishable from the genuine article.
Slashdot Mirror
when those repercussions are FUCKING ILLEGAL. You can't assault someone for saying something, you can't rob them, you can't kill them, you can't intimidate them.
feel free to boycott them, feel free to yell at them back, feel free to write a fucking letter to the editor.
hitchens is smiling at you from the graveyard of the interwebs.
:) it's hilarious that someone thought that that might possibly work.
i'd say, it's our responsibility as citizens that believe that a diverse democracy is stronger than a homogeneous one, that dissenting voices of ANY kind aren't silenced.
the only way i can be sure that the next MLK isn't imprisoned for speaking a distasteful truth, is if the neo-nazis now can spread their distasteful "truths".
it's not up to me to decide what is true and what is false for others, we all gotta make up our own minds, and that only happens when we hear all voices.
well, if he punches me in the nose, i'm at liberty to punch him in the nuts, he's at liberty to pull a knife, and i'm at liberty to shoot him in the face.
i think he just promoted a policy of escalation. Pope approved escalation.
for the most part that's because christianity is dominant in the countries that have free expression to make fun of things. jehovah's witnesses, mormonism and scientology mean anything to you? :) abortion clinics. and the murder of doctors. thanks for playing, but christians get bent too.
the pope, and you, are literally blaming the victim. they weren't "asking for it" by printing what they wanted to print. They thought they lived in a free country where that was a freedom they enjoyed. That we have an entire set of people, religious in this case, with distinct subsets, that don't feel as if they should abide by the rules of the countries in which they live doesn't mean we should cater to their whims.
i think the issue is that by blaspheming you might lead other souls to damnation. or i hope that's the issue, it's my charitable interpretation of it, the less charitable one has to do with worldly wealth, power and the shaky foundations that religions rest on.
... he's saying that it's an appropriate response that people take religious criticism this seriously. in saying he understood the reaction, he's granting tacit approval to the actions carried out. or saying that the magazine got its just desserts for criticizing faith.
"But that right has limits: ‘You cannot make fun of the faith of others,’ he said." from the article?
fuck you, i like zeus, that was one philandering son of a bitch.
and odin was boss.
and what do you have against buddha? he's just fat and happy. shit.
I think it is in his job description to say that no amount of words can ever justify violence of any kind.
but no, he outs himself as ultimately a petty person by saying that he'd "punch someone" for insulting his loves ones...
"turning the other cheek" involved pretty much not only getting spit on but also getting "slapped;" meet physical violence with restraint and understanding and, god forbid, piety.
but no, the vicar of christ says meet words with force.
you realize in some states and some cities, blacks outnumbered whites right? i'm pretty sure they would have been free to join the union if they decided to.
no, satire is a thing.
is it anti-arab if they skewer jews and christians as well?
they've a got a pope issue, and a jew issue. just because you're on some kind of arab kick, doesn't mean that the world is out to get you.
in the united states, i can say whatever the hell i want. people can choose to interact with me if they so choose, and the government can't interfere. I'd advocate the government protecting citizens from the tyranny of the masses. brendan eich's ousting for example, but that's the price of freedom i suppose.
the price of freedom is that people can react to what you say as they will. beating you up will certainly sometimes follow, but is already illegal too.
was being slightly hyperbolic, but what makes murdering someone for hate worse than murdering them for financial gain? we already criminalize all things that can fall under the umbrella of hate crime.
we pay pakistan not to go full-blown batshit insane.
it's not a easy line to walk, but at least we're trying to walk it.
when the sarah palin released images of rival politicians with hunting targets overlayed over their faces. well, we thought she was incredibly ignorant of the danger, but we didn't think it was necessarily intentionally inciting imminent violence either.
we have a active neo-nazi party, and the klan has rallies. half our political system seems to want to drive the latinos out of our country with pitchforks and fire and the other half can be quite bitchy with anyone not towing the line of political correctness.
i would not have it any other way, because any other way would not be as honest.
we also have a thing called prior restraint, and a thing called imminent violence.
controlling what people say is the very first step in trying to control what they think.
some people, myself semi-included, take issue with hate crime legislation for a similar reason.
aren't all crimes hate crimes? what is hate crime legislation but an attempt to penalize thought?
... jeb is disappointed in you
oblig xkcd
http://xkcd.com/505/
we're talking about something that would be necessarily massive in volume. and consisting of a material that is almost completely unaffected by the energy that a star puts out. eating necessarily means stealing matter in some way, so there's that... considering the matter is 5500K at the surface of our sun and carbon sublimes at 4000? not to mention gravity, and the difficulty in resisting becoming part of the star itself. you'd need to evolve a propulsion system in space... that can put out more thrust than a star while part of you is touching said star. the surface gravity on the sun is what.. 27 times earth gravity?
obligatory xkcd: what-if
https://what-if.xkcd.com/89/
We don't even have an idea of how to go about making a vehicle now that could hope to play hopscotch with a star.
you can just redefine life and thus the earth becomes an organism. and then as stated above, the dyson sphere would be a cultural organism consuming a star.
... is it possible for an entire country to troll me?
this fucking feels like an onion article.
i think it'd be fairly conclusively proven if say, we decrypted segment of our DNA and it spelled out "GOD was here" that'd be fairly conclusive, or you know exhibit enough control over causality, physics and the laws of nature to be indistinguishable from the genuine article.
can God create a display so epic, that even he could not recreate it with cg?
is the Lord not epicnipotent?