Wtf?

[Qfwfq]

those who killed as a reaction to the cartoon would probably have killed anyway at some point,

Many of those who killed were local police and soldiers that opened fire on demonstrators that weren't going to kill anybody. Not many people actually killed as a reaction to the cartoons.

[Boerseun]

Mother Engine:

 

If we turn belly-up for letting a couple o' idiots with a fanatical belief in Santa Claus dictate what we can and cannot do, then they've won. I am not about to sacrifice my freedoms of thought or expression simply because I might offend some New Guinean cannibal who prays to 747's flying overhead, fearing his crotch will turn green and his 'nads fall off if some blasphemous Westerner might draw a cartoon of a Boeing.

 

And I am not saying 'them' and 'us' in terms of 'us' being Western Christians and 'them' being Muslims - I'm saying 'them' and 'us' meaning 'them' being any kind of irrational fool with a self-serving belief in fairytales and 'us' being rational people not quite as gullible and arrogant as 'them'.

 

It's your choice whether you are one of 'them' or one of 'us'.

[hallenrm]

Interesting indeed!

 

Here's what I think. The genesis of the problem is perhaps the difference in cultural predispositions.

 

While some of us have grown and accepted democratic system with all its limitations and advantages, many still retain the mindset of the feudal society.

 

If we accept democracy, then we have to accept that everybody is not as reasonable as we may like them to be. The reasons for this state can be easily found. There are 'imbeciles' who never had the advantages we take for granted, hence they react very differently than what we would like.

 

Sure enough we have to make efforts to improve the state, to reach a state of our dreams. But, it takes time, patience and understanding.

 

"Rome was not built in a day, neither the Great wall, nor the TajMahal":)

[Racoon]

many still retain the mindset of the feudal society.

 

If we accept democracy, then we have to accept that everybody is not as reasonable as we may like them to be. The reasons for this state can be easily found. There are 'imbeciles' who never had the advantages we take for granted, hence they react very differently than what we would like.

 

Good points hallenrm. :cup:

 

So it becomes a socio-psychological issue for each individual...

that means about 6,500,000,000 WTF'ks out there!:hihi:

 

And the more intelligent of those WTF'ks post here at WTF at Hypography.com

 

Wake up and smell the Easter Bunny $h*t folks!

Santa is not fitting that beer-gut down your chimney...

And I guess you can spend that "tithe" you are about to give to the Vatican for something much better!.. Like a brain transplant !

 

WTF!?@#$

[InfiniteNow]

i am not saying censorship should or should not exist. i am saying that the issue is hardy black and white and to deliberately publish provocative material that may instigate violent behavior is, simply put, an a-hole thing to do.

Uh ohh... I guess maybe I should cancel my subscription to "naughty nurses with whips and chains" then? Darn it, next month was going to be the yin/yang sexual fracture issue too...

 

 

Oh well. They're being provacative and instigating violent behavior, so they should be shot because they are a bunch of a-holes. :hihi:

[Qfwfq]

Sado-maso between consenting adults isn't the same thing as a riot. For one thing, do people around here make as much of a fuss about the one, as they have about the other?

 

One of the letters to The Economist, in response to their support of free press concerning the cartoons, quoted an American humourist, I can't remember the name: "It's easy to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say, and then don't say it."

[motherengine]

Mother Engine:

 

If we turn belly-up for letting a couple o' idiots with a fanatical belief in Santa Claus dictate what we can and cannot do, then they've won. I am not about to sacrifice my freedoms of thought or expression simply because I might offend some New Guinean cannibal who prays to 747's flying overhead, fearing his crotch will turn green and his 'nads fall off if some blasphemous Westerner might draw a cartoon of a Boeing.

 

And I am not saying 'them' and 'us' in terms of 'us' being Western Christians and 'them' being Muslims - I'm saying 'them' and 'us' meaning 'them' being any kind of irrational fool with a self-serving belief in fairytales and 'us' being rational people not quite as gullible and arrogant as 'them'.

 

It's your choice whether you are one of 'them' or one of 'us'.

 

my point is that there seems to be so much intolerance in how you are expressing your view point that i can't help thinking that you are not looking beyond your anger/disgust/whatever and seeing the bigger picture (that is the picture that includes people who think differently than yourself). nothing but violence can be gotten from intolerance. how far removed is an opinion like "those idiot religious people" from "we should get rid of those idiot religious people". i wonder if much of anti-religious atheistic thought is really a mask for a deeper issue concerning mental superiority and insecurity. i went through several years of being very out spoken against religion. it got myself and everyone else around me nowhere. it certainly resolved nothing in society at large. i am not saying that you want to "burn all the retards". but there are some very intelligent people who believe in "fairytales" that you are discounting. of course their beliefs are self-serving but i am not sure how your own beliefs (factual or not) could be anything but self-serving as well. nothing wrong with that. the issue is not whether other people are "idiots" or "fools" because they have a god belief when such a thing seems ridiculous to you, but whether those who intentionally provoke "idiots" and "fools" are somehow righteous in doing so. personally i don't see a great cause in using the so-called "right" to freedom of speech to mock and harass people one feels mentally superior to.

[motherengine]

Uh ohh... I guess maybe I should cancel my subscription to "naughty nurses with whips and chains" then? Darn it, next month was going to be the yin/yang sexual fracture issue too...

 

 

Oh well. They're being provacative and instigating violent behavior, so they should be shot because they are a bunch of a-holes. :eek2:

 

i hope you intentionally misinterpreted what i typed. there is nothing fascist in expressing the opinion that someone who provokes another person or people who may become ("right" or "wrong") violent towards others is acting in an unpleasant way. easy to sit on the side lines and get the ants to burn them selves. "see how f***ing stupid those things are. i just turn the dial this way and they go pop" its all about chemical reactions and how responsible the chemist is when playing around with them.

[motherengine]

Many of those who killed were local police and soldiers that opened fire on demonstrators that weren't going to kill anybody. Not many people actually killed as a reaction to the cartoons.

 

a valid point of detail, thank you. i could better state that the cartoon set into events a specific hostile situation that would otherwise not have occurred. the resulting deaths are, in my opinion, directly linked to the actions of those involved in the publishing of the offending material.

[Boerseun]

my point is that there seems to be so much intolerance in how you are expressing your view point that i can't help thinking that you are not looking beyond your anger/disgust/whatever and seeing the bigger picture (that is the picture that includes people who think differently than yourself).

Yes. I am intolerant. And I am intolerant for all the reasons I gave here, in this thread, in post #1. And I am not offering any excuses or apologies. I still beg for a good, valid reason why my intelorance here should weigh less than, say, the intolerance of religious people towards rational thought. Basically, why should I shut the hell up but they get to blow up stuff?

Nothing but violence can be gotten from intolerance. how far removed is an opinion like "those idiot religious people" from "we should get rid of those idiot religious people".

Almost as close as "Let's blow the hell out of them Christian infidels!", or, conversely, "Let's blow up all them Muslim bastards! (Crusade-style), or even "Hey - there goes an atheist! Let's shut him up and ignore any valid points he might make. Let's just ignore the difficult questions he may ask about our mental health."

I wonder if much of anti-religious atheistic thought is really a mask for a deeper issue concerning mental superiority and insecurity.

Sorry - you had me rolling around laughing there for a while.

Shall I phrase it the other way around?

I wonder if the dogmatic religious belief in a superior being for whom zero empirical evidence exists might not just be indicative of a deep-seated childish fear of the unknown, an animalistic fear of death, a fundamental unwillingness to take responsibility for our actions, and just plain basic ignorance?

i went through several years of being very out spoken against religion. it got myself and everyone else around me nowhere.

The Truth isn't supposed to get anybody anywhere. It's just plain and simply, well, The Truth. Expecting more from that will only result in the personal subjective bending of it to suit any purpose you could care to mention.

it certainly resolved nothing in society at large. i am not saying that you want to "burn all the retards". but there are some very intelligent people who believe in "fairytales" that you are discounting.

Intelligence can also be very subjective. I have no issue with the architect designing my house to be a good, outspoken, churchgoing Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever you'd care to mention. But the moment the intellectual and governmental leader corps start incorporating any belief system into National Policy, or even local governmental policy, the result is a bloodbath based on stupidity.

of course their beliefs are self-serving but i am not sure how your own beliefs (factual or not) could be anything but self-serving as well. nothing wrong with that. the issue is not whether other people are "idiots" or "fools" because they have a god belief when such a thing seems ridiculous to you, but whether those who intentionally provoke "idiots" and "fools" are somehow righteous in doing so. personally i don't see a great cause in using the so-called "right" to freedom of speech to mock and harass people one feels mentally superior to.

What are you smoking? I think you missed the point to my first post in this thread. This isn't about mental superiority complexes or any such thing, this is simply about why we should tolerate people believing in fairytales to run our world. My world is based on empirical evidence, not on some hearsay account of things that allegedly happened a few thousand years ago without any proof to go with it.

 

Let me put it to you simply:

 

If there are a few people who believe that sticking your head in a drainpipe will cure halitosis, and some other people that see that as real funny, decide to draw a caricature of it, are you telling me that they shouldn't? Should we accept their delusion, and restrict our own methods and mediums of expression (and humour, for that matter), for as long as people stick their heads up drainpipes, simply because they believe it?!?

 

I'm sorry - call me a heretic, an atheist, the devil incarnate, whatever. I just don't buy it. And, for the record, I am willing to discriminate equally across religious lines - they are all (in my mind) the same thing.

[Racoon]

Basically, why should I shut the hell up but they get to blow up stuff?

 

"Let's blow up all them Muslim bastards! (Crusade-style),

or even "Hey - there goes an atheist! Let's shut him up and ignore any valid points he might make. Let's just ignore the difficult questions he may ask about our mental health."

 

The Truth isn't supposed to get anybody anywhere. It's just plain and simply, well, The Truth.

 

But the moment the intellectual and governmental leader corps start incorporating any belief system into National Policy, or even local governmental policy, the result is a bloodbath based on stupidity.

 

This isn't about mental superiority complexes or any such thing, this is simply about why we should tolerate people believing in fairytales to run our world. My world is based on empirical evidence, not on some hearsay account of things that allegedly happened a few thousand years ago without any proof to go with it.

 

Should we accept their delusion, and restrict our own methods and mediums of expression simply because they believe it?!?

 

I just don't buy it. - they are all (in my mind) the same thing.

 

I'm really trying to stay out of this...

But Boerseun makes for some excellent reading :angel: :eek2:

 

I sicken when these conservative-Christian types get elected to office.(here in U.S.) Now they're called compassionate-Christians or whatever.

 

They all just want you to "Drink the Kool-Aid" :eek2: :)

 

like B-man said earlier - Religion shouldn't have bearing on governmental policy.

[InfiniteNow]

i hope you intentionally misinterpreted what i typed.

Misinterpreted? No, I really will be cancelling my subscription to Naughty Nurses with Whips and Chains. Fortunately, I already received my free gift... a ball gag. :angel:

 

I have since realized the error of my ways and subscribed to a more intellectually stimulating journal, "How do we stop stupid people from reproducing?" It's a nice combination of science and editorial, and I just love it so far. Next week's issue regards forced abortion, and it's sure to be a juicy one! :eek2:

 

 

Gimme a break. :eek2:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Jesus showed us the Path of Love, right? Go an' explain that to the guys in the Mid East, who's still pissed off about the Crusades. Go and tell that to Joan of Arc. Go and tell that to... .

quote courtesy of The Big B"

The native americans and countless other groups that isolated from "civilization" were given the opportunity to die from diseases brought to them by "well meaning" missionaries ("but they must be saved!!") and westerners bringing "much needed" civilization to them. "Civilization" is a religion in and of itself.

[InfiniteNow]

the resulting deaths are, in my opinion, directly linked to the actions of those involved in the publishing of the offending material.

That's one possibility, or, another... the deaths are directly linked to a continuing mass delusion, deep internal feelings of hate and fear, and our evolved tendencies to just do what the person next to us is doing...

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

YUP!! I hear being anti-mussilem (yes I know I can't spell!!!) is very fashionable still! 9/11 9/11 9/11 remember 9/11. Am I the only person that remembers that the USA has been f#cking with these people for over 25 years

 

We have been in their countries shooting and bombing them for more than 20 years. Granted the method was different but anyone surpirsed by their overdue retaliation is a f#cking morron.

 

 

But when you bomb and shoot a people everyday you leave victims of loss children without parents parents that have lost children.

 

Had the situation been reversed you can bet that the USA would be one hell of a terrorist breeding ground!!!!!!!!!

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

My brain sucks! I want a new one that actually works worth a d@mn!:)

 

Those that believe in life after death are fools (religiously speaking)!!

As you decompose you are full of life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek2:

 

These are the same people that for the most part are trying to outlaw those things that reduce life expectancy!!! :angel: (marajuana, alcahol, tobacco, guns, etc.) If you really believe that when you die you go to a better place why prolong the trip!!!? :) Seems to me that you would want to get there ASAP!!! I would!! Why bother with living longer than you have to!! :eek2: Why linger around and drag more people into your life only to hurt them when you move on to the next world!!!? :) Why do you cry at funerals of loved ones?...You should be happy!!! They are going to a better place!!!! (Right?)

[Qfwfq]

Religion shouldn't have bearing on governmental policy.

I agree... personally, but many people don't.

 

Should science have bearing on governmental policy?

 

Should other fields of philosophy have bearing on governmental policy? How about ethics?

 

Should biology and ecology have bearing on governmental policy?

 

Should science have bearing on governmental policy?

 

Should rationality have bearing on governmental policy?

 

Should, uhm... :eek2: economics have bearing on governmental policy? :)

 

If you belive in democracy, let people vote for who they prefer. And when debating your preference against those of other voters, don't lack respect. Democracy is based on respect, accept it.