Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 83

Thread: The Right To Offend

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,923

    Default The Right To Offend

    Does freedom of speach include the right to offend?

    Should we be able to express our opinions via any medium (including this forum), after all, are we not merely in pursuit of insight and understanding by stimulating and engaging in debate and, by default, exercising our right to express our opinions?

    If we have the right to offend, should there be any boundaries?


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    1,855

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    There is no right to offend. But there is a right to express opinion. These are two entirely different things.

    The "caricature scandal" that was initiated in Denmark is a perfect example. The caricatures were printed in the newspaper with the main view to tickle the muslims. When muslims complained (incl. ambassadors from 10 muslim countries) the Denish prime minister refused even to talk to them.

    That is the point that exactly the same statement can be made as offensive and as a debating argument, but it all depends on the sircumstances and intention.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    Does freedom of speach include the right to offend?
    Sure it does.
    If the PZ could say for the RS that he is just a "stoopid" and 2000 of his post are "not informative" at all.
    Who could guilt PZ for that?
    Except the RS who had started the "New offend Crusade" agains PZ.
    We all enjoy and watch for that
    But at the same time there could not even be the democraty among the unequal members.
    For instance that same PZ still beeing unfair mod banned me without any discussions or correspondence.
    Thanks to him for that
    Now he is getting back the shit
    If we have the right to offend, should there be any boundaries?
    We do not need any boundaries here
    The any bondaries only limit the democraty.
    The one never will offend the other members ( if he is enough adequate and resonable)
    The inadequate members could not even be presented here...

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,923

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by Egorka View Post
    There is no right to offend. But there is a right to express opinion. These are two entirely different things.

    The "caricature scandal" that was initiated in Denmark is a perfect example. The caricatures were printed in the newspaper with the main view to tickle the muslims. When muslims complained (incl. ambassadors from 10 muslim countries) the Denish prime minister refused even to talk to them.

    That is the point that exactly the same statement can be made as offensive and as a debating argument, but it all depends on the sircumstances and intention.
    Would you consider this as being of the same genre and, if so, is it offensive:

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7GQWehrsU


    Perhaps if the RC church had condemned Mr Allen to death I wouldn't have to ask.

    Perhaps they did :

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4340115.stm
    Last edited by 32Bravo; 04-07-2008 at 07:32 AM.


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    1,855

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    Would you consider this as being of the same genre and, if so, is it offensive:

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7GQWehrsU
    I have watched a half of it or so. It does not appear blasfemic to e me as the jokes are sentered around the preast not around the God. That is the difference.
    BTW that is why I not going to watch "The life of Brian".

    The cartoons are touching the person in Islam that undisputible for them. It is one thing to critisise in a theistic discussion and it is entirely different thing to draw a cartoon and print in a newpaper.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    716

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    Would you consider this as being of the same genre and, if so, is it offensive:

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7GQWehrsU

    This is hilarious, I don't find it offensive at all..the world needs more humor like this. To bad Islam cant laugh at themselves.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,923

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by mike M. View Post
    This is hilarious, I don't find it offensive at all..the world needs more humor like this. To bad Islam cant laugh at themselves.
    But they do, Mike. Check out The Little Mosque On The Prairie:

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...44836814333621


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Frankfurt / Germany / Europe
    Posts
    527

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    For me freedom of speech & expression sure does include the right to offend, particularly art and science. That's what a lot of people in certain cultures don't get. The reason why this needs to be included is that if it wasn't anyone would come up and say he was offended by this and that et voila, back to the dark ages please, no discussion allowed. Freedom of speech is the single most important feature of the western civilization and the reason why we progressed much further than everyone else in the past centennials. There mustn be tabus in what we talk about.
    Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    Does freedom of speach include the right to offend?
    What if we rephrase the question as: Does freedom of speech give every religious zealot, other zealots, uptight anal retentives, and other oversensitive idiots the right to be offended by things said by people who don't share their views?

    Of course it does.

    But is that a reason for limiting speech by people who say things that offend them?

    I don't think so.

    Should we be able to express our opinions via any medium (including this forum), after all, are we not merely in pursuit of insight and understanding by stimulating and engaging in debate and, by default, exercising our right to express our opinions?

    If we have the right to offend, should there be any boundaries?
    Probably.

    Should we allow people to instruct others in crime or incite crimes (allowing for the difficulties in determining what those terms mean)?

    But then we can get back to Tudor thought control legislation or an Orwellian world, which ain't that far away in some respects.

    Should we allow rock spiders to argue for man boy love as a right to a beautiful thing? (Where I'd be arguing for something similar in reverse, like shoving a 25 pounder shell up the proponent's arsehole and then detonating it. If they're still arguing in favour of anything after that, I'm prepared to listen. )

    Should we allow regurgitation of anti-Semitic and anti-Slavic Nazi vileness? Germany doesn't, with good reason, but most other places don't restrict it, which I don't think is all that healthy.

    Conversely, why should Zionists get the free run they get in the Western press justifying Israel's conduct?

    In the end, everybody wants boundaries, but not the same ones.

    So the only truly balanced approach is to let everyone say everything, and hope that people are intelligent and informed enough to sort the wheat from the chaff. There isn't any historical or current educational achievement evidence to indicate that they will.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    It should be noted that Daven Allen (at Large) was an atheist that continually saw himself as debunking ritualistic Christianity...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    It should be noted that Daven Allen (at Large) was an atheist that continually saw himself as debunking ritualistic Christianity...
    Which brings us back to the problem that Christian churches are fair game in the West and, although they don't like it, largely put up with it. Well, they've gradually learnt to as their power declined since the Spanish Inquistions and Galileo and so on.

    Unlike some of the more rabid Islamic elements who get upset about what they perceive as slights upon their religion or prophet being portrayed as unreasoning and violent, to which they object by calling for unreasoning violence against the offenders.

    Or rabid Christians who think it's okay to kill adults with families to stop them aborting a foetus.

    Or rabid animal rights nutcases who think its okay to kill people to protect animals.

    And so on.

    The question from all this is: When speech provokes such actions, should such speech be allowed?

    And if the answer is no, then a lot of Peter Singer's excellent books on the morality of human use of animals would have to be banned, thus limiting debate on a legitimate moral subject.

    Which still comes back to what are, ultimately, arbitrary boundaries.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,923

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    In the question of having the right to offend, there is an element of 'I don't like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it'.

    Who decides what is offensive?

    What I would argue we don't have, is the right to spread hatred.


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,923

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    It should be noted that Daven Allen (at Large) was an atheist that continually saw himself as debunking ritualistic Christianity...
    That may be so. I'm a Catholic, not an Atheist, and I find him hilarious, as I do Father Ted.:

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=apNEnMlP_nY

    There is humour and htere is reality. In some cases, the reality is more bizarre than the humour.


    "Although God cannot alter the past, Historians can"


    Samuel Butler


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    That may be so. I'm a Catholic, not an Atheist, and I find him hilarious, as I do Father Ted.:
    Yeah, Ted's funny and so is Dougal, but Fr Jack is a lot feckin funnier!
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: The Right To Offend

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    In the question of having the right to offend, there is an element of 'I don't like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it'.
    It's commonly attributed to Voltaire but that is disputed and attributed te earlier writers.

    I wouldn't defend everyone's right to say everything.

    'Death to infidels' doesn't resonate with me as a desirable declaration, any more than 'Jews [or any other group] are a cancer in society and should eliminated.'

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    Who decides what is offensive?
    Me.

    As does everyone else, on their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by 32Bravo View Post
    What I would argue we don't have, is the right to spread hatred.
    Whether or not it's a right, it's not desirable. But what constitutes 'spreading' and 'hatred'?

    We have racial and religious tolerance legislation here which has done little more than provide fertile ground for racial and religious bigots to convert their bigotry and stupidity into legal disputes to attempt to get temporal confirmation through the courts of the righteousness of their cause. Their gods chose not to deliver celestial confirmation of either side's cause. It's one of the few instances I've seen of desirable celestial reluctance to interfere in temporal affairs.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •