Daily Fail

[quote name='sirdashadow' post='2707140' date='Mar 27 2010, 10:13 AM']when hatred escalates to abuse or murder that's when we have to draw the line, don't you think?[/quote]
Speech != action. The freedom to have and express a point of view is not the same thing as the freedom to act based on your point of view.

[quote name='Destructobot' post='2707096' date='Mar 27 2010, 05:55 PM']Freedom of speech is either freedom of speech or it isn't. If there is any single case in which your (or my) government can decide whether or not you get to say something, you do not have freedom of speech (obviously, cases involving government secrets are dealt with differently by every government whether they should be or not). The very idea that some points of view, no matter how stupid and objectionable, should inherantly be subject to censorship is the opposite of freedom of speech.[/quote]

I understand where you coming from, but you're taking the phrase literally. The liberty of free speech has been defined and refined since around the 1600's. The concept of freedom of speech was created for a specific purpose. There is no such thing as absolute free speech, and nor will there ever be. It's a debate that's been going on for a very long time. Should freedom of speech give me the right to say that all Black people are lazy, claim welfare, are in gangs, sell crack etc. Well lets look at it objectively. Is there evidence to show that there isn't a single gainfully employed Black person? Of course there isn't. So why then should I be able to teach this view as if it's the truth? Now if that statement held true for X% of the Black population should I be allowed to say it? Of course you should, as long as you included that it was X% of the population. You are free to say whatever you want, as long as you have proof. Otherwise what you are doing is inciting hatred based on untruths. Or a current popular line of thinking and preaching amongst the far-right is the fact that all Muslims are terrorists. Is this the truth? Are 6 billion Muslims across the planet really terrorists? Of course they're not. So why should you be allowed to spread that information? Is lying and inciting prejudice and hate really freedom of speech? No, of course it isn't.

At the moment there is a collection of photographs documenting recent accounts of torture in Abu Ghraib prison. Some of the are pretty shocking, all of them pretty distasteful. They make the original ones that were released look PG-13 pictures. The government denies the torture and the mistreatment of prisoners in the prison. The photographs have been banned from publication in both the UK and the US. According to the governments they could "cause the soldiers to be seen in an unnecessarily negative light and cause animosity from the public to the armed forces". Is printing those pictures and telling the story of the torture freedom of speech? Yes. Is it anybodies particular version of the truth. Nope. It's pretty evident from the pictures as to what was going on. In fact, some of the actions in the pictures are so horrendous that the Australian press, the only ones willing to print the pictures, refused to publish a handful of them - instead choosing to describe them. Is the government banning those pictures denying someones right to freedom of speech? Yep, big time. The right to freedom of speech is the right to tell the truth, regardless of how disdainful, appaling or upsetting it might be.

See the difference?

In other words, your freedom of speech is always subject to the interpretation of some censor, whether it be the government, the courts, or the people. If what you have to say is unpopular, you shouldn't be able to say it. If the government and the courts say a lie is the truth, you're fucked.

Click to expand...

No, because there's only one version of the truth. you can beat it, hide it, twist it, bury it or lock it up. At it's core though there is just the truth. If I said every Mexican in the USA is an illegal immigrant, would I be telling the truth? There's some far right nutters in America who would like you to believe that, but of course it's not the truth. Now if I said "X amount of Mexicans have been arrested and were illegal immigrants" and could show proof, that's telling the truth. The truth is the truth. There is no perception of it. If it's just a perception of the truth then you don't have all the facts at hand and further study should happen. If you have infallible evidence though, that's an entirely different story and nobody should have the right to stop you from saying nor censor what you say.

Take the Iraqi WMDs as another example. The governments started an invasion based on a lie. Should the right to freedom of speech have applied to that? Not in my opinion. Why should the government have been allowed to lie to justify an invasion? The people who revealed that there never was any WMDs in Iraq and the government knew that all along. Should the freedom of speech applied be to that? Of course, because it was the truth.

I'm not saying that the USA is any sort of example that the rest of the world should follow, I'm just saying that free is either free or it isn't, and if you have to get permission to express yourself you are not free by any definition. This applies to the US just as much as it applies to anyone else.

Click to expand...

No permission should ever be necessary to tell the truth. No person should ever be given permission to tell a lie that could cost someone their life. That's the way I see it. As I said, freedom of speech is the right to tell the truth without fear of persecution. It's not the right to lie or incite hatred based on falsehoods free from fear of prosecution.

[quote name='Sterl500' post='2706790' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:24 PM']I should really stop posting in these sort of topics...

So what if he was shouting that. It IS a message in the Bible.[/quote]
True. Personally, he shouldn't have been shouting it though; that gives people excuses to claim that religion gets shoved down people's throats.

[quote name='thegame07' post='2706854' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:48 PM']There is plenty of religious people who have changed their views to adapt to the way of current life/facts.[/quote]
That just means that they're trying to fit in and actually only claim to be religious...

[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2706975' date='Mar 27 2010, 04:43 PM']The Bible's kinda outdated today. Heck, Jesus completely overrides most of the Old Testament.[/quote]
That's not true at all. The entire Bible is harmonious throughout. Anything that seems to contradict is purely an error (or an intentional change) in its translation.

[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2706975' date='Mar 27 2010, 04:43 PM']And Sterl, I'm not prejudiced against Christians. I only hate the intolerant ones and especially the ones that believe the Bible entirely literally (no evolution, no Dinosaurs etc.)[/quote]
The Bible doesn't actually say that dinosaurs didn't exist.
(The no evolution bit is true though.)

[quote name='Shiro786' post='2707106' date='Mar 27 2010, 06:02 PM']Now when religion and science agree and adhere to the same idea...that's when you know that...something is up.[/quote]
Why? The Bible has also said about how the Earth wasn't flat and that it is "hanging upon nothing".


Sorry, but I need to post again to get all the quotes in.

[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2707170' date='Mar 27 2010, 06:26 PM']The very fact you describe it as a "disorder" proves you have a problem with it. The word "disorder" has negative connotations and means something not working properly. Homosexual's brains function just perfectly, they're just attracted to members of the same sex.[/quote]
Contradiction. Are you aware of the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah?

By what I'm saying in these posts, I don't intend to cause any upset, I'm just voicing my opinion.

I saw a guy holding a Homo sex is sin" sign, and in front was a guy with a sign that read "-sational"
I lol'd.
On topic:Though I wholly disagree with the message, it is freedom of speech.

[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707323' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:25 PM'][quote name='Jamstruth' post='2706975' date='Mar 27 2010, 04:43 PM']The Bible's kinda outdated today. Heck, Jesus completely overrides most of the Old Testament.[/quote]
That's not true at all. The entire Bible is harmonious throughout. Anything that seems to contradict is purely an error (or an intentional change) in its translation.
[/quote]

That's not quite true. The message from Christ was a little different to the Judaic message. Christ taught to be accepting of other religions and to show compassion, in Deuteronomy God commands the Jews to kill unbelievers and drive them out of their homes. There are quite a few contradictions. It's not as bad as the Qu'ran but they are there.

[quote name='Conor' post='2707362' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:42 PM']I saw a guy holding a Homo sex is sin" sign, and in front was a guy with a sign that read "-sational"
I lol'd.[/quote]

Although, it doesn't actually make sense, what with "sinsational" not being a word and all.

I take it you're a Christian then Protokun? Either that or you are just defending them. Ok I'm just going to refute a few points here...

1. "The Bible is entirely harmonious throughout"
In the New Testament Jesus pretty much overrides (not contradicts, Christians believe Jesus is their Lord and savior causing the split from Judaism and his words are the most modern we have in the Bible therefore anything that contradicts something said in the first part is just overwriting it) many parts of the Old Testament. The 10 commandments stand but things such as "An eye for an eye" are replaced with more peaceful views as they no longer fit the culture. The Old Testament was laying down laws for Tribal ways, limiting revenge and so forth, and was outdated by Jesus' time. It had gotten to the point that such things were no longer valid.

2. People who adapt religion are just changing to fit in
I view religion as being a belief in a higher power. This means that the Bible barely comes into it. Its messages can be interpreted however you want but many things in it are outdated for our modern society so must be adapted (like I said Jesus was basically doing this) Therefore with the addition of new scientific facts and theories you can begin to not take the Bible literally but still believe in the messages Jesus and the other "Prophets" put forward (I use quote marks as I just believe they were men trying to sort out the mess that was their societies)

3. The Bible has no mention of Dinosaurs (to my knowledge) and basically says that man was created not long after the Earth and all the other animals. A non-literal view of this could incorporate dinosaurs but a literal cannot.

Finally...

4. The final point you put forward in the 2nd post.
This confuses me. Sodom and Gomorrah are cities that were destroyed by God due to sin. I don't see what it has to do with the quote you used for me (possibly you meant to use a different post I have made?)
What I meant in that point is that psychologically most homosexual people are very stable and have no real problems (outside of any identity issues before they come to terms with their homosexuality) therefore it is not a "disorder" but merely a genetic blip which causes them to be attracted to the same sex.

[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707384' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:50 PM'][quote name='Conor' post='2707362' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:42 PM']I saw a guy holding a Homo sex is sin" sign, and in front was a guy with a sign that read "-sational"
I lol'd.[/quote]

Although, it doesn't actually make sense, what with "sinsational" not being a word and all.
[/quote]
It's close enough to make sense when you read it though.

[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2707387' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:53 PM']I take it you're a Christian then Protokun? Either that or you are just defending them. Ok I'm just going to refute a few points here...

1. "The Bible is entirely harmonious throughout"
In the New Testament Jesus pretty much overrides (not contradicts, Christians believe Jesus is their Lord and savior causing the split from Judaism and his words are the most modern we have in the Bible therefore anything that contradicts something said in the first part is just overwriting it) many parts of the Old Testament. The 10 commandments stand but things such as "An eye for an eye" are replaced with more peaceful views as they no longer fit the culture. The Old Testament was laying down laws for Tribal ways, limiting revenge and so forth, and was outdated by Jesus' time. It had gotten to the point that such things were no longer valid.[/quote]
It is true that some things changed in these times, and the laws needed to be reaffirmed, although the principle that equal repayment should be paid still stood.
[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2707387' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:53 PM']2. People who adapt religion are just changing to fit in
I view religion as being a belief in a higher power. This means that the Bible barely comes into it. Its messages can be interpreted however you want but many things in it are outdated for our modern society so must be adapted (like I said Jesus was basically doing this) Therefore with the addition of new scientific facts and theories you can begin to not take the Bible literally but still believe in the messages Jesus and the other "Prophets" put forward (I use quote marks as I just believe they were men trying to sort out the mess that was their societies)[/quote]
Well, the Bible was made as a guide for humans to live. God (or the "higher power", as you put it), had the Bible written to allow humans to be guided, and the principles it contains are still valid for our day. Sometimes, the Bible does speak figuratively, but the messages that it conveys will always be relevant.
[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2707387' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:53 PM']3. The Bible has no mention of Dinosaurs (to my knowledge) and basically says that man was created not long after the Earth and all the other animals. A non-literal view of this could incorporate dinosaurs but a literal cannot.[/quote]
Actually, the universe was created, then Earth, then non-human animals. We don't know how long Earth was in existence before humans were around.

[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2707387' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:53 PM']Finally...

4. The final point you put forward in the 2nd post.
This confuses me. Sodom and Gomorrah are cities that were destroyed by God due to sin. I don't see what it has to do with the quote you used for me (possibly you meant to use a different post I have made?)
What I meant in that point is that psychologically most homosexual people are very stable and have no real problems (outside of any identity issues before they come to terms with their homosexuality) therefore it is not a "disorder" but merely a genetic blip which causes them to be attracted to the same sex.[/quote]
Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were destroyed due to sin; the inhabitants (most, if not all) were engaging in immoral homosexual activity, which God found repugnant as it was contrary to nature, and vowed to destroy them.

Okay, I'm gay, and I know for a fact that there are people that think my orientation is a sin and is immoral; you know what? They have a completely inalienable right to believe that. I happen to like people that tell me neutrally that they believe my life is wrong. Honesty is always proof of integrity, and I'd be pissed out of my mind if they treated me differently than they think. I may believe fervently that my sexuality is natural, but I deserve no special treatment at all. Hating homosexuality is not a hate crime, and it never will be, ever. I have believed that my country's First Amendment is a human right all my life, and just because somebody doesn't approve of my lifestyle doesn't make me change my mind.

This man is no different; so what if he hates gays? His religious beliefs are just as human as my sexual ones, he is a Christian and he believes in the Lord Christ and the Bible with all his heart and mind, that's why he's a religious official. He believes in his religion, that's why he hates homosexuality, it conflicts with his beliefs and he wants to express that. He's not being obscene, violent, or anything like the Westboro Baptist Church. Although I disagree strongly with his methods of preaching, I still have to agree with his rights or I'm a giant hypocrite.

[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707418' date='Mar 27 2010, 04:03 PM'][quote name='Jamstruth' post='2707387' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:53 PM']3. The Bible has no mention of Dinosaurs (to my knowledge) and basically says that man was created not long after the Earth and all the other animals. A non-literal view of this could incorporate dinosaurs but a literal cannot.[/quote]
Actually, the universe was created, then Earth, then non-human animals. We don't know how long Earth was in existence before humans were around.

[/quote]

According to the Bible, humans were made only a few days after he created the earth. Why would you say you don't know how long the Earth existed before humans if you believe the Bible?

NOW WE HAVE A REASONED DEBATE!!!
[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707418' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:03 PM']It is true that some things changed in theose times, and the laws needed to be reaffirmed, although the principle that equal repayment should be paid still stood.[/quote]
Maybe, I was just using it as an example. From what I know of Jesus he was a peace loving man who would not have encouraged those who were wronged to go out and do the same to the person who did it to them. I haven't read the Bible so I don't have any good verses to paraphrase or reference.

[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707418' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:03 PM']Actually, the universe was created, then Earth, then non-human animals. We don't know how long Earth was in existence before humans were around.[/quote]
Like I said, a non-literal understanding can include them but a literal one cannot.


[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707418' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:03 PM']Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were destroyed due to sin; the inhabitants (most, if not all) were engaging in immoral homosexual activity, which God found repugnant as it was contrary to nature, and vowed to destroy them.[/quote]
Still not related to the quote but I take your point. What you have to remember is that the Bible was developed over hundreds/thousands of years. None was written at the time. This is the anti-gay message in the Bible then... its kinda hard to refute other than saying that this was how homosexuality was viewed during those times. It was misunderstood and wrongly persecuted against. We are a much more tolerant society just now and this part of the Bible should really be avoided. (Its a terrible argument I know but the best I can come up with)

[quote name='Advice Dog' post='2707450' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:18 PM']heart and mind, that's why he's a religious official. He believes in his religion, that's why he hates homosexuality, it conflicts with his beliefs and he wants to express that. He's not being obscene, violent, or anything like the Westboro Baptist Church. Although I disagree strongly with his methods of preaching, I still have to agree with his rights or I'm a giant hypocrite.[/quote]

In this country if he was stood in the street preaching and got arrested chances are he was doing it less than politely. Either that or he didn't have proper permission. Although they usually aren't bothered about a lack of permission until there's 10 or more people gathered. We are allowed to say some crazy shit here in the streets, you won't get your collar felt by the police until you step over the mark. We have some pretty crazy people protesting and preaching all kinds of crazy things, they don't get arrested until they commit a public disorder offence.

[quote name='Sonicslasher' post='2707456' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:20 PM']According to the Bible, humans were made only a few days after he created the earth. Why would you say you don't know how long the Earth existed before humans if you believe the Bible?[/quote]
They weren't literal 24-hour days, as time in God's view doesn't necessarily have to correlate to our perception of time. Later in the Bible, it speaks about how 'one day can be as a thousand years'. Also, in the prophecies about how Jesus would be put to death, it spoke of a 'seventy week' period, which wasn't a literal seventy weeks, but translated into years.

[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2707477' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:25 PM']NOW WE HAVE A REASONED DEBATE!!!
[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707418' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:03 PM']It is true that some things changed in theose times, and the laws needed to be reaffirmed, although the principle that equal repayment should be paid still stood.[/quote]
Maybe, I was just using it as an example. From what I know of Jesus he was a peace loving man who would not have encouraged those who were wronged to go out and do the same to the person who did it to them. I haven't read the Bible so I don't have any good verses to paraphrase or reference.

[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707418' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:03 PM']Actually, the universe was created, then Earth, then non-human animals. We don't know how long Earth was in existence before humans were around.[/quote]
Like I said, a non-literal understanding can include them but a literal one cannot.


[quote name='ProtoKun7' post='2707418' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:03 PM']Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were destroyed due to sin; the inhabitants (most, if not all) were engaging in immoral homosexual activity, which God found repugnant as it was contrary to nature, and vowed to destroy them.[/quote]
Still not related to the quote but I take your point. What you have to remember is that the Bible was developed over hundreds/thousands of years. None was written at the time. This is the anti-gay message in the Bible then... its kinda hard to refute other than saying that this was how homosexuality was viewed during those times. It was misunderstood and wrongly persecuted against. We are a much more tolerant society just now and this part of the Bible should really be avoided. (Its a terrible argument I know but the best I can come up with)
[/quote]
The Bible is actually still a very good guidebook on how people can live. If you believe that it was inspired by God, then it's logical to believe that he's also made it suitable for the modern days we live in.
Also, I know what you mean about a reasoned debate It's nice that there has been little to no flaming as of yet.

Also, I noticed in your quote of my post that I made a typo; I'll fix that.

Most of the Bible is a good guidebook on how to live peacefully. The problem is that while it may have been inspired by God it was written by men and editted over the years.
This is my version of how the Bible came to be (please do not take this as an offensive to your religion but it is what I personally believe about the Bible and is based on very little understanding):
The people such as Moses and Jesus were great leaders of their time, inspiring many and giving teachings of great wisdom BUT I do not believe any of the miracles in the Bible happened. I believe that they rose up over the centuries as stories were told and editted before eventually being written down (like Chinese whispers). Early Christians were persecuted against and stories of their leader being a deity (only possible when there were no survivors who had seen Jesus) comforted them and gave them strength. As far as I know when the Roman's converted to Christianity they basically assembled the Bible and chose the different Gospels to put in them as there were many different ones mainly choosing ones that proclaimed Jesus as a deity as this would comfort the Roman populous who are used to such beliefs.

As I said there is little to no research into this theory (Other than the Da Vinci Code) at least at the Roman bit. Other than that it is all my belief about the Bible. It is a great, inspiring text has steered us right at many junctions but some areas are misinterpreted or outdated.

[quote name='Jamstruth' post='2707622' date='Mar 27 2010, 09:20 PM']Most of the Bible is a good guidebook on how to live peacefully. The problem is that while it may have been inspired by God it was written by men and editted over the years.
This is my version of how the Bible came to be (please do not take this as an offensive to your religion but it is what I personally believe about the Bible and is based on very little understanding):
The people such as Moses and Jesus were great leaders of their time, inspiring many and giving teachings of great wisdom BUT I do not believe any of the miracles in the Bible happened. I believe that they rose up over the centuries as stories were told and editted before eventually being written down (like Chinese whispers). Early Christians were persecuted against and stories of their leader being a deity (only possible when there were no survivors who had seen Jesus) comforted them and gave them strength. As far as I know when the Roman's converted to Christianity they basically assembled the Bible and chose the different Gospels to put in them as there were many different ones mainly choosing ones that proclaimed Jesus as a deity as this would comfort the Roman populous who are used to such beliefs.

As I said there is little to no research into this theory (Other than the Da Vinci Code) at least at the Roman bit. Other than that it is all my belief about the Bible. It is a great, inspiring text has steered us right at many junctions but some areas are misinterpreted or outdated.[/quote]
Well, for one thing, the Da Vinci Code is nonsense.

It's true that a lot of different translations of the Bible get distorted, as whether it's due to incorrect translations of some words, or ulterior motives of the translators, the message the Bible carries gets altered when it shouldn't be. For example, God does have a name which is recorded in the Bible, and yet many Christians don't have it in many verses of their Bibles. I've even heard that Catholic bishops/priests or whatever, have been instructed to remove the name from their translations.

I had some Jehovah's witnesses come to my door a few weeks ago and the woman I was looking at was disgustingly obese. I just looked at her curled my lip and said isn't gluttony one of the seven deadly sins? I was irate. Who it this person knocking on my door preaching to me who's an obvious sinner by her own religion. And we're not talking a run of the mill sin. This was a big dog, seven deadly type. People like that are just mosquitoes and easy to deal with.

[quote name='TrolleyDave' post='2707491' date='Mar 27 2010, 03:30 PM'][quote name='Advice Dog' post='2707450' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:18 PM']heart and mind, that's why he's a religious official. He believes in his religion, that's why he hates homosexuality, it conflicts with his beliefs and he wants to express that. He's not being obscene, violent, or anything like the Westboro Baptist Church. Although I disagree strongly with his methods of preaching, I still have to agree with his rights or I'm a giant hypocrite.[/quote]

In this country if he was stood in the street preaching and got arrested chances are he was doing it less than politely. Either that or he didn't have proper permission. Although they usually aren't bothered about a lack of permission until there's 10 or more people gathered. We are allowed to say some crazy shit here in the streets, you won't get your collar felt by the police until you step over the mark. We have some pretty crazy people protesting and preaching all kinds of crazy things, they don't get arrested until they commit a public disorder offence.
[/quote]
Well, 'round where I live anti-gay propaganda and shouting and preaching like that is perfectly acceptable if you're not being incredibly hateful. Unfortunately, America can be very unaccepting of homosexuality at the core, in some towns you'll be publicly beaten and even killed for it. It's just a fact of life in a lot of places, and being arrested can be highly unusual. I guess this is just America though, Europe is probably very different.

(Of course, there's usually a breaking point: WBC preached in hatred at fucking funerals of gay guys and said that terrorism against American armed forces was a result of gay military personnel being allowed at a discretion. Again, I'm all for freedom of speech, but I personally draw the line at inbred lunatics.)