If racist speech will get you ruined, why is insulting..?

Post Reply New Topic

It’s not murder if they warn you and tell you to defend yourself with the same kind of weapon they intend to kill you with in a fair fight, proving their superiority. At least, not in the time-honored sense of the word. And provided you’re a man, that is.



And the reason it’s not advisable is because, no matter whether you theoretically have a right not to be physically attacked, others won’t respect it unless they fear you.

Wtf, try again,

For one thing, your race is your race. You are born that way, you and no one else can ever change it. Its beyond your control.

Your beliefs are very much in your control. You can change them. You can look at the world around you and see if what you are observing is true aligns with what you believe to be true, and then adjust your beliefs accordingly if they don't align. Or, if they don't align, you can set aside what you are observing and persist in your beliefs, discarding the contradiction or simply deciding that your beliefs invalidate what you see and choosing not to change them to bring them into alignment with what you observe.

Religious people tend to do the latter. Its little different than nearly drowning in the ocean and after you've been saved, soaking wet and coughing up water, proclaiming that the ocean is, in fact, not wet.

The main difference between perceiving someone as 'religious' vs. someone as 'crazy' seems to mainly be in how many people share the same delusion.

If a child came up to me and said "I believe the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears really happened", I'd pass it off as a kid being just a cute kid. If a full-fledged adult came up and said that to me, I'd question their sanity. But if a grown adult claims to believe other fairy tales are true, like those about Jesus or Mohammed, we're supposed to not consider them crazy or insane, but spiritual or religious instead. Why? It makes no sense.

I really do try to be tolerant of people's religious beliefs and not go around insulting the Gods and holy figures they believe in, or them for believing it, but then we have this issue where there is (IMHO) far more harm perpetrated on society in the name of religion than there is any good from it.

Is blind faith in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence a trait we should respect, or is it fair game to mock it?

Is blind advocacy of a position that you cannot prove evidence of a trait we should respect, or is it fair game to mock it? (and yeah, before some smart ass says otherwise, the burden is to prove the existence of god, not on other people to disprove it).

Is a refusal to consider any other explanation for something other than one someone told you is correct a trait that should be respected, or mocked?

Is excessive gullibility a trait we should respect, or is it fair game to mock it?

Just to be clear, IMHO, to the extend that any religion deserves to be mocked, I think they all do. Mocking Mohammed and leaving Jesus alone, for instance, is an utter fallacy in the face of clear lack of evidence for the existence or correctness of either of them.

I also think it is very bad example the is this monopoly of offense.

There are some people who say they condemn violent reactions to offense on the one hand, yet on the other had make clear the offense is so strong they think it is understandable that these people will go bat s**t crazy. To me this is tantamount to appeasement.

I have heard quite "moderate" muslims justify fatwas, such against Salman Rushdie and he deserves everything that happens to him. Just becuase some people aren't pious themselves, doesn't necessarily mean they won't excuse or justify this kind of violence. This is not exclusive to Muslims, but I feel the same what whoever does it.

I respect more, those that don't let words affect them this way.

Try what? I don't know what you mean.