Respect and Humour.

pH

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52655347&postcount=9

Asiaprod wrote:

Its quite simple really, the big bang was caused when the mystic invisible pink unicorn (blessed be its name) blah, blah blah.

Not as funny as you think, against the charter too;
"Something that would be seen as a direct insult in, say, the Christianity or Islam forums will be similarly treated here".

Your first warning Lord Suave.

I've taken this out of the original thread to ask a question about humour and respect. In the context of this :

Asiaprod wrote:

Schuhart wrote:

They all lock the door behind him, and go on as before.

Wonderful, definitely a candidate for post of the year

I obviously agree with the charter that a direct insult against theists won't be tolerated, so a statement like 'Buddhists are Scum' would merit a strong warning, if not a ban. But a warning for a small piece of satire?

Schuhart's humour was at the expense of believers and it was lauded, Lord Suave's also at the expense of theists, but it merits a warning.

Are you really saying that humour that Asiaprod finds funny is acceptable?
- and anything you don't is not acceptable?

So can we clarify exactly what humour is acceptable?

joe_chicken

1) Schuhart didn't directly quote any particular religion
2) It was more a comment on belief rather than a laugh at the expense of theists

Is the atheist really that smart stepping out of the car?

bonkey

joe_chicken wrote:

1) Schuhart didn't directly quote any particular religion

Nor did Lord Suave, unless there's a pink-unicorn-worshipping religion that I'm missing.

2) It was more a comment on belief rather than a laugh at the expense of theists

And the other comment was what...if not a comment on belief?

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Schuhart's humour was at the expense of believers and it was lauded, Lord Suave's also at the expense of theists, but it merits a warning.

I think the point was that Lord Suave's post could easily be seen as a sneer at the original poster.

Now admitably you have to read his post a certain way to view it like that, but he didn't answer, or even attempt to answer, the OP's questions, and the tone of the post seemed to contain a bit of venom.

joe_chicken

bonkey wrote:

Nor did Lord Suave, unless there's a pink-unicorn-worshipping religion that I'm missing.

It was the quoting of "Blessed be his name" often used by Muslims when talking about God, that offended.

bonkey wrote:

And the other comment was what...if not a comment on belief?

Ok I'll put it the other way around:
I think Suaves comment was more of a laugh at the expense of theists, rather than a comment on belief

Hagar

I don't think any humour is welcome or accepted in any of the "belief" forums. It can't be controlled or countered. It is a universal truth in itself. It mocks all values not only religious ones. It is the mirror of the anarchy in our souls. The undermining of everything that any body believes in anywhere. Humour embodies our mutual disregard for what life in general throws at us. It is our shield against our "betters" and our weapon against our "inferiors". It is the true weapon of mass* destruction. It is disarming and empowering all at once. They don't like that. They don't like to be told in a way that their holy book didn't anticipate that they are of no importance.

Trust me, I'm a Humour Mod, twice.


* That's a pun.

bonkey

joe_chicken wrote:

It was the quoting of "Blessed be his name" often used by Muslims when talking about God, that offended.

If you say so. I immediately thought of the Our Father (hallowed by his name) when I read it.

When you made your reply and drew the specific reference to Islam, I did a quick google of "blessed be his name" and the first hits I came back with were all Christian-related.

That the warning mentioned both the Christianity and Islam forums, its possible that the mod also saw it as more of a generally-targetted comment rather than a specific one.

I think Suaves comment was more of a laugh at the expense of theists, rather than a comment on belief

Perhaps. I'm not Suave, so I won't rule out that this was his intention. Nor will I rule out that I'm being less critical in my reading of it than others may be.

I would point out, however, that by reducing this:

punctured the hallowed balloon of nothingness with its mystical horn of creation. It got such a fright from the resulting bang that it then put itself beyond creation which is why you can no longer see it.

to this:

blah blah blah

you do lose a lot of the ridiculousness of the comment, instead making it far closer to something intentionally disrespectful. Atheists often use the argument about how one can postulate the existence of unicorns that cannot be seen as a basis for challenging theist explanations of creation.

I'm not the mod. I'm not going to presume to judge the comment for the boards. I just don't think its as open-and-shut as it may seem, when the original comment in its entirety is taken.

Yes, its poking fun. Was it malicious? I don't know. I also don't know if Shuarts suggestion that theists refuse to accept evidence at face value and will resort to one "avoidance tactic" after another to avoid the atheist's argument was entirely meant light-heartedly.

Having said all fo that, I agree with Wicknight's point about the lack of followup and the fact that it was off-topic to begin with.

However, if he came back and said "look, I was only trying to make light of the issue whilst drawing reference to the oft-invoked invisible unicorns that atheists use to draw parallels with theist dogma".....would it really have convinced anyone that it was a joke?

The simple fact is that at the end of the day, as much as questioning a belief can be seen as offensive by some, just as some find the mere suggestion of a belief offensive. There does need to be a line, and its not an easy line to draw. My guess is that this is what pH was trying to highlight with this thread.

pH

I believe that the correct term of endearment is "Blessed be her [holy] hooves".

Anyway "blessed be ..." has been associated with the Pink Unicorn meme since it came into being on USENET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

I guess we can all think of reasons why Lord Suave's post could get a warning, yet Asiaprod stated it was something to do with humour (not being funny) and insulting believers. If it wasn't this then fine.

I just wanted to make the point that humour (mocking theists beliefs) has been lauded here by Asiaprod, and he was applying some rule about stuff that he found funny, which (with respect) I do not think is a reasonable reason to give someone a warning.

I must admit that an equally plausible explanation is that Asiaprod is not aware of Ancient (Well 17 years old) atheist tradition of the IPU.

In any case the IPU is seen by many as funny, and her epithets well established and to warn someone for using them in this forum seems bizarre.

Zillah

Can't we all just agree to make fun of each other and not take it seriously. Why would I get offended in some Christian made a joke about Atheists going to hell? I don't think I'm going to hell so why would it upset me? Similarily, if I make a joke about Jesus actually being a charismatic charlatan, he knows its not true, so why get offended?

New charter!

On a more serious note, I fully agree that there seems to be no real basis on whats allowed or not. Mostly mod whim. For example, Asiaprod seemed to have no problem with the Unicorn thing until the reference to Islam came into it.

The vast majority of posters on this forum, especially the regulars, think that religious belief is hilariously, awfully, staggerginly stupid and fully deserving of mockery. If other people are so damn insecure about their beliefs then maybe they should know a little better than wander into the philosophical equivalent of a den of spiders?

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I believe that the correct term of endearment is "Blessed be her [holy] hooves".

Anyway "blessed be ..." has been associated with the Pink Unicorn meme since it came into being on USENET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

I guess we can all think of reasons why Lord Suave's post could get a warning, yet Asiaprod stated it was something to do with humour (not being funny) and insulting believers. If it wasn't this then fine.

I just wanted to make the point that humour (mocking theists beliefs) has been lauded here by Asiaprod, and he was applying some rule about stuff that he found funny, which (with respect) I do not think is a reasonable reason to give someone a warning.

I must admit that an equally plausible explanation is that Asiaprod is not aware of Ancient (Well 17 years old) atheist tradition of the IPU.

In any case the IPU is seen by many as funny, and her epithets well established and to warn someone for using them in this forum seems bizarre.

That may have been the problem. Now you mention it, I dimly recall the IPU - but I certainly didn't recall it on seeing the post. Unquestionably, for those who don't know the IPU, the post wouldn't have seemed offensive if it had said "the FSM created it with His noodly appendage".

Schuhart's post, on the other hand, did not directly mock any particular religion, but rather the characteristic forms of the religious believer. Oddly, it is OK to mock the believer, but not the belief - a complete inversion of "hate the sin, not the sinner". There may be something interesting at work there...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Humour or offensive?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hagar

It barely funny enough for Humour and nowhere near funny enough for Lolocaust.
Offensive no, dull yes.

Scofflaw

Hagar wrote:

It barely funny enough for Humour and nowhere near funny enough for Lolocaust.
Offensive no, dull yes.

Interesting - it's very similar to what Lord Suave posted, if you didn't know the pink unicorn reference (hence the posting). Would you have considered Suave's posting offensive?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Hagar

No, invisible and pink is obviously not a serious statement therefore any attempt to try an infer a subsequent offence based on a nonsensical god/animal is spurious. Any attempt to link it to the Muslim epithet PBUH is nonsense. Trying to exclusively link a word or phrase to a religion is a bit like McDonalds trying to copyright everyword that they can stick "Mc" in front of and/or any other random phrase that their marketing guys come up with. Have any of these god fearing people considered that humour is a gift from Him and not something to be despised? Perhaps those employing humour are following the path that God has chosen for them? Can they say it is not?

Scofflaw

What about this one? Humour or offensive?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hagar

Amusing enough, not offensive at all.

I must say I'm very impressed* that you found a cartoon with a reference to unicorns in it (centre panel).

Full marks for that.:D

*PM me if you want access to Lolocaust.;)

Dades

Love it. Great punch line.

Scofflaw

Hagar wrote:

Amusing enough, not offensive at all.

Again, that's interesting, because this one mocks the believer rather than the belief...

Hagar wrote:

I must say I'm very impressed* that you found a cartoon with a reference to unicorns in it (centre panel).

Full marks for that.:D

No point in being as arrogant as I am without backing it up occasionally!

Hagar wrote:

*PM me if you want access to Lolocaust.;)

Ta! There are probably enough distractions in my day as it is...of course, I get a lot of laughs out of the Creationism thread, although it's more an 'at' than a 'with' thing....

cordially,
Scofflaw