''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

Sarky

deravarra wrote: »

I do believe that nothing should beget violence. Nothing. However, nobody should be too surprised that if they insult, oppress or piss on what is sacred to someone else, they may get a whack now and again.

Is that me supporting violence? No.

If I went to a nightclub and started to insult a guy's girlfriend ... should I protest the right to free speech if I am being threatened with violence? No. I would be getting what I deserved!

That's inconsistent. If you say you're against violence but refuse to condemn it under certain circumstances, or even worse, say "he/she deserved it", then you're trying to hold 2 opposite views at once.

It doesn't work. It's pretty much the same as the old line "I'm not racist, but..."

deravarra

Sarky wrote: »

That's inconsistent. If you say you're against violence but refuse to condemn it under certain circumstances, or even worse, say "he/she deserved it", then you're trying to hold 2 opposite views at once.

It doesn't work. It's pretty much the same as the old line "I'm not racist, but..."

Not at all. I do not condone violence, but if you wanna play with fire you are gonna get burnt. simples. need a diagram?

MagicMarker

deravarra wrote: »

Not at all. I do not condone violence, but if you wanna play with fire you are gonna get burnt. simples. need a diagram?

Stay classy.

deravarra

Malty_T wrote: »

First of all God isn't a human, so no analogy of that nature holds up. He is the most powerful being in the universe so he needs no defence and I'm pretty sure He'd expect people to rise above such pathetic threats and actions. Secondly, the threat of violence is never what anyone deserves.

The anaology is valid and holds. we are discussing what someone holds dear to them.

deravarra

Barrington wrote: »

Well, I reject the notion that someone should be threatened with death if they choose to use their right of free speech, regardless of if it upsets people.

Hope you arent inferring that I support death threats for people who cause offence to others ....

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

Hope you arent inferring that I support death threats for people who cause offence to others ....

So just to clarify, what do you think SHOULD happen to someone who insults islam?

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

So just to clarify, what do you think SHOULD happen to someone who insults islam?

Nice going there ... I say I hope someone doesnt infer i support death threats ... and then i am asked to clarify what i think should happen to those who insult islam...

i'm beginning to think this thread should be called: "let's kick the crap out of islam and muslims as an expression of our freedom of speech"

Just to clarify - can you read?

deravarra

deravarra wrote: »

Nice going there ... I say I hope someone doesnt infer i support death threats ... and then i am asked to clarify what i think should happen to those who insult islam...

i'm beginning to think this thread should be called: "let's kick the crap out of islam and muslims as an expression of our freedom of speech"

Just to clarify - can you read?

When you say people will get what they "deserve" for insulting islam and then trying to claim you're against violence then a request for clarification is to be expected

deravarra

bluewolf wrote: »

When you say people will get what they "deserve" for insulting islam and then trying to claim you're against violence then a request for clarification is to be expected

Another person who has a reading/comprehension problem.

Show me the precise place where you think I say people will get what they deserve for insulting islam?

You can't, because I never said it.

This is typical BS.

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

Nice going there ... I say I hope someone doesnt infer i support death threats ... and then i am asked to clarify what i think should happen to those who insult islam...

i'm beginning to think this thread should be called: "let's kick the crap out of islam and muslims as an expression of our freedom of speech"

Just to clarify - can you read?

I haven't read the whole thread in depth, just scrolled through a few of the entries. I've seen that you don't condone violence. I haven't insulted you in the slightest, I was just curious as to what you think should happen to those who insult islam since you say that violence is not a good thing but that they also shouldn't be allowed to insult islam.

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread in depth, just scrolled through a few of the entries. I've seen that you don't condone violence. I haven't insulted you in the slightest, I was just curious as to what you think should happen to those who insult islam since you say that violence is not a good thing but that they also shouldn't be allowed to insult islam.

Again, I never said anyone shouldnt be allowed to insult islam. I never said that anywhere. Please feel free to show me where you think I did.

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

Again, I never said anyone shouldnt be allowed to insult islam. I never said that anywhere. Please feel free to show me where you think I did.

deravarra wrote: »

I am very much in support of freedom of speech. However, I loathe and detest the very thought that someone can take this sacred right and decide to piss all over something which another holds dear and sacred to them - because they have a "right" to do so.

If I've misunderstood your meaning, my apologies. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean in that case.

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

If I've misunderstood your meaning, my apologies. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean in that case.

I thought it rather self explanatory. Someone has a right - and when they have that sacred right, they decide that to use that sacred right to insult another?

Like having the right to bear arms and deciding to shoot someone for fun.

Along with every right there is a responsibility....

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

The anaology is valid and holds. we are discussing what someone holds dear to them.

So the threat of violence is warranted or deserved if someone holds something close to them. Sorry, but I disagree and I still need an explanation as to why a person can't just rise it above it : It is their God after all, hardly a fragile or vulnerable loved one.

deravarra

Malty_T wrote: »

So the threat of violence is warranted or deserved if someone holds something close to them. Sorry, but I disagree and I still need an explanation as to why a person can't just rise it above it : It is their God after all, hardly a fragile or vulnerable loved one.

go away, have a coffee and relax for a bit.

Show me where you think I said or inferred ANY of the above.

Don't go putting a spin on what i said and making it out to be what you would pigeonhole me for... ok?

I wont be "clarifying" this point over and over again. I made it quite clear on a number of occasions. No violence. And you still want clarification? duh

deravarra

Barrington wrote: »

Okay, how about this:

Let's say you came to my house with a picture of my family, spat on it right in front of me, then jumped up and down on it.

Should I threaten you with death? I may say "Get out of here or I'll punch you", but to be honest, I wouldn't punch you. I'd just say that to try and make you leave.

Now obviously, I hold my family to be very dear to me. One of the most important aspects of my life. And yes, I'd be offended at what you did. But I wouldn't harm you. Not because it's your right to do that, but mainly because it's just a picture. A picture of something I hold dear to me, but a picture nonetheless.

Now, if I went to a predominantly Muslim area and spat on a picture of Muhammad, do you think I would be treated the same way? I mean after all, it's just a picture. It doesn't harm Muhammad in any way. And to the people that see me doing it, what of it? They hold Muhammad to be dear to them, but how does what I did affect that in any way? I'm not stopping them from practicing their religion in any way. Should I be beaten up?

FFS - is there anyone amongst you who can read?

Can you understand the statement "nothing should beget violence"?

jeez ...

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

I thought it rather self explanatory. Someone has a right - and when they have that sacred right, they decide that to use that sacred right to insult another?

Like having the right to bear arms and deciding to shoot someone for fun.

Along with every right there is a responsibility....

Would you not agree though that the right to freedom of speech is MOST important when what you have to say is something that the majority don't agree with. For example, I'm an atheist. If someone came along and started saying that atheists were all immoral and were bad people etc, I would be irritated, but I still wouldn't want to curtail what they're saying. That's the essence of free speech isn't it?

Also, can I get another clarification here:

deravarra wrote: »

With every right there is a responsibility - and with that responsibility to accept the consequences of any action you may undertake which offends others - even if it doesnt offend you.Would I stand up for their right to be as beligerent and demeaning to the sensitivities of those who hold those places sacred and dear to them? Absolutely not! Would they deserve whatever action would befall them should they choose to express their "right" to insult? a big YES from me.

Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you're saying but it seems to me that according to you, you wouldn't defend the right of a person to say something that offends someone else. Is that true in all cases or are there specific cases in which it is ok and in which it isn't? Should anything that is offensive to anyone be disallowed?

And also, if someone does say something offensive, that they "deserve whatever action would befall them". I'm uncertain as to your meaning here. I think some of the confusion here stems from the fact that that statement reads as if you're implying "well, if they insult islam, then they'll get what they deserve when someone beats the crap out of them". If that was not your meaning, then I would appreciate a clarification on what it is exactly that you think they deserve for insulting islam.

P.S. I'm not picking on islam here, I'm just using that because it's the subject of the thread.

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

go away, have a coffee and relax for a bit.

Show me where you think I said or inferred ANY of the above.

Don't go putting a spin on what i said and making it out to be what you would pigeonhole me for... ok?

I wont be "clarifying" this point over and over again. I made it quite clear on a number of occasions. No violence. And you still want clarification? duh

Actually having a coffee as a I type.:)

you wrote:

If I went to a nightclub and started to insult a guy's girlfriend ... should I protest the right to free speech if I am being threatened with violence? No. I would be getting what I deserved!

You, correct me if I'm wrong, seem to be of the opinion that retribution for something perceived to be an insult is deserved.

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

Would you not agree though that the right to freedom of speech is MOST important when what you have to say is something that the majority don't agree with. For example, I'm an atheist. If someone came along and started saying that atheists were all immoral and were bad people etc, I would be irritated, but I still wouldn't want to curtail what they're saying. That's the essence of free speech isn't it?

Also, can I get another clarification here:




Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you're saying but it seems to me that according to you, you wouldn't defend the right of a person to say something that offends someone else. Is that true in all cases or are there specific cases in which it is ok and in which it isn't? Should anything that is offensive to anyone be disallowed?

And also, if someone does say something offensive, that they "deserve whatever action would befall them". I'm uncertain as to your meaning here. I think some of the confusion here stems from the fact that that statement reads as if you're implying "well, if they insult islam, then they'll get what they deserve when someone beats the crap out of them". If that was not your meaning, then I would appreciate a clarification on what it is exactly that you think they deserve for insulting islam.

P.S. I'm not picking on islam here, I'm just using that because it's the subject of the thread.

No more clarifications...

you've dragged over, laboured and generally played around with words.

You have no intention to debate.

deravarra

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually having a coffee as a I type.:)



You, correct me if I'm wrong, seem to be of the opinion that retribution for something perceived to be an insult is deserved.

If your intention is to provoke, you shouldnt be crying when you get a thumping, should you?

deravarra

deravarra wrote: »

Show me the precise place where you think I say people will get what they deserve for insulting islam?

You can't, because I never said it.

This is typical BS.

okay

Would they deserve whatever action would befall them should they choose to express their "right" to insult? a big YES from me.

I'm not trawling through the whole bloody thread again just because you're saying something and then trying to claim you never said it
It's right there in black and white


And if you find that everybody around you is having trouble understanding what you're saying... the problem is with you.

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

No more clarifications...

you've dragged over, laboured and generally played around with words.

You have no intention to debate.

Erm, I don't think I have. I've only posted 4 times in this thread. You seemed genuinely frustrated that people were misinterpreting or misunderstanding what you were saying so I was just trying to get a clear understanding of your position before proceeding further.

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

No more clarifications...

you've dragged over, laboured and generally played around with words.

You have no intention to debate.

Firstly, improbably just recently joined this discussion.
Secondly, this isn't a debate. It's a dialogue, it's not a case of person being absolutely right or wrong, it's simply about a discussion, which most here would wish to become a dialectic.

Improbable

Malty_T wrote: »

Firstly, improbably just recently joined this discussion.
Secondly, this isn't a debate. It's a dialogue, it's not a case of person being absolutely right or wrong, it's simply about a discussion, which most here would wish to become a dialectic.

Improbable

You loon, get it right! :pac:

that's what you get for insulting islam, bad spelling :pac:

deravarra

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm not trawling through the whole bloody thread again just because you're saying something and then trying to claim you never said it
It's right there in black and white

Eh, so you are too lazy, and you want me to clarify for the umpteenth time - specially for you ... so you wont take things up the wrong way? Get lost

bluewolf wrote: »

And if you find that everybody around you is having trouble understanding what you're saying... the problem is with you.

No, the problem is with incompetent lazy numpties who cant be bothered to read through the whole thread, join a discussion late on and then decide they know everything.

Turtwig

Improbable wrote: »

Improbable

You loon, get it right! :pac:

I thought I'd typed "Improbable", I think it was the 'firstly' that put me off.:o
Apologies, I'll try not to let it happen again.

deravarra

deravarra wrote: »

Eh, so you are too lazy, and you want me to clarify for the umpteenth time - specially for you ... so you wont take things up the wrong way? Get lost

I provided the damn quote. It says right there you think people deserve what they get. That's what I claimed, that's what I backed up.

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

then decide they know everything.

Excuse me now, but folks correct me if I'm wrong, Improbable and Bluewolf do know everything about the world!

Wibbs

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You don't get it do you? You never will. That details the statement of a reporter for a national newspaper describing how he is pressured into fabricating anti-Islamic "news" stories.

Ah c'mon, the "national newspaper" involved contains the greatest amount of hacks since Windows 2000 and one of these freelancers grew a conscience. Unusual in the species to be fair. The same "newspaper" is considered a loose cannon even by the murdoch group.

deravarra wrote: »

I made it quite clear that I value free speech. I hold it dear to me. But I absolutely reject the notion that someone should use that RIGHT to do nothing but insult someone else or something which is dear and sacred to another.

Then you simply don't value free speech, or you curtail it with "well except for X and X might be met with violence".

If I were to stand at the wailing wall in Jerusalem and start shouting and hurling abusive comments towards all who prayed there - how long would you think I would be allowed stay there, without getting attacked. Would you think any consequences for those actions could be construed as Jewish violence?

Yes they would. If they became violent. If it was also codified in their religion that this fell under blasphemy and they should die(which some of the more nutty Jewish groups would) , then I'd be thinking of the jehovah scene from the Life of Brian and think of them as moral primitives.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

Excuse me now, but folks correct me if I'm wrong, Improbable and Bluewolf do know everything about the world!

It's bluewolf, you loon, get it right! :pac:

deravarra

Malty_T wrote: »

this isn't a debate. It's a dialogue, it's not a case of person being absolutely right or wrong, it's simply about a discussion, which most here would wish to become a dialectic.

look up at the title - the part where it says "'Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

look up at the title - the part where it says "'Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

I would be more than happy to debate it with you all day long. Can you please just clarify for me, once, what you mean when you say:

"Would they deserve whatever action would befall them should they choose to express their "right" to insult? a big YES from me."

Specifically, what exactly falls under the heading of "whatever".

deravarra

bluewolf wrote: »

I provided the damn quote. It says right there you think people deserve what they get. That's what I claimed, that's what I backed up.

Read back where i said "nothing should beget violence"....

does your mammy still feed you?

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

I would be more than happy to debate it with you all day long. Can you please just clarify for me, once, what you mean when you say:

"Would they deserve whatever action would befall them should they choose to express their "right" to insult? a big YES from me."

No. I am sick of clarifying stuff all the time.

ye are worse than a bunch of kindergarten kids with all the questions

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

look up at the title - the part where it says "'Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

That's because the first post contained videos of an actual recorded debate. I don't regard these threads as debates though. Debates are about winning and losing which usually means communication and understand gets left in the gutters. Mods can you edit the title?:D

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

does your mammy still feed you?

What relevance is this and kinder-bueno to anything?

deravarra

Malty_T wrote: »

What relevance is this and kinder-bueno to anything?

You're lazy and want to be spoon fed.

If you even bothered to read through the thread, you would have seen the numerous times i rejected violence totally. I said quite a few times : nothing should beget violence.

And what did i get in response? a few "what if" scenarios.

Seriously ... just seriously ... wtf?

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

No. I am sick of clarifying stuff all the time.

ye are worse than a bunch of kindergarten kids with all the questions

In that case, I can only assume that when you say:

"Would they deserve whatever action would befall them should they choose to express their "right" to insult? a big YES from me."

That you're saying exactly that. They deserve WHATEVER happens to them. I know you're going to say "I don't condone violence". But those 2 statements are contradictory I feel. So if you don't condone violence in that case, then what DO you condone?

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

In that case, I can only assume that when you say:

"Would they deserve whatever action would befall them should they choose to express their "right" to insult? a big YES from me."

That you're saying exactly that. They deserve WHATEVER happens to them. I know you're going to say "I don't condone violence". But those 2 statements are contradictory I feel. So if you don't condone violence in that case, then what DO you condone?

I can only say what I would do. I would walk away with my head held high and know that I would have chosen the better thing to do. I will not take a right of any sort and use it against another. I never have done, nor would I.

I would like to think that once the "insulter" would have seen my action, they would have been suitably embarassed for causing offence ... but I would hasten a guess and say nothing would embarass them ...

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

I can only say what I would do. I would walk away with my head held high and know that I would have chosen the better thing to do. I will not take a right of any sort and use it against another. I never have done, nor would I.

I would like to think that once the "insulter" would have seen my action, they would have been suitably embarassed for causing offence ... but I would hasten a guess and say nothing would embarass them ...

But that's not what you said. You specifically said that they deserve whatever happens to them. You say you're tired of clarifying, but you've never actually clarified that quote at all. You've said what you don't mean by it, which if I'm honest appears to be you trying to backtrack. But you've never said what you mean by it. Your quote above is not about the same situation as it were. In one you're saying what they deserve. In the other, you're saying what you would do.

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

But that's not what you said. You specifically said that they deserve whatever happens to them. You say you're tired of clarifying, but you've never actually clarified that quote at all. You've said what you don't mean by it, which if I'm honest appears to be you trying to backtrack. But you've never said what you mean by it. Your quote above is not about the same situation as it were. In one you're saying what they deserve. In the other, you're saying what you would do.

I said "nothing should ever beget violence" - fact.

What more clarifications do i need to give?

Now, learn to read, understand/comprehend or go away.

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

I said "nothing should ever beget violence" - fact.

What more clarifications do i need to give?

Now, learn to read, understand/comprehend or go away.

And as I said, that's fine. I've already acknowledged that you do not mean violence when you say "they deserve whatever happens". Then what DO you mean?

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

But that's not what you said. You specifically said that they deserve whatever happens to them. You say you're tired of clarifying, but you've never actually clarified that quote at all. You've said what you don't mean by it, which if I'm honest appears to be you trying to backtrack. But you've never said what you mean by it. Your quote above is not about the same situation as it were. In one you're saying what they deserve. In the other, you're saying what you would do.

Actually I have said what I meant by it - a number of times. I said if they do get attacked, they shouldnt be complaining about it - they go and provoke, get the reaction they knew might be coming, and then whinge.

Not verbatim, but to that effect.

I never said I condoned it, nor would I. Should they be attacked? No.

Now, clarity enough?

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

Actually I have said what I meant by it - a number of times. I said if they do get attacked, they shouldnt be complaining about it - they go and provoke, get the reaction they knew might be coming, and then whinge.

Not verbatim, but to that effect.

I never said I condoned it, nor would I. Should they be attacked? No.

Now, clarity enough?

So in response to my question about what they deserve per your comment of "the deserve whatever happens to them", you say that if they get attacked, they shouldn't complain about it.

You're trying to play both sides. You're saying "I don't condone violence, but they got what was coming to them".

I understand perfectly now, thank you very much for the clarification.

I on the other hand would fully support their right to complain when they're physically assaulted for saying words.

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

So in response to my question about what they deserve per your comment of "the deserve whatever happens to them", you say that if they get attacked, they shouldn't complain about it.

You're trying to play both sides. You're saying "I don't condone violence, but they got what was coming to them".

I understand perfectly now, thank you very much for the clarification.

I on the other hand would fully support their right to complain when they're physically assaulted for saying words.

Saying "words" ... depends on what those words are.

How would you feel about the laws against anti semitism? is that a curbing on free speech?

Like I say, freedom of speech is a right - along with every right comes a responsibility - that is logical. If you clearly demonstrate a lack of responsibility to use that right with the good and proper effect, then you forfeit the right.

Like a criminal... before conviction, he/she would have a freedom of movement. After incarceration, they wouldnt. Because they have, by their actions, forfeited that right.

Wibbs

Well this is part of the problem here. Clarification. Common to a few religions out there. It's up there with context. IE free speech is alright, in context, but not in general practice. In that case it's not free speech.

In any event Islam, like Christianity and Judaism before it has a very strong built in defence/attack mechanism to deal with outliers/unbelievers/heretics. The latter two have largely grown beyond the more aggressive reactions. As have some Islamic cultures, but the more olde time stuff is more prevalent in that faith.

deravarra

Wibbs wrote: »

Well this is part of the problem here. Clarification. Common to a few religions out there. It's up there with context. IE free speech is alright, in context, but not in general practice. In that case it's not free speech.

In any event Islam, like Christianity and Judaism before it has a very strong built in defence/attack mechanism to deal with outliers/unbelievers/heretics. The latter two have largely grown beyond the more aggressive reactions. As have some Islamic cultures, but the more olde time stuff is more prevalent in that faith.

cultural more than religious. i'm a muslim. i have never, nor would i engage in any physical aggression with those who are opposed to my point of view ...

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

Like I say, freedom of speech is a right - along with every right comes a responsibility - that is logical. If you clearly demonstrate a lack of responsibility to use that right with the good and proper effect, then you forfeit the right.

Like a criminal... before conviction, he/she would have a freedom of movement. After incarceration, they wouldnt. Because they have, by their actions, forfeited that right.

Ok, so now time to start gauging the scales.

What defines whether something is sacred or not?

deravarra

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, so now time to start gauging the scales.

What defines whether something is sacred or not?

Nit picking....

PFO