Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And you've now lost every bit of credibility as a sane person in my opinion, Mister Francis. Way to go, that's a good way not to incite retribution killings.

[10ebbor10]

Or you know, maybe headline hungry press are misrepresenting statements.

Because that is what they did. Misrepresented statements and a flawed translation.

[Dutchling]

I'd say it's at the very least distasteful to make remarks like that so soon after the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

But hey, the pope's headline hungry too so I guess I can't really blame him.

[10ebbor10]

I dunno. This is what the pope said.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-popes-interview-in-flight-to-manila-96471/

Seems a lot more nuanced than the article, no? Pope calling for mutual respect, when the general Charlie reaction was one that was tainted by anti-Islam attacks, is to be expected.

[Dutchling]

It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.

[ChairmanPoo]

Problem is, freedom of expresion implies freedom to offend. Otherwise it's a hollow right.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Or you know, maybe headline hungry press are misrepresenting statements.

Because that is what they did. Misrepresented statements and a flawed translation.

Are you going to tell me religious violence doesn't stem from misrepresenting statements from figures of the religion as advocation of violent solutions? He gave enough of a baseless statement that it can be ran with now. He's saying the right to free speech is not absolute. You should not insult Allah, or Jesus. If you do, then retribution isn't all that bad, right guys?

[TD1]

Problem is, freedom of expresion implies freedom to offend. Otherwise it's a hollow right.

Now we're dipping into political correctness messiness.

Personally, I believe you should be able to say whatever the hell you want. If you're any sort of decent person, you won't, but why should the state decide what's appropriate?

[10ebbor10]

It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.

ah, yes, that is the mistranslation, I'm talking about.

Apparently, is should be should rather than can't.

[Sergarr]

I see that giving benefits of doubt to a pope that's literally the best pope we've seen in centuries is not considered by certain people.

:I

[lorb]

[...] He's saying the right to free speech is not absolute. [...]

Problem is, freedom of expresion implies freedom to offend. Otherwise it's a hollow right.

Now we're dipping into political correctness messiness.

Personally, I believe you should be able to say whatever the hell you want. If you're any sort of decent person, you won't, but why should the state decide what's appropriate?

There are sensible limitations to free speech. Hate speech and incitement are criminal acts in many jurisdictions for good reasons.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I see that giving benefits of doubt to a pope that's literally the best pope we've seen in centuries is not considered by certain people.

:I

Holy Hyperbole, Batman! The best pope in centuries? Give me a break. It's been a couple of years since he became pope, and in that time he's done nothing but have a skilled PR department. He's totally average both theologically and conventionally, it's just that he makes the most of that mediocrity.

It's disturbingly reminiscent of Reagan's presidency to me.

[Graknorke]

It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.

ah, yes, that is the mistranslation, I'm talking about.

Apparently, is should be should rather than can't.

More context:

But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal. It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.

"Should" or "Can" makes no difference. He outright supports violent responses to being insulted, whether through religion or personally.

There are sensible limitations to free speech. Hate speech and incitement are criminal acts in many jurisdictions for good reasons.

Because telling people to go out lynching is the same as making fun of someone, am I right?

[10ebbor10]

Or you know, maybe headline hungry press are misrepresenting statements.

Because that is what they did. Misrepresented statements and a flawed translation.

Are you going to tell me religious violence doesn't stem from misrepresenting statements from figures of the religion as advocation of violent solutions? He gave enough of a baseless statement that it can be ran with now. He's saying the right to free speech is not absolute. You should not insult Allah, or Jesus. If you do, then retribution isn't all that bad, right guys?

Okay, got it. The pope is not allowed to call for mutual respect because extremists might utilize it to justify actions against people insulting them.

I must say, you got this thinking like an extremist down to perfection. Ignoring large part of statements, drawing conclusions that are diametrically opposed to what is being said.

Thing is though, that with such a mindset any statement becomes dangerous.

More context:

But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal. It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.

"Should" or "Can" makes no difference. He outright supports violent responses to being insulted, whether through religion or personally.

Even more context:

It's true that you cannot react violently. But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal. It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.

How you can read that and conclude violence is supported is beyond my understanding. Especially knowing the more correct translationEven more so when reading the entire text before and after it. Violence is not justified, as stated litterally. However, it can be expected to happen.

This statement is not directed to those who are insulted, it's directed to those who insult. It's a cautionary statement, telling people to be tactfull around others.

[Graknorke]

It's true that you cannot react violently. But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal. It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.

How you can read that and conclude violence is supported is beyond my understanding. Especially knowing the more correct translation. Violence is not justified, as stated litterally. However, it can be expected to happen.

This statement is not directed to those who are insulted, it's directed to those who insult. It's a cautionary statement, telling people to be tactfull around others.

So he's either admitting to being a hypocrite (which isn't a desirable quality in a religious leader) or victim blaming? That's not a great deal better.