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]

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.

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.

Yes, people don't take statements from religious leaders which condone reactions of violent natures seriously. Thanks for putting me straight.

[TD1]

He's saying verbal slurs deserve physical retribution because "it's normal," and therefore if you speak ill of faith, you may expect physical retribution.
Hrm.

[Bohandas]

I think he's just aying its forgivable

[Helgoland]

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.

He's admitting that he's a human being. He's saying that reacting violently is wrong, but that it's not unthinkable that he himself might react violently to some statements. He's admitting that he's fallible, a very desirable insight in a pope.

He's saying verbal slurs deserve physical retribution because "it's normal," and therefore if you speak ill of faith, you may expect physical retribution.
Hrm.

Where in Satan's glorious name does he claim that verbal slurs 'deserve' physical retribution? He's saying that it can and will happen, a fact that was quite clearly demonstrated by the Charlie Hebdo attack.

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.

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.

Yes, people don't take statements from religious leaders which condone reactions of violent natures seriously. Thanks for putting me straight.

You know, now that I've read the same statement in bold and increased font size, I'm convinced: The pope really does want me to kill atheists! *whips out armalite from hammerspace and marches off in Dwarfy's direction*


Good god, people, I get that you don't like religion and by extension religious leaders, but this really is a new low. Remember what you said here before you make fun of tumblr feminists the next time.
NINJA:

I think he's just saying its forgivable

No, not even that. He's saying that people will react like that, but that doesn't imply that he considers it justified.

[Graknorke]

Okay so he's just victim blaming those shooting victims. Phew it's okay guys, we can rest easy knowing that getting killed for disagreeing with someone is your own fault.

[Helgoland]

Okay so he's just victim blaming those shooting victims. Phew it's okay guys, we can rest easy knowing that getting killed for disagreeing with someone is your own fault.

Pray tell, where does he say that?

[Graknorke]

The bit where he says that people insulting the faith of others should expect violence in response?

[Frumple]

... maybe it's a language thing, but at least where I'm at "should expect a punch" is a fairly straightforward statement of justification -- on the part of the second party, at the very least. If a thing is wrong, but you should do it anyway, one of those two statements is, uh. Inaccurate. Think the colloquialism is "talking out of both sides of your mouth"?

And the problem with the statement isn't even remotely any issue religious folk may have with atheists, it's the pretty blunt fact that it's going to aid in incitement of inter-religious violence. You're going to see both christians and muslims interpret those words as stating that physical retaliation for verbal or ideological attacks is both normal and expected. Which is a pretty damn shitty message.

The other way to look at that snippet -- and maybe the rest of the transcript counters it, but... -- is that it's seven words condemning violence and then something like five times that normalizing it. That's not an even balance

[Sergarr]

Okay so he's just victim blaming those shooting victims. Phew it's okay guys, we can rest easy knowing that getting killed for disagreeing with someone is your own fault.

What would you do if somebody insulted your mother?

[Loud Whispers]

Okay so he's just victim blaming those shooting victims. Phew it's okay guys, we can rest easy knowing that getting killed for disagreeing with someone is your own fault.

What would you do if somebody insulted your mother?

Insult their mother

[Helgoland]

Shouldn't they? Just look at the journalists getting killed all over the world, at the scores of people getting lynched - that  violence is to be expected is an undeniable fact. That doesn't mean it's their fault, and I have yet to see a quote from the pope claiming it was.

... maybe it's a language thing, but at least where I'm at "should expect a punch" is a fairly straightforward statement of justification -- on the part of the second party, at the very least. If a thing is wrong, but you should do it anyway, one of those two statements is, uh. Inaccurate. Think the colloquialism is "talking out of both sides of your mouth"?

See above - it's an admission of fallibility. That reaction hardly agrees with 'turn the other cheek'.

The other way to look at that snippet -- and maybe the rest of the transcript counters it, but... -- is that it's seven words condemning violence and then something like five times that normalizing it. That's not an even balance

Context is everything. And if it really is the pope's opinion that it's okay to kill those who insult Christ, it should be rather easy to find other quotes from him that point in the same direction, shouldn't it?

[Loud Whispers]

Shouldn't they? Just look at the journalists getting killed all over the world, at the scores of people getting lynched - that  violence is to be expected is an undeniable fact. That doesn't mean it's their fault, and I have yet to see a quote from the pope claiming it was.

It's similar to saying some bloke going down dark alleyways in a decrepit council estate with his headphones on and his wallet in his back pocket is probably going to get mugged. Or posting an opinion on the internet will get you mob tackled and doxxed. Or setting up a gay bar in Abu Dhabi will likely end in your being dead. It's an acknowledgement of the inevitability of the negative consequence to an action without condoning the action or supporting the people who carry out the action. Pointing out the obvious is not a statement of support unless a statement of support is given.

Context is everything. And if it really is the pope's opinion that it's okay to kill those who insult Christ, it should be rather easy to find other quotes from him that point in the same direction, shouldn't it?

Behead those who insult Stannis the Mannis m8
Rh'ollor one true firework god

[Frumple]

that  violence is to be expected is an undeniable fact.

... the problem with this message is that it's self-fulfilling, helg. If your message, if the general message, is "expect violence", then violence will occur. When the message is, in general, against that... it may still occur, but it occurs far more rarely and with considerably less acceptance. Which is... more or less one of the major goals out there in regards to social desirability, at least last I checked.

As for it being the victim's fault, it's literally right there in the quoted passage. That violent reaction is normal means the one having violence committed against them should have expected it, and are thus partially culpable for said violence. It... kinda' is pretty stock victim blaming. "You should know better" might not be "you should get assaulted" but it's both pretty damn close and an unfortunately standard bell whistle for folks meaning the latter. Poorly chosen words, really...

Seriously though, we need to stop saying shit like it's normal you assault someone for slander. It's kinda' not in a decent society, and there's generally something wrong with the person that would do something like that. At least in everything I've personally experienced.

[PanH]

Pointing out the obvious is not a statement of support unless a statement of support is given.

This. It could have been interpreted as a support message in another context, but seeing as it's one sentence in 2 paragraphs where he repeatedly say that violence in the name of religion is an abomination, I'm pretty sure this sentence is just a statement.

[Baffler]

Instead of latching on to the idea of violence, look a little more closely. What he's essentially saying in the part Mict has so helpfully highlighted is "do not be surprised that someone is offended when you do something offensive." Is that an unreasonable thing to say?

Pointing out the obvious is not a statement of support unless a statement of support is given.

This. It could have been interpreted as a support message in another context, but seeing as it's one sentence in 2 paragraphs where he repeatedly say that violence in the name of religion is an abomination, I'm pretty sure this sentence is just a statement.

Also this.