Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I... just kinda' checking, but y'all do realize that was pretty much right in line with the cultural norms of the time, right? Many, perhaps even most, marriages in that time period occurred in such a manner to render the groom a child molester by today's standards. I'm not saying it's right, and I certainly disagree with it in today's context, but singling the guy out for that seems a bit out of place. You'd have condemn entire swaths of human history by that measure, from what I understand.

I explained:

I don't care about the context of the time because Islamists don't care about the context of the time either. They want Islam to stand as it was originally created forever and ever. It isn't like with political leaders where you can excuse their actions due to the times because they were left with those times. Religious figures like Muhammad and Jesus were not left with the times and people try to keep them relevant to the world many centuries later and get angry whenever they are rightfully criticized.

[nenjin]

I... just kinda' checking, but y'all do realize that was pretty much right in line with the cultural norms of the time, right? Many, perhaps even most, marriages in that time period occurred in such a manner to render the groom a child molester by today's standards. I'm not saying it's right, and I certainly disagree with it in today's context, but singling the guy out for that seems a bit out of place. You'd have condemn entire swaths of human history by that measure, from what I understand.

Up to and including Christian and Hebrew kings. I.e., it's disingenuous any way you slice it to "single out" Muhammad.

[GlyphGryph]

SalmonGod, are you seriously advocating only allowing speech that meets your personal metric of "not dumb"?
Are you really confident giving the people in charge the power to prosecute people for "disrupting the social order"?

And you claim to be an anarchist?

Because a lot of your argument boils down to "If I don't like the point being made, or what I presume to be the motivation behind it and/or the speech could result in social upheaval and disruption, esp. with a chance of injury, then it shouldn't be allowed". And to me, at least, that's an absolutely terrifying train of thought.

[Gantolandon]

* MetalSlimeHunt disagrees
The recognition of liberty as a core value is what lead to the modern world. The American and French Revolutions were about obtaining liberty, and all else follows.

The American Revolution was caused by the fact that American colonists didn't want to be a part of the crown which demanded too much from them and giving them very little representation. The French one happened from the similar reason - a significant group of people, including bourgeoisie, peasants and artisans, had to maintain the crown, nobility and the clergy, being given very little in return and having almost no leverage compared to the land-owning social strata. Liberty, as usual, was a decoration that makes the memeplex shine and sparkle.

Liberty is the state of being free from the oppression and control of other human beings, generally those who have a disproportionate amount of power.

Being punished for deliberately provoking a large group of people and inciting violence is hardly "oppression and control".

Oh right, translation was on his Youtube channel, fair enough.  I agree that it's a lot of effort to go through to express dumb views, but it's also a lot of effort to go through just to troll for the hell of it.  Some people just feel that they're right and prevailing opinion is wrong, and are prepared to go to a lot of effort to tell everyone else.

That's why being polite during voicing your opinion is always important - when the shitstorm happens it helps to show that it was really expression, not deliberate provocation. And the simple fact that the author preferred to lie to his actors is the proof that he knew what the reaction would be and still didn't mind.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The American Revolution was caused by the fact that American colonists didn't want to be a part of the crown which demanded too much from them and giving them very little representation. The French one happened from the similar reason - a significant group of people, including bourgeoisie, peasants and artisans, had to maintain the crown, nobility and the clergy, being given very little in return and having almost no leverage compared to the land-owning social strata. Liberty, as usual, was a decoration that makes the memeplex shine and sparkle.

Except that's exactly what I defined liberty as. The American colonists and the French third estate were both being controlled and oppressed by more powerful groups and revolted, thus obtaining liberty for themselves.

Being punished for deliberately provoking a large group of people and inciting violence is hardly "oppression and control".

He didn't incite violence. The Islamists who carried out these incidents are the ones inciting violence. They had every option to be offended and not go rioting over it, and there are plenty of non-Islamist Muslims who did just that.

[GlyphGryph]

Just to be clear, freedom of speech isn't an issue of "should this guy be allowed to do this", but rather "Do we trust others (not ourself, probably government officials) to decide who should be allowed to do this."

We trust the government to reliably apply rules like "no harassment", "no shouting fire", "no slander" - but can we trust them to apply rules like "no trolling"?

And the simple fact that the author preferred to lie to his actors is the proof that he knew what the reaction would be and still didn't mind.

It just meant he knew the actors he wanted wouldn't agree with his views. That doesn't mean it was deliberate provocation, just knowledge that his views were unpopular.

[Zangi]

Muhammad a "warmongering child molester" is false. While he did marry a child, IIRC he never slept with her until she wasn't a child anymore and it was closer to an adoption anyway, since back then they didn't have orphanages and social services. It's like the polygamy thing; it's not telling you to go out and marry sixteen women for no raisin, but it's a means of defense against the mistreatment of widows, who had no protection.

As I recall he married her when she was 6 and slept with her when she was 9, so...no, still a child molester. I stand by my point, except it wasn't a point, I was explicitly condoning allowing Muslims to practice their religion freely even though I disapprove of it as I disapprove of all religion.

I don't care about the context of the time because Islamists don't care about the context of the time either. They want Islam to stand as it was originally created forever and ever. It isn't like with political leaders where you can excuse their actions due to the times because they were left with those times. Religious figures like Muhammad and Jesus were not left with the times and people try to keep them relevant to the world many centuries later and get angry whenever they are rightfully criticized.

Did you guys know...  many of our ancestors are child molesters too.  'Children' were of marriageable age by 12.  Even as young as 9.

Europe and American colonists took part in it.  If you are going to blast the Islamists about it, you may as well know that 'our' people had done it too.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You are still not paying attention to what I am saying. The morality exception I make for religious figures is specifically because they are not left in the times they lived in by their followers. Said followers wish to keep their teachings in the modern world, and I say that so too we must judge said figures by our standards if they are going to be relevant to our world today. Especially since there are places in the Islamic world where child marriage is still practiced.

[GlyphGryph]

So yeah, any of our ancestors you want to hold up as an ideal we should live up to, today... that might be worth mentioning.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So yeah, any of our ancestors you want to hold up as an ideal we should live up to, today... that might be worth mentioning.

It's like I'm talking to a wall. If you're going to criticize me at least don't ignore my responses.

I reckon a fair few non-religious figures would like their standards being held up today...

what are your feelings about them, then?

They're dead and gone and have been left in the times they lived in. No one is attempting to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire, for example.

Religious figures are dead but their followers try to keep them alive through advocating their actions. I don't know how many times I have to say this before someone will acknowledge that I am saying it.

[GlyphGryph]

So yeah, any of our ancestors you want to hold up as an ideal we should live up to, today... that might be worth mentioning.

It's like I'm talking to a wall. If you're going to criticize me at least don't ignore my responses.

... you might need to chill out.
I was agreeing with you, in response to Zangi's comment, that yes - any historical figures we're going to drag into an ideal for today should ALSO have such flaws kept in mind.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So yeah, any of our ancestors you want to hold up as an ideal we should live up to, today... that might be worth mentioning.

It's like I'm talking to a wall. If you're going to criticize me at least don't ignore my responses.

... you might need to chill out.
I was agreeing with you, in response to Zangi's comment, that yes - any historical figures we're going to drag into an ideal for today should ALSO have such flaws kept in mind.

...Oh, my bad. I thought you were going off of Zangi's comment and completely disregarding my response.

[Another]

I heard a mention that all those riots and violence were being prepared for months in advance and that the release of this video was just a fortunate (to organizers) coincidence.

How does it frame into the last two pages of this discussion?

[Scelly9]

I heard a mention that all those riots and violence were being prepared for months in advance and that the release of this video was just a fortunate (to organizers) coincidence.

How does it frame into the last two pages of this discussion?

Where did you hear that?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I heard a mention that all those riots and violence were being prepared for months in advance and that the release of this video was just a fortunate (to organizers) coincidence.

How does it frame into the last two pages of this discussion?

Where did you hear that?

The U.S. State Department and the CIA. We discussed this earlier in the thread, it looks a lot like Ansar al-Sharia (a Yemen-based offshoot of al-Qeada ) planned this.