|
RCdc -> RE: Dutch politician on trial for offensive movie (1/30/2009 6:21:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
To go with the chicken theme here, if I chose to watch a show about someones favorite chicken recipe, and it showed they liked preparing it by shitting on it, I probably would change the channel. I have a small problem with your argument, regardless of the framing, most people have now been exposed to information about Islam in general for about 7 years now or longer, there have been countless debates on the whether Islam is extremist or not, so we aren't talking about people that have never seen a chicken or who have never seen a chicken recipe before.
My point was that if the information is incorrect then it should be made to stand in judgement, regardless of whether you have the ability to change the channel or not. If someone is advocating shitting on a chicken and that it's completely safe to leave it out in the heat for a couple of days and then you can eat it raw, then they should have accountability.
I think you are probably underestimating the time frame. I would suggest that all religions have been through the whole 'extreme' finger pointing for way more than 7 years, including islam.
quote:
I think that is sort of a dishonest viewpoint to take,as Islam has been the most talked about religion for nearing a decade now.
I am lost on what is dishonest, but like I said, islam has been spoken about way more than 7 or even 10 years. If you could explain then I will be able to respond.
quote:
So, my point on the subject in that area, is most of the population is not entirely ignorant on the subject, and more than likely have heard the pro side and con side multiple times. Obviously this guy has taken the con viewpoint. I don't see why that is a problem. The world population isn't virgin to the religion, and the debate surrounding it, you'd have to live in a cave, not to have heard at least a dozen.
I don't disagree as such - but I don't believe that people know really as much s they think they do. Unless you have attended a mosque, have friends who follow islam or actively study religions as I do - and I don't mean this to be condecending - but the majority of people only have a second hand viewpoint. And whilst the man is free to have his say, are you suggesting that propaganda should be ignored, or do you believe that truth willout? I just believe that he should be held accountable for defamation and misrepresentation of his product, just as any leader or product leader/inventor should.
quote:
It would only be a problem, if one had never prepared chicken or seen chicken being prepared or eaten chicken, and relied on one source that happen to like chicken with shit on it, to become a problem.
See my point.
I do. However the consumer in me would say that if I had a chicken and had varying degrees of how to - I would expect the person who informed incorrectly to be held accountable.
quote:
I have no idea what you mean by I'm his congregation, I don't care what the guy believes or says, really, I'm just concerned with his right to say it. Nothing more.
Then I do not know how more clearly to explain it to you.
quote:
I'm not going to read it in a divine since (divination), I'm reading it as a view of what the men who wrote it are trying to instill in those reading it, the same as I watched that movie or read your text, ultimately its religion is nothing more than an opinion on the universal order of things, I don't consider any of them fact. Just to make it clear all the supposed HOLY Books, whether inspired by a real god or not, are works of men and undoubtedly the words within are sculpted to influence behaviour in a manner the writer wanted. Unfortunately most religious writings, are more about seperating people than anything. You are a believer or a Pagan. I don't care if you are a believer or a pagan. I dont' see the seperation, thus I don't view religious banter to be anymore objectionable than someone saying lawyers are bad. It's a opinion on a group, I only care about protecting individuals, not groups.
I would say that is where you are going to misinterpret them then. The thing is that people take books like the koran and the bible and go... there.. read it - done. It really doesn't work like that. There are hundreds and thousands of historical texts that can be used to back up time frames and people(s). If you really want to understand and culture and a religion you have to know what the historical references are pointing to. I would also say it helps to have a vague understanding of ancient languages and texts also, but that is a little less important. If you don't, then everything is second guessing and assumption.
Lets take you example of lawyers. If someone makes a sweeping statement such as 'ALL LAWYERS ARE BAD' and then sprinkle in all the bad and negative reports of them - you think that is acceptable and correct? Lets change lawyers for doctors. Or BDSMers. Or Priests. Or Women.
You state that you are not concerned about groups but about individuals. If that is really the case then you should be concerned about someone who takes everyone in a group and condems them with no regard for the truth of an individual... whether that is this man or bin laden.
quote:
Well, you got me going a bit, all anyone needs to know in to be religiously fulfilled and to live a good life by most religions standards
1. Don't fuck another mans woman.
2. Take care of your kids and your messes.
2 Don't take another persons stuff.
3. Work for what you need and want.
4. Don't want for more than you need.
5. Help others when possible to do so.
6. Never Kill another unless being attacked (literally).
7. Mellow out.
I could disagree with you on some of those points. Number one doesn't take into account poly or open relationships or bisexuals for a start. Things are never that simple or clear cut.
quote:
There I just replaced the need for all religions and gods, except for the ego gratification they provide by giving the followers the drug of "special" knowledge and a "special" relationship to the One true god which creates "groups" and therefore conflict.
I don't believe you replaced anything. You simply created another.
the.dark.
|
|
|
|
