ThrashMatto said: Zonata said: 1. How? Because you don't understand the concept? 2. Cherry picking. The wikipedia page says otherwise. "Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word." Which includes four types of violence: physical, sexual, psychological, emotional 3. It isn't hate speech. Again, you don't seem to understand what is hate speech. 1. No, I understand it and yes you did prove my point. Things can be amended into hate speech laws that weren't previously there. 2. I'm sorry but I'd trust the dictionary over wikipedia, anyday 3. I was using the generally accepted usage of "hate speech" not the legal usage of hate speech. The only thing keeping that instance from coming under the legal usage of hate speech is that it wasn't force, unlike the teacher in Alberta during the 80s 1. Anything can be done anytime. Of course you can change the laws. What's your point? 2. You should not. Wikipedia is using the World Health Organization which is a reputable source. Who wrote the definition in your dictionary? Some random dude? What were is credential? Does he possess any form of expertise to lead him to this definition? But suits yourself. From a scientific paper on the definition of violence, peer reviewed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652990/ "Violence is here defined not only as resulting in physical injury but as being present where psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation occurs" 3. Generally accepted? You mean by people who don't know what is hate speech? It doesn't matter if a majority of canadians think your exemple is hate speech... it isn't and therefore is protected in the freedom of speech. |
| Life is an Art |
AyameTomoko said: There are certain theories as to where humans came up with the concept of morality in the first place, but if it did come from a deity, I'd like to know where he got his morals from. It had to start somewhere, right? I'm pretty sure this line of logic lead to Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is very cold and logical. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| -You never backed your claims, mate.-- |
 |
libertarianmind said: I'm glad our founding fathers were niether radical religious zealots nor atheists. i don't think atheism is is consistent with the values that make America great which is natural rights. In my opinion, Deism is the most compatable with the concept because it allows the concept of natural rights. The constitutions grants us rights which are guaranteed by God himself. I believe had we not been committed to the idea of natural rights, we'd be much more consequentialist. I'm not trying to blame atheists for the attacks on free speech, but you'll notice many of these European countries guilty of the most anti-free speech action tend to be very athiest. Because atheism lends itself more to consequentialism. And consequentialism isn't compatable with guaranteed freedoms like free speech. I suspect the reason Canada, Germany and France are so anti-free speech is because they don't see the value in free speech inherently. They see things like "Hate speech" as grounds for making it illegal on the basis that it's not "useful" or "helpful" speech. Someone dedicated to the concept of God given rights will support hate speech on the basis that it is a natural right of man. I don't think atheism is good enough to protect these freedoms because a consequentialist morality would not support things like free speech. And I know we don't have "absolute free speech" but here in America, free speech restrictions are based on immediate safety, not whether or not such speech is "bad" for society. The idea that saying "faggot" is akin to yelling fire in a movie theater is absolutely insane. One is about public safety the other is about not offending people I'm not judging all atheists. You can have a daentological view of natural rights and be an atheist. All I'm saying is that atheism, as an ideology, doesn't lead to that I disagree. "Hate speech" is a vague term that can be used by anyone in power that wants to shut others down. And that includes religious people too. Muslims are a good example of how intolerant they are if you dare insult their prophet. If you are talking about sjws then they ain't really atheist. They use the concept of atheism because they want to reject current established religions but their behavior and ways pretty much are those of a religious cult. Hell you can even call them Muslims considering they crazy love for the Muslim religion that they defend in every corner and even yell praise Allah while they are happy shitting all over Christianity just because many white men believe in it. Communism is also an ideology that was very against religion because it found living under any religion principles as coming with conflict with communism itself. That shows what it really is. A religion like ideology. So while many communist are labeled as atheist they actually are religious to the max. Their religion is communism itself. Mao even had a little red book everyone was holding like a bible. This people aren't atheist because they don't reject the belief in God because they found no logic in believing in a being with no evidence. They reject religious God because they find them against the prevailing of their own ideology religion. So they are fake atheist. To them is not a question of whether you should believe a God exist or not. They aren't conflicted about the logic of it all etc since they can ignore logic pretty easy when it comes to their crazy beliefs. They reject religions etc based on their own agendas not because of philosophical pondering over God. As about whether "the rights under God" in the US Constitution helps keeps basic freedoms. Well you can say it does but i guess you can also make it work by replacing the word God with something else. Like "universal rights of existence" or something. Still even in the US some people are jailed with no hearing or even killed so the government already violates the constitution with no care. Governments are inclined to control and a big problem many EU countries have is that their constitutions are not written with absolute freedom from tyrannical government control in mind whether they use God or anything else. But even when you have such things written on paper is the end paper is paper and it can be torn or ignored by those in power because the rule of nature is power rules everything and human concepts can't escape it. The US forefathers could sit and write the rules they wrote because they won a war. The one with the power can violate any rules he wants because there is no one to enforce the rules to him. |
MonadMay 30, 2017 4:43 AM
Fijure said: libertarianmind said: I'm glad our founding fathers were niether radical religious zealots nor atheists. i don't think atheism is is consistent with the values that make America great which is natural rights. In my opinion, Deism is the most compatable with the concept because it allows the concept of natural rights. The constitutions grants us rights which are guaranteed by God himself. I believe had we not been committed to the idea of natural rights, we'd be much more consequentialist. I'm not trying to blame atheists for the attacks on free speech, but you'll notice many of these European countries guilty of the most anti-free speech action tend to be very athiest. Because atheism lends itself more to consequentialism. And consequentialism isn't compatable with guaranteed freedoms like free speech. I suspect the reason Canada, Germany and France are so anti-free speech is because they don't see the value in free speech inherently. They see things like "Hate speech" as grounds for making it illegal on the basis that it's not "useful" or "helpful" speech. Someone dedicated to the concept of God given rights will support hate speech on the basis that it is a natural right of man. I don't think atheism is good enough to protect these freedoms because a consequentialist morality would not support things like free speech. And I know we don't have "absolute free speech" but here in America, free speech restrictions are based on immediate safety, not whether or not such speech is "bad" for society. The idea that saying "faggot" is akin to yelling fire in a movie theater is absolutely insane. One is about public safety the other is about not offending people I'm not judging all atheists. You can have a daentological view of natural rights and be an atheist. All I'm saying is that atheism, as an ideology, doesn't lead to that Don't really know what you base the whole Europe hasnt free speech on, but here in Denmark we have complete free speech apart from blasphemy laws, and those laws we have because.... surprise, we aren't a secular, and far from an atheist country, the church is still sanctioned by the state, and 80% of the country is still members of the church. So saying free speech problems is because of atheism is completely asinine. No one seriously believes that you can't criticize Christianity in Denmark. The only thing you could get in trouble for is criticizing Islam or mass immigration. From what I've heard, it's not as bad as Germany, Sweden or the UK, but it's not good either. I don't know that it's strictly because of atheism, but certainly Cultural Marxism can only take hold in an atheistic society. |
| The Founding Fathers were taking cues from John Locke. It had little to do with Deism and everything to do with philosophy. The Deist god is not present and may not even have an afterlife so this ads no addition to concept of morality. Locke although supported religious tolerance made an exception for atheism. Deism in the past was basically a way to be a closeted atheist in many cases actually because it was so looked down on so some deists are actually atheists. |
Altairius said: Fijure said: Don't really know what you base the whole Europe hasnt free speech on, but here in Denmark we have complete free speech apart from blasphemy laws, and those laws we have because.... surprise, we aren't a secular, and far from an atheist country, the church is still sanctioned by the state, and 80% of the country is still members of the church. So saying free speech problems is because of atheism is completely asinine. No one seriously believes that you can't criticize Christianity in Denmark. The only thing you could get in trouble for is criticizing Islam or mass immigration. From what I've heard, it's not as bad as Germany, Sweden or the UK, but it's not good either. I don't know that it's strictly because of atheism, but certainly Cultural Marxism can only take hold in an atheistic society. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/kvickly-traekker-jesus-sandaler-tilbage You probably can't read Danish, but maybe Google Translate will be adequate for you to undetsand how one of our retail chains were forced to stop selling sandals having a picture of Jesus underneath them because it was considered blasphemic. This is a minor thing, but eveytime the blasphemy law gets invoked, it is extremely minor things. Just goes to show that what you say isn't really true. Also, people can say pretty ridiculous shit to criticize muslims here as well without getting in trouble, at least legally. I think it happened to one politician saying all muslim men rape their daughters, he was forced to pay a fine, but thats the only example I can think of. Circumstances has to be really ridiculous in order for the law to get invoked. We aren't Sweden dammit, stop assuming all of Europe is just some degenerated PC shithole just because thats all Breitbart and InfoWars tell you. |
| One must not presuppose that the negation of God follows the negation of traditional morality. After all, the negation itself contains the idea that even the morality imputed to God is man-made; so the answer to the traditional question of where do you get your morality from after denying God really just has the answer, 'Where did you get it from, in my point of view?'. Does atheism lend itself to consequentialist morality? Hmmm... that may in fact be a consequence of prioritizing reason, in that the long-term greater good is preferred over the short-term smaller good. There can be plenty errors in that calculation, but generally, acting on consequentialist morality itself is a deontological imperative -- do what you think is right. I don't necessarily separate the two systems of morality; they work in tandem only. Take them apart, and they stop being moralities. |
| This thread has made me realise that it's in my best interests not to debate God or morality with anyone. I'll just encourage my morality and belief in God through my actions. I may try to do some sound philosophy on morality and theism at some point, but the matter is of no major concern to me. At the end of the day, my model completely works for me and is shared by many people, so I'm fine with that. With that said, my final thought in this thread is that I don't recommend discussing morality or God unless you're confused about either. If you manage to find an answer that works for you socially and mentally then you'll be happy with that. Due to to the very complex nature of these subjects that could still perhaps use some elucidation, I recommend finding success and letting that validate your moral and religious views. That's my outlook anyway. See you guys around in the other threads. |
More topics from this board
» What if Burger is on a stick?Dragevard - Feb 10, 2022 |
20 |
by Rhaelynne
»»
34 seconds ago |
|
Poll: » school uniform or no school uniform which is better? ( 1 2 )deg - Feb 21 |
96 |
by neol3
»»
1 minute ago |
|
Poll: » strawberry, chocolate or banana milk? ( 1 2 )bobbysalmon - Apr 17 |
56 |
by neol3
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» Dracula, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde or Frankenstein(books)?Absurdo_N - 2 hours ago |
5 |
by Kamikaze_404
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» What do yall collect? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )bevarnow - Jan 25 |
311 |
by bevarnow
»»
2 hours ago |