It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
huh? the muslims burned EMBASIES not their homes.....the point is Christians didnt go ape trying to pillage and burn....
diluted christianity? there are many forms under the baner of protestant alone methodist,presbyterian,lutheran, nazarene, pentecost, etc..... and then you have Catholicism, Orthodox....
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think I'm saying it's bluish-green and you're saying it's greenish-blue!
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's interesting that I had a very similar debate with Mr. Heretic last week about this subject.
I agree with you that society would function better if we all use both restraint and tolerance. I agree with that. But, I see that as an ideal. And, since we are human beings, we don't all operate the same way. There are gazillions of factors that make us into the characters we are as adults. Some people NEVER use tolerance. Some NEVER use restraint. It's not balanced, it's all over the place.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And when lack of restraint butts up against lack of tolerance (as in the Muslim cartoon case), one must be set to prevail.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And, since we are human beings, we don't all operate the same way. There are gazillions of factors that make us into the characters we are as adults. Some people NEVER use tolerance. Some NEVER use restraint. It's not balanced, it's all over the place.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I believe that in those cases, tolerance must bow to Free Speech. Why? Several reasons:
- Because we have a Constitutional right to Free Speech, that must not be abridged.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
- Expressing myself has no bearing on anyone else. If they take my expression to bear on them, it is their choice and their problem/issue, not mine.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
- We are all responsible for our feelings, whether we acknowledge that responsibility or not. I am NOT responsible for my brother's feelings.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think we're going to have to disagree on this one. I totally see what you're saying and I am really stubborn about this FS thing. If I were religious, The Constitution would be my Bible.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In fact, we could probably have some good debates about the 2nd Amemdment, too, if I'm not mistaken.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, I'd like to propose that we feel very similarly about this subject, although not exactly the same and let it go at that. Neither has to swing the other into total agreement, especially since I don't think that's going to happen in a million years. I love ya, though.
Originally posted by loam
But it's so much fun...
How, then, does expecting EVERYONE to develop a "thick" skin become workable? It also occurs to me that you are expecting people to give up their RIGHT to be offended. After all, when I express being offended, aren't you asking me to limit my free speech?
I thought we both agreed this wasn't about governmental interference.
Moreover, do you have a free speech right in my home? or place of employment? No.
Do you think you should?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
- Expressing myself has no bearing on anyone else. If they take my expression to bear on them, it is their choice and their problem/issue, not mine.
I agree...it sounds reasonable, but only to the extent that such expressions are not intended to offend. However, if your purpose is to offend me, why should I subordinate my expression of opposition?
I think it is a strange paradigm to grant free speech rights to only those who exercise them first.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
- We are all responsible for our feelings, whether we acknowledge that responsibility or not. I am NOT responsible for my brother's feelings.
That is unless you intended to provoke those feelings in others...
Yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is none, is a provocation for others to fear imminent danger. Is that ok?
Moreover, if you truly expect people to be responsible for their own feelings, then why doesn't that require one to be responsible for the feelings they use to intentionally provoke the offense in the first place?
Where, I think, we are splitting hairs is on the social side of things. I think we both share the same commitment to protecting diversity as a paramount goal, but believe differently on what gets us there. Am I right about this?
I also expect that those who do, use them responsibly. If you fail to do that, you should be nailed to the wall.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is an alternative, though. And that is either to develop a thick skin or choose not to buy into being offended.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Causing panic or inciting is not protected by Free Speech (and that's a bit of a grey area). But that's not what we're talking about here, is it?
Originally posted by loam
Do these t-shirts "incite"? We know Muslims find it offensive... What other purpose do these t-shirts serve?
Originally posted by Djarums
How about all of these self proclaimed artists stop using religious figures in their art in an insulting manner. Stop the gay Jesus stuff, stop the Mohammad with a bomb stuff, stop smearing elephant crap on the virgin Mary (anyone remember that one?).
Originally posted by craig732
It doesn't surprise me that a moderator is suggesting self-censorship by artists. This is just a small example of the censorship supported by ATS. It is sad that members are trying to have a discussion about an image that can't be posted here because of ATS censorship.
Originally posted by junglejake
[Sorry; the whole moderators are Nazis because I can't post "x" thing is a bit of a pet peeve of mine
Originally posted by Djarums
How about all of these self proclaimed artists stop using religious figures in their art in an insulting manner.
Originally posted by junglejakeATS is a family-fairly-safe website.
Originally posted by craig732
I personally don't want ATS, or anyone else, deciding what is appropriate or safe for my children. I will review what my children want to view on the internet and make that decision myself.
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
If you have a problem with the way we are running things, perhaps you could find a better site.
1a) Offensive Content: You will not post links to images or use avatars and signatures that are offensive, abusive, distruptive and/or hateful. You will not use images, avatars or link to domains that contain gore, mutilation,pornography or illegal content.
1c.) Intellectual Property: You will not post in a message any copyrighted material, material belonging to another person, nor link to any copyrighted material (with the exception of publicly available sites and pages that the legal owners of the copyrights have created to make that material freely available to the general public), unless that copyright is owned by you or by this website.
8) Right of Community Management This is a privately owned discussion board community. The Owners and senior moderator staff reserve the right to take action against any member who is deemed to be devoted purely to disruption, whose actions represent behavior contrary to community building, or whose content is contrary to the core ideals of AboveTopSecret.com. This action may include complete banning of your username and IP address.