Originally posted by no1marauder Neither was Irving, but he went to jail.
I'm glad that you are able to ascertain all the facts of a case and come to a conclusion while hearing only one side. Most impressive.
You may consider the following facts (but you probably won't):
1. She was a teacher of Sudanese children of mostly upper class backgrounds. T 007/11/30/world/africa/30sudan.html?em&ex=1196571600&en=a34103a9bb6c2a52&ei=5087%0A
Your point is nonsense.
My criticism is that she was being accused of "hatred" because of something meaningless. That she was convicted is immaterial to my point because I'm criticizing the law upon which she was convicted on.
The point here is whether HER act of naming a teddy bear is "inciting hatred" or not.
Unless you wish to argue that it is (which you are probably pathetic enough to do, but haven't already), then you haven't showed that I'm inconsistent at all.
Ask Scribs for lessons in logic. You desperately need them.
Originally posted by Palynka Your point is nonsense.
My criticism is that she was being accused of "hatred" because of something meaningless. That she was convicted is immaterial to my point because I'm criticizing the law upon which she was convicted on.
The point here is whether HER act of naming a teddy bear is "inciting hatred" or not.
Unless you wish to argue that it is ( t I'm inconsistent at all.
As Scribs for lessons in logic. You desperately need them.
Maybe you should learn how to read (there's an unemployed British teacher available in 5 days).
YOU may think it is meaningless, but the parents of the children in the school she was teaching at certainly didn't agree with you. She wound up being convicted of "insulting religion"; is that not as serious as insulting people because of race or denying the Holocaust in your view? Consider also that she was "insulting religion" to children of people of faith.
Did you read the quote of the Sudanese government official?
As I accurately predicted, you failed to address any of the facts I brought forward. Pathetic.
Originally posted by no1marauder Maybe you should learn how to read (there's an unemployed British teacher available in 5 days).
YOU may think it is meaningless, but the parents of the children in the school she was teaching at certainly didn't agree with you. She wound up being convicted of "insulting religion"; is that not as serious as insulting people because of race or ...[text shortened]... I accurately predicted, you failed to address any of the facts I brought forward. Pathetic.
I'll repeat schematically because you seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension:
1) I'm criticising the law => 'but that's the law' is a void argument;
2) Defending the UN Declaration of Human Rights implies imposing limits to majority rulings => 'the majority voted so' is a void argument;
This shows that all your arguments above are void. Keep trying.
Originally posted by Palynka I'll repeat schematically because you seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension:
1) I'm criticising the law => 'but that's the law' is a void argument;
2) Defending the UN Declaration of Human Rights implies imposing limits to majority rulings => 'the majority voted so' is a void argument;
This shows that all your arguments above are void. Keep trying.
You're criticizing the law against insulting religion? On what grounds? How is that law any different from sending Holocaust deniers to jail (which you support)?
EDIT: Article 26 (3) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
BTW, you really need that reading course; nowhere did I make the argument "but that's the law" and/or "the majority voted so".
Originally posted by no1marauder You're criticizing the law against insulting religion? On what grounds? How is that law any different from sending Holocaust deniers to jail (which you support)?
EDIT: Article 26 (3) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
BTW, you really ...[text shortened]... urse; nowhere did I make the argument "but that's the law" and/or "the majority voted so".
Yes. Human Rights. Denying the holocaust is different than naming a teddy bear.
Originally posted by Palynka Yes. Human Rights. Denying the holocaust is different than naming a teddy bear.
Any more ridiculous comparisons?
As predicted:
"I know from past experience that you won't address these facts in any detail and will only response with snotty, cryptic statements that mean nothing".
Human Rights...a fine religious principle. Somewhat arbitrary, though, don't you think? It all comes down to a kind of a feeling of how you ought to treat other people, doesn't it? It seems self-evidently right, but...a bunch of words in practice.
Originally posted by snowinscotland Anyone at all think this is reasonable?
Given the right premises, anything is reasonable. It was reasonable to hang children for theft in 18th century England. It was reasonable to gas Jews. What's the point of your outrage?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Given the right premises, anything is reasonable. It was reasonable to hang children for theft in 18th century England. It was reasonable to gas Jews. What's the point of your outrage?
I am not outraged. I think it is quite funny, except for the woman concerned.
If you think it is reasonable to gas Jews, and hang children, then I hope you never ever get into a position of influence, anywhere. If you support that kind of thing then that is up to you. If you get caught hanging children, or gassing Jews, then should you only face 15 days in prison, that would irk me more...
Originally posted by snowinscotland I am not outraged. I think it is quite funny, except for the woman concerned.
If you think it is reasonable to gas Jews, and hang children, then I hope you never ever get into a position of influence, anywhere. If you support that kind of thing then that is up to you. If you get caught hanging children, or gassing Jews, then should you only face 15 days in prison, that would irk me more...
You'd be amazed how reason can lead you astray.
Reason is no basis for dealing with other people. Other qualities--pity, mercy, love, peace, the whole shtick--are much more valuable. What's lacking in the people responsible for this fiasco is not intelligence, it's mercy--I'd urge them to be merciful on the woman for being ignorant of their customs, their politics, their bigotry. Perhaps sentencing her to 15 days instead of 80 lashes is mercy, by their lights.
But why privilege this woman's case above the myriad atrocities taking place everywhere, all the time? I can only think it must be the teddy bear.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You'd be amazed how reason can lead you astray.
Reason is no basis for dealing with other people. Other qualities--pity, mercy, love, peace, the whole shtick--are much more valuable. What's lacking in the people responsible for this fiasco is not intelligence, it's mercy--I'd urge them to be merciful on the woman for being ignorant of their customs, ...[text shortened]... rocities taking place everywhere, all the time? I can only think it must be the teddy bear.
I think if you have no reason you are more likely to be confused.
Perhaps you don't see the lack of reason in the following sentences.
"What's lacking in the people responsible for this fiasco is not intelligence"
"I'd urge them to be merciful on the woman for being ignorant of their ... bigotry."
"I know from past experience that you won't address these facts in any detail and will only response with snotty, cryptic statements that mean nothing".
Bingo.
Present something with substance and I'll address it. Continue to present ridiculous comparisons and I'll keep on treating you with contempt.
Religious tolorance demonstrated again
30 Nov '07 14:581 edit
Back to Top