Religious tolorance demonstrated again

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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.

Why ignore it? Coherence requires us to ignore all or none. Why are you then so reticent to criticize this one? Would you be as reticent to criticize Western "atrocities"? I don't recall you being so. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
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.

You mention 'atrocities' a few posts above. Isn't this labeling even more arbitrary without any form of reference?

Originally posted by Palynka
Present something with substance and I'll address it. Continue to present ridiculous comparisons and I'll keep on treating you with contempt.

I presented plenty of facts and you addressed none of them. Your selective outrage and inconsistency is on display for all to see. You are the one being ridiculous: the principle behind the laws against insulting religion and against allowing people to publicly deny the Holocaust are the same i.e. some people will be offended. You've even supported punishment for people on this forum based on the same principle. Yet, you choose to "criticize" (actually you've made no rational critique at all) the law against insulting religion while supporting other actions based on the same idea.

You've also not addressed the particular circumstances of the case which raise the question whether parents have the right to expect the teachers of their children to comport themselves according to societal norms in the classroom. So any time you want to try, go ahead.

Originally posted by Palynka
You mention 'atrocities' a few posts above. Isn't this labeling even more arbitrary without any form of reference?

I'm not sure what you mean.

"Atrocities"--car crash victims, artificial famine, mining accidents, preventable cancer...Any unnecessary death traceable to (in)direct human agency is an atrocity for me. Listing them all would be time-consuming.

I was sitting in a bar in Milnerton taking in the view -- the Gibbons situation dominated the bar TV, like there was nothing else in the world to be concerned about. A bit like that child that went missing in France recently...Certain events are raised above other events not because they are intrinsically more worthy of attention but because they make good news.

I must be a genius to have figured that out.

As for Human Rights--everything that is codified becomes absurd. Hence my reference to religion. A shift from spirit to letter invariably ensues.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
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."

Or perhaps you don't see the irony in them.

Over-dependence on logic can lead to fanaticism and inhumane behaviour. Logical fanatics often privilege a text over ordinary human response (the instinct towards mercy, for example). "Society as a whole will benefit from the unjust execution of this individual".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Or perhaps you don't see the irony in them.

Over-dependence on logic can lead to fanaticism and inhumane behaviour. Logical fanatics often privilege a text over ordinary human response (the instinct towards mercy, for example). "Society as a whole will benefit from the unjust execution of this individual".

Perhaps.

Emotional intelligence is part of reason you know. I think the word 'logic' has become rather equated with simplistic automation; perhaps that is why you chose it? rather than 'reasoning' esp. the complexity of human reasoning (contrast with religious 'logic'😉.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I presented plenty of facts and you addressed none of them. Your selective outrage and inconsistency is on display for all to see. You are the one being ridiculous: the principle behind the laws against insulting religion and against allowing people to publicly deny the Holocaust are the same i.e. some people will be offended. You've even supported punis ...[text shortened]... selves according to societal norms in the classroom. So any time you want to try, go ahead.

And I gave my answer regarding those facts.

But I find it remarkable how you consider Kirksey's case, the teddy bear case and Irving's case so similar to the extent that it would be incoherent to support different outcomes.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Any unnecessary death traceable to (in)direct human agency is an atrocity for me. Listing them all would be time-consuming.

That doesn't answer on why you find those deaths an atrocity.

As for Human Rights--everything that is codified becomes absurd.
Perhaps if you're an anarchist.

Originally posted by Palynka
That doesn't answer on why you find those deaths an atrocity.

[b]As for Human Rights--everything that is codified becomes absurd.
Perhaps if you're an anarchist.[/b]

Well, I'm appalled by them. A recent local example: Two children under the age of ten murdered a five-year-old for something like five rand. Our very own Bulger case. That's atrocious, and far more disturbing than the teddy bear farce. Of course that story was quite sensational so it was widely reported here. Less newsworthy, because more routine, atrocities (seemingly endemic child abuse) appear to be accepted as part of daily life, only the more horrific cases enjoying the dubious privilege of spectacularisation. Which, arguably, is atrocious in itself. Shifting into conspiratorial mode, I could begin on the invisible atrocities that underpin so much of quotidien reality - modes of production, basically. And so on. On a grand scale, atrocity is a religious problem, death itself being the original atrocity par excellence.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, I'm appalled by them. A recent local example: Two children under the age of ten murdered a five-year-old for something like five rand. Our very own Bulger case. That's atrocious, and far more disturbing than the teddy bear farce. Of course that story was quite sensational so it was widely reported here. Less newsworthy, because more routine, atro ...[text shortened]... ale, atrocity is a religious problem, death itself being the original atrocity par excellence.

Ithink that you will always get a percentage of individuals who will commit horrors all by themselves. I agree that each case will be disturbing especially the closer you are (relate, see, get exposed to in the media... etc) to it.
I think there is a special horror to a crowd baying for blood, especially when the 'crime' is so trivial; and apparently innocent. Mob rule is one thing. If this is linked to an organisation that condones or at least does not immediately distance itself from such actions then would that not concern you?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I think there is a special horror to a crowd baying for blood, especially when the 'crime' is so trivial; and apparently innocent. Mob rule is one thing. If this is linked to an organisation that condones or at least does not immediately distance itself from such actions then would that not concern you?

I know too little about Sudanese politics to be able to afford to care much. I'm more interested in why the media wants me to care so much.

Anybody get anything positive out of this story or are you all fixated with teddy bears?