Blasphemy

[Fallen Prophet]

He flaunted the risks of smoking. Said he even wanted a medal for his cigar smoking.
He's now dead of lung cancer.

None of that makes him a troll.

Oh. Of course.

You're right - I shouldn't have said that - because you have no possible way of verifying that no one has ever been banned on this site for saying something like that.

I took your word for it because I'm new here - but after taking a moment to think it over - I call BS.

Can you guarantee that the "many" you claim said those things here are still around? That they weren't banned?

I mean - considering that this forum does have a "most Left Wing audience" - as you said - I'm convinced that many of them would consider themselves to be professional victims, naysayers and rabble-rousers.

No doubt in my mind.

It means it won't be a popular opinion, and it will be used as clay pigeons for "debate skeet shot." You won't be banned or get a warning, but we may play "whack-a-post" with science journals as our mallets. It's not some sort of mob threat, but you won't be popular here with it.

Sounds exactly like a "mob threat" considering all the violent imagery you just used.

Being shot at and whacked by mallets - yeah - not a threat at all.

And I'm convinced that any "science journal" shared would be written by a political hack who tinkers in science.

Yes, but that depends. Here, that could mean going against the rules we all agreed to in order to use this web site.

I didn't read anything that said we can't share our opinions.

As long as they are shared productively, as part of an argument, not just to get a rise out of someone, or simple statements of belief - there is no violation.

Although - you did call Rush Limbaugh a "real life troll" simply because he liked smoking cigars and made a joke about wanting a medal for it.

So - maybe there really is no hope of sharing a "not well received" opinion on this site. That's sad.

Big whoop? Are we supposed to give you a cookie?

In 2021? That should get me a Nobel Peace Prize.

Lots of us do that here sans announcement. It's something we all have to do in order just to function in our society. It's called "being an adult."

If that's an attribute of "being an adult" then I'm convinced most Left Wing people are toddlers.

Have to stop you there because there are private companies. You have to agree to their rules to use them.

Have to stop you there - because I explicitly said he did not violate any rules when I said,

"These big tech media giants censure people for bogus reasons that do not violate their terms of service at all."

You are bound to miss these things if you only address parts of people's comments.

Loads of people are getting censured or banned as soon as they say something that the Big Tech Overlords don't like - without there being an actual violation.

They do that to give themselves time to try and stick them with something - so most often those bans are eventually lifted - but then the people are placed on restrictions, demonetizations or "shadow-banned" - which makes it very difficult to find their content.

No, they can change them at any time, without notification, for any reason, and they can terminate your privilege of use any time, without warning, and we've all agreed to this dozens, possibly hundreds of times (if not thousands for some).

But it only goes one way.

Today - people can still say that the 2016 election was hacked by the Russians and that Trump was a Manchurian Candidate.

Yet - make a peep about the 2020 election being rigged - and you're banned.

Also - the rules seem to only be applied when it is a conservative or Right Wing person saying it.

The rules on Twitter were that "no one can claim victory before the election results are certified" - yet Biden, Harris and Pelosi all did just that - with no repercussions.

Canceling due to threats of violence is something that happens.

Yeah - and rape and murder are also things "that happen" - does that make them right?

It's not censorship, and the owners of the private establishment are well within their rights to do so, because they are the ones who own it.

"The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press" - is one of the definitions of censorship.

I am not blaming the owners of any establishments - but rather the mobs of Left Wing toddlers who threaten to shoot them or whack them with mallets because they are incapable of hearing - or letting others hear - ideas they don't like.

Putting a gun to someone's head and ordering them to cancel an event is wrong. It's right out of Nazi Germany.

Also - you didn't address my claim that this happened on public property as well.

You agree with kicking people off public property after they've been invited to speak?

That's just something "that happens" right?

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean - considering that this forum does have a "most Left Wing audience" - as you said - I'm convinced that many of them would consider themselves to be professional victims, naysayers and rabble-rousers.

I'll have you know that there are many non-liberals here.
I count 3 libertarians & 7 conservatives.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't read anything that said we can't share our opinions.

I myself have gotten a warning for sharing a certain opinion of mine regarding Trump.

Sounds exactly like a "mob threat" considering all the violent imagery you just used.

Being shot at and whacked by mallets - yeah - not a threat at all.

Violent imagery is basically all around us, and debate is a form of conflict and competition.

Can you guarantee that the "many" you claim said those things here are still around? That they weren't banned?

Yup.

In 2021? That should get me a Nobel Peace Prize.

It you could make something like the racist pointing out their black friends.

If that's an attribute of "being an adult" then I'm convinced most Left Wing people are toddlers.

Then I can assume it's safe for me to assume the Right Wing toddlers who insist the election must be over turned to the point they believe other states infringed upon their rights makes up most Right?

Have to stop you there - because I explicitly said he did not violate any rules when I said,

Apparently so or they wouldn't have acted. And, typically, they really don't need a reason. They can just do it.

The rules on Twitter were that "no one can claim victory before the election results are certified" - yet Biden, Harris and Pelosi all did just that - with no repercussions.

They didn't even give their victory speech until after it became apparent they won.
It was a group of Trumpeters who harped on about EC this and Congress count that in ways that highly suggest they've not followed a single election over the past century plus, as Biden and Harris followed the norms, just as Trump did in 2016.

I am not blaming the owners of any establishments - but rather the mobs of Left Wing toddlers who threaten to shoot them or whack them with mallets because they are incapable of hearing - or letting others hear - ideas they don't like.

And yet it was a swarm of Right Wing toddlers who stormed the Capitol and had America having a deadly election.

You agree with kicking people off public property after they've been invited to speak?

It doesn't matter if I agree or not. They have the right as it is their property.
Are you for forcing people to let someone speak regardless everything else/placing property ownership rights beneath someone who doesn't own the property?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Homosexuals and transgenders can call all Christians the worst names in the book with no repercussions.

You know there's gay and trans Christians, right?

 

[danieldemol]

Homosexuals and transgenders can call all Christians the worst names in the book with no repercussions.

If it is happening here on RF it is possibly an ad hominem violation and you should hit the report button.

There are too many posts here for mods to read every single one of them.

As a result posts often won't get censored until after a report is made

 

[Glaurung]

Freedom of speech is most important when it's risky.

Only when there's something worthwhile being said. A Chinese student speaking out against CCP tyranny is courageous. Stomping on an image of the Virgin Mary is merely puerile. If it were up to me, people like that would be ignored. But I don't run Poland.

If you're saying that my choice is between being a slave to a god or a slave to "political masters", then I think that's a false dilemma.

It's not a false dilemma. If there is no basis for human rights but modern political fiction, then you're just fortunate that you happen to live under a benevolent political system.

For Christians though, while there's no guarantee that the political powers that be will respect human dignity, they at least have a basis beyond mere preference to assert it. Human rights exists because God created us with innate dignity.

Who's to be the judge?

Not everything permissible is beneficial.

 

[icehorse]

Only when there's something worthwhile being said. A Chinese student speaking out against CCP tyranny is courageous. Stomping on an image of the Virgin Mary is merely puerile. If it were up to me, people like that would be ignored. But I don't run Poland.

Maybe less puerile if you had a child who was molested by a member of the clergy?

It's not a false dilemma. If there is no basis for human rights but modern political fiction, then you're just fortunate that you happen to live under a benevolent political system.

Okay, now the discussion is headed towards philosophy But zooming out, if we take your stance, then can't we say there's no basis for any aspect of society, that it's all a manmade invention? Of course it is, of course it's manmade, who else would have made it? God is the fictional character in this discussion.

Not everything permissible is beneficial.

That's for sure.

 

[viole]

I think your list is problematic. I would say, let's not conflate things a person cannot change, with things a person can change. A person cannot change their complexion. A person CAN change their religion, because after all, a religion is just a set of ideas.

Yes, and what speaks against ridiculing her set of ideas? Would you punish that by law?

Ciao

- viole

 

[icehorse]

Yes, and what speaks against ridiculing her set of ideas? Would you punish that by law?

Ciao

- viole

I'm not sure I understand your post here, sorry. To be clear, it sometimes might not be "nice" or "compassionate", but we MUST retain the right to criticize ideas. That right is essential to remain free.

So of course, if I criticize a set of religious beliefs, of course the believers have every right to criticize my ideas. No issue there. But, they shouldn't be allowed to throw me in jail for criticizing their ideas.

 

[viole]

I'm not sure I understand your post here, sorry. To be clear, it sometimes might not be "nice" or "compassionate", but we MUST retain the right to criticize ideas. That right is essential to remain free.

So of course, if I criticize a set of religious beliefs, of course the believers have every right to criticize my ideas. No issue there. But, they shouldn't be allowed to throw me in jail for criticizing their ideas.

Well, that was my point from the start.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If it were up to me, people like that would be ignored.

That's basically the way I think it should be. Obviously I am more the target audience for bands such as Behemoth than someone such as yourself. So why does anyone care? We go to a show, get entertained, and go home and carry on with our lives like everybody else. Why does anyone else care, why should they care, and why should this event have even gotten this sort of attention and punishment in the first place?
And, very clearly few people here would have even known about it, or prior incidents, had this not been made into a scene. But I'm sure the band appreciates the publicity. I did great to make Black Sabbath, Marilyn Manson, and Eminem into common, everyday household names. And for a band of Behemoth's genre, this is a very rare tidal wave of public attention. After all, they typically do not play larger venues, stadiums, or arenas. There just aren't enough of us who are fans for a venue that size. The two times I got to see them, they were second stage (for smaller stages for smaller bands not on main stage) at Ozzfest and Mayhem Tour. Not a very big crowd turnout, either. So, most definitely, the controversy has been a great thing for them, and them selling more albums is certainly not the intention of the people enforcing the law. But it's very likely happened.

 

[Glaurung]

Maybe less puerile if you had a child who was molested by a member of the clergy?

Yes, it would still be puerile. The failures of the Catholic Church as an institution have nothing whatsoever to do with what what the image of the Virgin Mary represents for millions worldwide. To desecrate that is to boorishly hurt the sentiments of people who have had no hand in the failures of the Catholic clergy. In the criminal activity of a small minority of bad actors.

Okay, now the discussion is headed towards philosophy But zooming out, if we take your stance, then can't we say there's no basis for any aspect of society, that it's all a manmade invention? Of course it is, of course it's manmade, who else would have made it? God is the fictional character in this discussion.

It is my position that atheism (in the materialist sense) taken to its ultimate conclusion is nihilistic. Of course, it is still to your benefit to more or less cooperate with those around you, and thus to cooperate with society as a whole, but there can be no basis to assert any kind of obligation.

Of course, I believe human beings are far more than mere animals. And even if I often fail to live up to my own moral convictions, I at least have a coherent, metaphysical basis for my convictions. That there is a real, transcendent and universal good to which we are obligated to aim for is an idea I take for granted.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He flaunted the risks of smoking. Said he even wanted a medal for his cigar smoking.
He's now dead of lung cancer..

Death needs and finds a reason.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, it would still be puerile. The failures of the Catholic Church as an institution have nothing whatsoever to do with what what the image of the Virgin Mary represents for millions worldwide. To desecrate that is to boorishly hurt the sentiments of people who have had no hand in the failures of the Catholic clergy. In the criminal activity of a small minority of bad actors.

Indeed, sometimes art or criticism can be hurtful. We cannot entertain the idea that hurting someone's feelings should be considered an illegal act though.

It is my position that atheism (in the materialist sense) taken to its ultimate conclusion is nihilistic. Of course, it is still to your benefit to more or less cooperate with those around you, and thus to cooperate with society as a whole, but there can be no basis to assert any kind of obligation.

Of course, I believe human beings are far more than mere animals. And even if I often fail to live up to my own moral convictions, I at least have a coherent, metaphysical basis for my convictions. That there is a real, transcendent and universal good to which we are obligated to aim for is an idea I take for granted.

In rebuttal, I would say that atheists do good in the world because they know it's the right thing to do, whereas the religious do right in the world based on fear of hellfire.

I would say that most moral systems are based on the well being of conscious creatures, and I fail to see how religion can make any claims at being the arbiters of morality. How is it that you think religion is somehow "in charge of" morality?

 

[Glaurung]

Indeed, sometimes art or criticism can be hurtful. We cannot entertain the idea that hurting someone's feelings should be considered an illegal act though.

What you don't wish to entertain is irrelevant because hurting religious feelings by the public desecration of a religious object is illegal in Poland.

In rebuttal, I would say that atheists do good in the world because they know it's the right thing to do, whereas the religious do right in the world based on fear of hellfire.

There can be no such thing the "right thing to do" in an atheistic worldview. It is mere projection of your self-interested (usually politically liberal) preferences. My contention is that "New Atheist" / Secular Humanist worldview is incoherent.

And while the belief that sin will be punished is a motivation to avoid sin, we seek the good because our ultimate happiness is in that good. That good being the eternal love of the infinite God.

I would say that most moral systems are based on the well being of conscious creatures, and I fail to see how religion can make any claims at being the arbiters of morality. How is it that you think religion is somehow "in charge of" morality?

Morality isn't in itself concerned with the well-being of conscious creatures. This is where we part ways. Morality concerns what we ought to do in order to conform to the good. The human good is to become reflections of God. (As humans are in the divine image). We must become good because God is good. Atheists deny the good and thus the ought. Therefore in my view, atheists don't actually possess morality as such. They have preferences. Some of which my be praiseworthy preferences, but mere preferences nonetheless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Death needs and finds a reason.

That's quite irrelevant. Limbaugh mocked and challenged the known risks of smoking, downplayed the risks, and flaunted them as though nothing would happen.
He's now dead from lung cancer. That's not "death needs a way," it's stupidity and slow suicide.

 

[Muffled]

I don't often post topics in this section, and it is possible this is the first time I have. Came accross this on the FaceBook page of the Universal Life Church

A Polish heavy metal singer has been convicted of blasphemy after posting a photo of himself stepping on an image of the Virgin Mary on Facebook.



The questions

What do you think of the Virgin Mary photo?

Should we take more care to respect religious sensibilities?

Or is the freedom to offend an important right?

I believe that was not blasphemy against God but it certainly was not a friendly gesture towards Mary. It smacks of the spirit of antichrist.

 

[Muffled]

I have mixed feelings.

Its rude, to say the least. Probably unnecessary. But there's a lot worse things in life a person could do, and being as the person is in a band, its all theatrics anyways.

But, I think it would do us all some good to think our actions through a little better. Perhaps the individual doing the stepping has some deep seated issues with the Catholic church, and has deep scars that need to be healed. In that case, I can understand. Step away, if it genuinely helps you feel better.

But, if he(or she) is just doing it to be a turd, to flip religious people the bird, or the institutions or values they live their life by, I think they should can it. Many people in the world feel a deep connection to Mother Mary, and find this hurtful. Why would you intentionally do something that hurts people? Try to be considerate of others. How would you feel if someone stomped all over a picture of someone you held dear?

All in all, it comes down to the intent for me.

I believe the problem goes deeper than hurt. Blasphemy means they are thinking of Mary as God and she is not.

 

[Muffled]

I can say your football team is rubbish - no penalty
I can say your political party is corrupt - no penalty
I can say your favourite band is horrendous - no penalty
BUT
If I say your religion is false - I may be a criminal

I believe that is not blasphemy but is heresy. I am a heretic to just about every religious group and to evolutionists as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some info....
Did Rush Limbaugh's Cigar Smoking Cause His Lung Cancer?