Is it blasphemous to lampoon a prophet?

[rosends]

How do you interpret the ‘no’ in “Congress shall make no law…” as a yes ?? Don’t just generalize the word ‘no’ but try to understand the context.

Except Congress DID make laws abridging an absolute freedom, so they understood “no” as “yes”. They took an unequivocal statement and equivocated.

You never said what exactly ? Lets be specific here. If you said you have never interpreted the First Amendment as 'an absolute' freedom, I have proven to you that you did.

You have neither proven it nor shown it. I quoted a statement from the constitution in answer to your request. I never presented it as anything I believe. What I believe is that certain modes of speech remain protected. Not all. The Supreme Court agrees with me.

I cited the Establishment Clause because you quoted the Establishment Clause to falsely claim that it allows absolute freedom of speech – that’s why.

The Establishment Clause is the part about religion. The second section, after the Establishment Clause allows absolute freedom of speech as written. You haven’t shown me that, as written, it claims anything other than what it says.

No, when I said “Ask someone who’s no longer around?”, I was responding to your sick suggestion - ‘Ask Samuel Paty’. So, stop mocking the deceased and show some respect.

You are the one who dismissed a murdered man as “not around”. The sickness is yours.

You are one wily character, aren’t you ? In that post, I was responding to your comment “Once I say I am offended, you, by your own logic, must change”. In response, I said “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.” And you understand that as ‘if someone is offended, the one who offends should change ?? Please stop embarrassing yourself.

You, as the one who offends, should, by your own words, change (“by my actions”…” I should change”). These are your words. Highlighting that your offense includes others is immaterial.

If you have a choice to be mean or offensive, then, why choose to be one ??

This is a separate question. I didn’t say I choose to be one, but if anyone has the choice then anyone might choose for his own reasons. That reason doesn’t change the law.

You sure ‘often’ means ‘not always’ ? This is your exact words – “And, yes, often, mocking the beliefs of others is the best way to make the world a safer place”. So, if you said ‘often’ means ‘not always’, so are you actually saying "not always, mocking the beliefs of others, is the best way to make the world a safer place" ??

Often means “frequently.” Taking it out allows the inference of “in all situations.” You took out my qualifier and presented the resultant (mis)statement as my position. That’s immoral.

Making stuff up ?? Please, don’t associate me to you. Here are your exact words – “I'm offended by a civics class that teaches people tolerance when my religion preaches intolerance as this mocks my religious belief -- so the class must change”.

Two problems. One, you omit my qualifying phrase of “when my religion preaches intolerance”. Two, this is a hypothetical to explain why allowing the offended party to control content is a problem.

If I quoted you a clause to make a point, that’s because I believe, support or embrace what was stated in that clause. You, on the other hand, are telling me that you quoted a clause to make your point (that the clause, as written, allows absolute freedom) BUT you don’t believe or support what you just quoted ?? Then, why quote it in the first place ?? If you are not sure what ‘espouse’ is, look the word up.

I quoted it to answer what you asked for, a statement that is, as written, unequivocal. If I quote something to prove a point, I have to believe it? And yet you quote various things I wrote and you don’t “believe, support or embrace” them.

Well, that will be dependent on where the traffic lights are installed as different streets will have different lights frequency settings, it’s not a standard-setting for all streets. On average, I would say, the lights are set between 20 secs to 130 secs, give and take. So, for someone to wait for the light to change color for more than 30 minutes, I would say is not normal, or the driver has fallen asleep.

So it isn’t a standard but it is a moral law and your line is 30 minutes. Is that everyone’s line? Since there is one moral law according to you, does everyone subscribe to your 30 minute rule? Does everyone have the same sense of what things depend on since it isn’t standard?

OK, so, to offend is a choice and you can choose not to offend but you choose to offend anyway ?? Why ??

I don’t always choose to offend. I might think in one case that the underlying educational positive outweighs the offense. In another, I might have such a strong moral sense that taking offense is, itself offensive, that I might choose to offend to make that point, or I might think that mockery is a more effective way of communicating a lesson. Maybe I’m just a stickler for exploring what the law protects and not shying away from offending in order to show my love of the law. The reason is not relevant. It is a choice with both options protected. Murder in response is not protected.

If abstaining from eating pork is your religious code and according to you, is also a moral code, then, are you saying those Christians who eat pork are morally wrong ??

Good question, No. Because my moral code says that they can. Eating pork is wrong for me.
There is more than one moral code. Mine controls my behavior. Christians’ controls theirs. Some, elements of mine claim to control theirs but they don’t agree to the idea that my code, which they deny on the whole, can still have any authority over them. I say the same about their code.

You have a strange way of interpreting things. Driving a car is not a moral code, driving a car is an activity. Being considerate to other road users while driving is part of a moral code. Traffic rules are not part of a moral code, but adhering to traffic rules is.

So if the law protects free speech, then exercising legally protected free speech is adhering to the law which is, according to what you just said, moral. And if adhering to laws is part of a moral code, then not adhering to them would be immoral. The laws are primary in establishing morality – one needs something to adhere to. So going through a red light because you, personally, think that the light is broken, would be, by your words, immoral as you are not adhering to the traffic rules..

I thought ‘a slap on the wrist’ is an idiom. to indicate a very light punishment, but to you, a slap on the wrist is violence. You need help, buddy.

A slap on the wrist is a light punishment, compared to a punch in the face. It is no less violence, though it is less severe violence. The idiom develops from a real activity – it didn’t develop ex nihilo. “Off with his head” is a literary reference. But it is still a violent act.

I said “Senseless because it makes no logical sense for anyone to mock and provoke the sensitivity of others which could incite a retaliation ………”. I DID NOT say “senseless because THE TEACHER should not have taught something”.

But you are talking about a case where the person involved is the teacher, and the claim is that he taught something which provoked the sensitivity of others. Is the teacher not included in your use of the pronoun “anyone”? Was his teaching NOT a provocation? Was his behavior senseless according to you? Was it senseless because he chose to do something that provoked someone else? Was their behavior illogical because it was illogical, or logical because it is retaliation?

both sides, first, need to recognize their weaknesses or mistakes.

Great, so then you are saying that Muslims require that the other side changes as they will change “only if you change how you teach your civics classes.”

Yes, the plea is for both sides and it’s in black and white that I did say “both sides need to change in their approach”. Do you have in black and white that I said “I recommend France should…..’ ??

Here Should | ENGLISH PAGE.
Can you show me how that is a “plea” (defined as a request)?

Yes, you did say to offend others is a right, BUT, you never said it’s ‘not an obligation’. You just added that. Crafty of you, isn’t it?

So if I don’t say something isn’t an obligation, it IS an obligation? I have the right to bear arms so I have an obligation to bear arms unless I say that it isn’t an obligation?

Yes. But I have never come across a ‘right’ that runs against a moral code.

The right to free speech which includes the right to lie. You do realize that there is legal right to lie in the US, right? There are consequences after the fact and even liability under the law, but lying is a priori, protected from prior restraint. Does the First Amendment Protect Deliberate Lies?
There is also the right for a Jew in US to eat pork even though that runs contrary to my moral code. Good thing it isn't an obligation.

The intention may be morally right and noble, but the action is not. Likewise, you don’t cut someone’s heart out just because you want to save your father who needs a new heart.

That’s actually an example of competing moralities. There are cases where people can argue that it IS moral to do just that. Cutting the heart out of a brain-dead old man who has not signed a consent form to save the life of a young and otherwise vibrant and vital father of 4 could be argued as moral.

First, do you even know what ‘fair’ is ?? Second, in war, you have the obligation to protect the citizens and the sovereignty of your country and in wars, casualties are expected, and you kill only when not doing so, will put the lives of those you are obligated to protect in grave danger.

I think that the word “fair” is a value term with no objective parameters. What one person sees as “fair” someone else would see as unfair. Each side is obligated to protect its people, so each side sees killing others as fair, but attacks on its own as unfair. We need a transcedent law to decide when the killing was unfair and was a crime against humanity.

 

[JerryMyers]

The Establishment Clause is the part about religion. The second section, after the Establishment Clause allows absolute freedom of speech as written. You haven’t shown me that, as written, it claims anything other than what it says.

Well, then, quote that “second section, after the Establishment Clause allows absolute freedom of speech as written” and let’s see whether you know what you are talking about.

You are the one who dismissed a murdered man as “not around”. The sickness is yours.

Hate to break it to you, but, that’s a fact – Samuel Paty is no longer around. How you see ‘no longer around’ as dismissing him is anyone guess and yet you have no qualms, whatsoever, to tell me to ask a murdered man. That’s not only dismissing Samuel Paty, but a display of disrespect to the deceased and his family. No matter how you want to waltz around that, the fact is, only those with a sick mind will say ‘Ask Samuel Paty’.

You, as the one who offends, should, by your own words, change (“by my actions”…” I should change”). These are your words. Highlighting that your offense includes others is immaterial.

Say what???! Including others is immaterial ??! You expect me to change because you, one person, let me repeat that, one person, is offended??!! So, if it’s only me who is offended by the way you talk, while everyone else have no problem, you will still change the way you talk just for me ??? Oh, I am so touched !!

Often means “frequently.” Taking it out allows the inference of “in all situations.” You took out my qualifier and presented the resultant (mis)statement as my position. That’s immoral.

You initially said ‘often’ means ‘not always’, now you said ‘often’ means ‘frequently’. Changing your argument as you go along is immoral. Fact is, no matter how you want to define ‘often’, you have absolutely no evidence that mocking the beliefs of others is often the best way to make the world a safer place, in fact, the opposite is true – the world has become more unsafe especially for those, who probably have nothing to do with insulting others beliefs, but they came from the country where some of its citizens have been mocking the beliefs of others.

Two problems. One, you omit my qualifying phrase of “when my religion preaches intolerance”. Two, this is a hypothetical to explain why allowing the offended party to control content is a problem.

Two problems – one, what religion preaches intolerance? If your religion preaches intolerance, then, you are in the wrong religion. Two, this is not about which side controls the content, this is about doing the right thing – see what I mean when I said you have many similarities to Trump. Trump has not conceded to Biden because to him, conceding would mean a sign of weakness and allowing the other side to control, when it’s clear as daylight, he lost the election.

I quoted it to answer what you asked for, a statement that is, as written, unequivocal. If I quote something to prove a point, I have to believe it? And yet you quote various things I wrote and you don’t “believe, support or embrace” them.

What are talking about? Of course, you have to believe what you quoted. If you quoted something from the Jewish scripture to support your argument, are you saying you, as a Jew, don’t have to believe it?

So it isn’t a standard but it is a moral law and your line is 30 minutes. Is that everyone’s line? Since there is one moral law according to you, does everyone subscribe to your 30 minute rule? Does everyone have the same sense of what things depend on since it isn’t standard?

Of course, the frequency settings for traffic lights differ from one street to another and one district to another. Do you think traffic lights settings in urban areas are the same as non-urban areas ?? And 30 minutes is not ‘my line’. I said, “for someone to wait for the light to change color for more than 30 minutes, I would say is not normal, or the driver has fallen asleep”. I said ‘for someone to wait…’ NOT ‘my waiting limit is 30 minutes’. By saying “for someone to wait…” , I am referring to someone like you who need everything to be told that he won’t move his car even though the red has not changed for the last 30 minutes when it’s clear to everyone else that the lights have stopped functioning normally.

I don’t always choose to offend. I might think in one case that the underlying educational positive outweighs the offense. In another, I might have such a strong moral sense that taking offense is, itself offensive, that I might choose to offend to make that point, or I might think that mockery is a more effective way of communicating a lesson. Maybe I’m just a stickler for exploring what the law protects and not shying away from offending in order to show my love of the law. The reason is not relevant. It is a choice with both options protected. Murder in response is not protected.

Protected or not, to offend is still a choice, not an obligation. The fact that you said that you don’t always choose to offend, means, there are times when you do choose to offend. So, my question still stands – why ? Or is to offend others Beliefs part of your Faith’s preaching ?

Good question, No. Because my moral code says that they can. Eating pork is wrong for me.

There is more than one moral code. Mine controls my behavior. Christians’ controls theirs. Some, elements of mine claim to control theirs but they don’t agree to the idea that my code, which they deny on the whole, can still have any authority over them. I say the same about their code.

Eating pork is wrong to you (and the Muslims) because your Faith, like Islam, prohibits you from eating pork. However, that is still a choice, but now, doing so, is a sin (to you and the Muslims), so you choose not to eat pork – it’s not about morals, it’s about your religious obligations.

 

[JerryMyers]

So if the law protects free speech, then exercising legally protected free speech is adhering to the law which is, according to what you just said, moral. And if adhering to laws is part of a moral code, then not adhering to them would be immoral. The laws are primary in establishing morality – one needs something to adhere to.

Not really. Adhering to the law is morally the right thing to do. To offend others even if the law allows it is NOT morally the right thing to do. Saying the law allows it does not mean you are obligated or ‘force’ to offend.

So going through a red light because you, personally, think that the light is broken, would be, by your words, immoral as you are not adhering to the traffic rules..

Going through a broken red light is not immoral or breaking the law, it’s just plain common sense and, of course, I don’t mean that you should dash through a broken red light with no regard to the safety of other road users either.

A slap on the wrist is a light punishment, compared to a punch in the face. It is no less violence, though it is less severe violence. The idiom develops from a real activity – it didn’t develop ex nihilo. “Off with his head” is a literary reference. But it is still a violent act.

A slap on the wrist is not even comparable to a punch in the face. One cannot knock out a person with a slap on the wrist, a punch in the face can. Saying a slap on the wrist is no less violence as a punch in the face is like saying a pillow fight is no less violence as a fistfight.

But you are talking about a case where the person involved is the teacher, and the claim is that he taught something which provoked the sensitivity of others. Is the teacher not included in your use of the pronoun “anyone”? Was his teaching NOT a provocation? Was his behavior senseless according to you? Was it senseless because he chose to do something that provoked someone else? Was their behavior illogical because it was illogical, or logical because it is retaliation?

I said no logical sense for anyone – saying “for anyone” would mean I was speaking in a general term, I am no longer referring to any specific case. Likewise, asking “anyone want to start first?” would mean I am not asking any particular specific person.

Great, so then you are saying that Muslims require that the other side changes as they will change “only if you change how you teach your civics classes.”

No, “both sides, first, need to recognize their weaknesses or mistakes” means EXACTLY THAT - BOTH SIDES, FIRST, NEED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR WEAKNESSES OR MISTAKES ! How you see that as “Muslims require that the other side changes as they will change ‘only if you change how you teach your civics classes’.” is really baffling. The only logical reason I can think of is that you are a person with a very sick and negative mind.

Here Should | ENGLISH PAGE.

Can you show me how that is a “plea” (defined as a request)?

Well, according to the Collins Dictionary, a plea is an appeal or a request, made in an intense or emotional way. So, back to my original question to you – “Do you have in black and white that I said “I recommend France should…..’ ??

So if I don’t say something isn’t an obligation, it IS an obligation? I have the right to bear thatarms so I have an obligation to bear arms unless I say that it isn’t an obligation?

An obligation is a commitment that you are morally and duty bound to do. So, if you said to offend is a legal right, without saying it’s not an obligation, then, you are actually saying to offend is a legal right and you are legally bound to offend.

The right to free speech which includes the right to lie. You do realize that there is legal right to lie in the US, right? There are consequences after the fact and even liability under the law, but lying is a priori, protected from prior restraint. Does the First Amendment Protect Deliberate Lies?

Well, I think that would be a case-to-case basis depending on what type of lies. Lying cases such as perjury, forgery, making a false police report or bank fraud are not protected under the law – you do know that, right ?

There is also the right for a Jew in US to eat pork even though that runs contrary to my moral code. Good thing it isn't an obligation.

Of course, eating pork is not an obligation, it’s not even a moral code – it’s a choice. A Jew can eat pork anywhere in the world, not just in the US if he/she chooses to do so.

That’s actually an example of competing moralities. There are cases where people can argue that it IS moral to do just that. Cutting the heart out of a brain-dead old man who has not signed a consent form to save the life of a young and otherwise vibrant and vital father of 4 could be argued as moral.

I was not talking about cutting out the heart of a brain-dead old man with zero-chance of recovery, and even that too, is done by certified surgeons, not by just anyone, even if the intention is to save his father who needs a new heart.

I think that the word “fair” is a value term with no objective parameters. What one person sees as “fair” someone else would see as unfair. Each side is obligated to protect its people, so each side sees killing others as fair, but attacks on its own as unfair. We need a transcedent law to decide when the killing was unfair and was a crime against humanity.

Fair, to put it in simple terms, would be to play by the rules. Even in a war, there are rules. For example, targeting civilians or medical vehicles to gain some advantage over the enemies is not only unfair but is considered a war crime. Even if the attackers see the attacks as ‘fair’, that’s not going to change the fact that it’s immoral, unfair, and a war crime.

 

[rosends]

àWell, then, quote that “second section, after the Establishment Clause allows absolute freedom of speech as written” and let’s see whether you know what you are talking about.

Well, after the establishment clause (Establishment Clause.) there is “ or abridging the freedom of speech”

Say what???! Including others is immaterial ??! You expect me to change because you, one person, let me repeat that, one person, is offended??!! So, if it’s only me who is offended by the way you talk, while everyone else have no problem, you will still change the way you talk just for me ??? Oh, I am so touched !!

No, I won’t change. You are the one who indicated that the one who offends should change. Do you happen to have access to some objective number necessary to be offended to merit change? How do you come up with that threshold? What if it is my family, but we are a big family. Or a small family. My neighborhood? Half of my workplace? Please, tell me the line that you are establishing. Was every Muslim offended? If not, then the teacher need not change, right?

You initially said ‘often’ means ‘not always’, now you said ‘often’ means ‘frequently’. Changing your argument as you go along is immoral. Fact is, no matter how you want to define ‘often’, you have absolutely no evidence that mocking the beliefs of others is often the best way to make the world a safer place, in fact, the opposite is true – the world has become more unsafe especially for those, who probably have nothing to do with insulting others beliefs, but they came from the country where some of its citizens have been mocking the beliefs of others.

Often means both. Are you new to English? If always is 100% of the time, and often means “more than 50%” then that is both not 100% and more than 50%. Would you feel better if I had used “sometimes” and then you could omit that instead? Either way, you changed what I wrote and quibbling over statistics doesn’t change your immoral behavior.

what religion preaches intolerance? If your religion preaches intolerance, then, you are in the wrong religion.

Well, this is a very different question. Many religions preach intolerance – of behavior, of thinking and of belief. Any religion that teaches that one must be intolerant of someone who shows a picture of someone is teaching intolerance. Any that tries to proselytize because it sees those not of that religion as wrong is intolerant of the existence of other religions. Your personal sense of what is the right and wrong religion is irrelevant.

What are talking about? Of course, you have to believe what you quoted. If you quoted something from the Jewish scripture to support your argument, are you saying you, as a Jew, don’t have to believe it?

If I quoted something to support what I believe then I believe it. If I quote something I don’t believe in order to make a rhetorical or logical point then no, I don’t. I can quote sections of the gospel, or quotes from Koran. Do I have to believe them? If you quote my statements does that mean you believe them?

Of course, the frequency settings for traffic lights differ from one street to another and one district to another. Do you think traffic lights settings in urban areas are the same as non-urban areas ?? And 30 minutes is not ‘my line’. I said, “for someone to wait for the light to change color for more than 30 minutes, I would say is not normal, or the driver has fallen asleep”. I said ‘for someone to wait…’ NOT ‘my waiting limit is 30 minutes’.

You just rewrote “I would say is not normal”. So this is your opinion.

By saying “for someone to wait…” , I am referring to someone like you who need everything to be told that he won’t move his car even though the red has not changed for the last 30 minutes when it’s clear to everyone else that the lights have stopped functioning normally.

Sure, YOU say that “for someone to wait” because “I would say is not normal.” But who cares what YOU “would say is not normal”? You are claiming an objective and known moral code that applies to all and all have access to.

Protected or not, to offend is still a choice, not an obligation.

I never said that it was.

Eating pork is wrong to you (and the Muslims) because your Faith, like Islam, prohibits you from eating pork. However, that is still a choice, but now, doing so, is a sin (to you and the Muslims), so you choose not to eat pork – it’s not about morals, it’s about your religious obligations.

So my religious law isn’t a moral code? I disagree.

 

[rosends]

Not really. Adhering to the law is morally the right thing to do. To offend others even if the law allows it is NOT morally the right thing to do. Saying the law allows it does not mean you are obligated or ‘force’ to offend.

No one says you are forced to, but if offending allows one to adhere to the law then that choice remains a moral choice, because, as you just said “Adhering to the law is morally the right thing to do”

Going through a broken red light is not immoral or breaking the law, it’s just plain common sense and, of course, I don’t mean that you should dash through a broken red light with no regard to the safety of other road users either.

No, it is breaking the law (and therefore immoral?). If a police person saw you do it, he could choose to issue a ticket for a moving violation, unless you can show me a law which codifies that one can go through what one considers to be a broken light.

A slap on the wrist is not even comparable to a punch in the face.

Sure it is. Here: “A slap on the wrist is less painful than a punch in the face.” See how I just compared them?

One cannot knock out a person with a slap on the wrist, a punch in the face can. Saying a slap on the wrist is no less violence as a punch in the face is like saying a pillow fight is no less violence as a fistfight.

Is that the measure of what “violence” is? That it can knock a person out? You should look up the word “violence” – it is an exhibition of physical force intended to cause hurt or intimidate. If a slap is intended to cause hurt or intimidate, it is violence. If you want to keep using your own personal dictionary and impose your personal sense of word-meanings, please let me know.

I said no logical sense for anyone – saying “for anyone” would mean I was speaking in a general term, I am no longer referring to any specific case.

So if you speak in the general case, you omit the specific? Wouldn’t the specific be included in a statement of the general? “I’ll eat anything!” “Well, eat this knife.” “I didn’t mean THAT when I said anything.” “Then don’t say anything.”

No, “both sides, first, need to recognize their weaknesses or mistakes” means EXACTLY THAT - BOTH SIDES, FIRST, NEED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR WEAKNESSES OR MISTAKES ! How you see that as “Muslims require that the other side changes as they will change ‘only if you change how you teach your civics classes’.” is really baffling. The only logical reason I can think of is that you are a person with a very sick and negative mind.

Let’s work this through – if BOTH need to change, then either can say “I won’t change (stop killing) unless we both change, which means you have to (change how you teach) and so I will (atop killing), only if you do (change how you teach).”

Well, according to the Collins Dictionary, a plea is an appeal or a request, made in an intense or emotional way. So, back to my original question to you – “Do you have in black and white that I said “I recommend France should…..’ ??

I showed you that the word “should” is a recommendation and that a “plea” is a request” so you respond by showing me that “plea” is a request? Um, yeah. That’s what I said already. You used the word “should” which is NOT a plea (according to the dictionary).

An obligation is a commitment that you are morally and duty bound to do. So, if you said to offend is a legal right, without saying it’s not an obligation, then, you are actually saying to offend is a legal right and you are legally bound to offend.

Again, think through what you wrote:

1. “An obligation is a commitment that you are morally and duty bound to do”


Yes.


2. “to offend is a legal right”


Yes


3. “without saying it’s not an obligation”


Because it isn’t an obligation. A right is DIFFERENT from an obligation. The existence of something as a right doesn't automatically imply an obligation, or else I would be required the bear arms all the time.


4. “you are actually saying to offend is a legal right and you are legally bound to offend”


No, you have substituted terms. A legal right is what you are allowed to do. An obligation is what you are bound to do. Saying that I have a right doesn’t mean I have an obligation or, even worse, that there is an implicit obligation in the creation of the right. I’m not sure why you think there is.

Well, I think that would be a case-to-case basis depending on what type of lies. Lying cases such as perjury, forgery, making a false police report or bank fraud are not protected under the law – you do know that, right ?

No, they are protected but are subject to legal ramifications AFTER the fact as causes of action in civil or criminal court. Those forms of speech which are not protected are subject to prior restraint. Lies are not subject to prior restraint. Discussions of free speech under the first amendment are not discussion of post speech causes of action, but of prior restraint. If the government knows I am going to reveal troop locations, they can censor or suppress my statement or stop me before I say it, because I have no right, in the first place, to say it, as that speech is unprotected. If this is a term or concept with which you are not familiar, I would suggest you start here Prior Restraint If I can find one of my old textbooks from the first amendment law class I took in grad school, I’ll send it your way.

Of course, eating pork is not an obligation,

I just said it was a “right” and you, above, said that a right means an obligation (“So, if you said to offend is a legal right, without saying it’s not an obligation, then, you are actually saying to offend is a legal right and you are legally bound to offend.”) Just replace “to offend” as the right in question with “to eat pork.”

it’s not even a moral code – it’s a choice. A Jew can eat pork anywhere in the world, not just in the US if he/she chooses to do so.

Yes, because a Jew can exercise the right, even if it runs contrary to a moral/religious code.

I was not talking about cutting out the heart of a brain-dead old man with zero-chance of recovery, and even that too, is done by certified surgeons, not by just anyone, even if the intention is to save his father who needs a new heart.

Really? Because all you said was “you don’t cut someone’s heart out just because you want to save your father who needs a new heart.”

Fair, to put it in simple terms, would be to play by the rules.

Whose rules? Either side can claim that the rules are wrong, or use its own rules. Fair means “conforming to the rules of the person who made or subscribes to those rules.” If I swing at a ball 3 times, the rules of baseball say I am “out.” I might yell, “that’s not fair – the way I play there are 4 strikes.” And if I was the one in charge of the game, that could be true. If you ever play Monopoly, consider “house rules” as determining what is fair and not.

 

[paarsurrey]

I understand, it is not civil to mock, ridicule and deride the persons who have passed away say thousands years ago. They cannot defend themselves. Right, please?
Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God gave us a sense of humor. We should enjoy it.

 

[JerryMyers]

Well, after the establishment clause (Establishment Clause.) there is “ or abridging the freedom of speech”

Except that it says nothing about absolute freedom of speech and expression, to insult, mock others. Apart from your own personal interpretation of the First Amendment, you will be hard pressed to find anything in the First Amendment that unequivocally said or implied absolute freedom of speech and expression to freely insult another community or their Faith. Here’s a good place for you to start learning - https://www.thoughtco.com/the-first-amendment-p2-721185#:~:text=The second clause in the First Amendment—"or,prohibiting the free exercise thereof"—protects freedom

No, I won’t change. You are the one who indicated that the one who offends should change. Do you happen to have access to some objective number necessary to be offended to merit change? How do you come up with that threshold? What if it is my family, but we are a big family. Or a small family. My neighborhood? Half of my workplace? Please, tell me the line that you are establishing. Was every Muslim offended? If not, then the teacher need not change, right?

So, you won’t change but you expect others to change because one person is offended??! Please, grow up ! And please read and understand in context of what was written instead of embarrassing yourself with statement such as “You are the one who indicated that the one who offends should change”.

Often means both. Are you new to English? If always is 100% of the time, and often means “more than 50%” then that is both not 100% and more than 50%. Would you feel better if I had used “sometimes” and then you could omit that instead? Either way, you changed what I wrote and quibbling over statistics doesn’t change your immoral behavior.

Do I understand English ?? You mean like the way you understand my statement “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.” as “if someone is offended, the one who offends should change” ?? Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

Well, this is a very different question. Many religions preach intolerance – of behavior, of thinking and of belief. Any religion that teaches that one must be intolerant of someone who shows a picture of someone is teaching intolerance. Any that tries to proselytize because it sees those not of that religion as wrong is intolerant of the existence of other religions. Your personal sense of what is the right and wrong religion is irrelevant.

Why would that be a very different question? And again, you are making that statement – “Many religions preach intolerance”, so, again, I am asking you – what religions preach intolerance?

If I quoted something to support what I believe then I believe it. If I quote something I don’t believe in order to make a rhetorical or logical point then no, I don’t. I can quote sections of the gospel, or quotes from Koran. Do I have to believe them? If you quote my statements does that mean you believe them?

Are you a professional dancer by chance ?? You seem to be very good at dancing around words to avoid the subject matter at hand. Here’s the chronicle of our exchanges that lead to this-

1. You asked “Why would you cite the Establishment Clause (the first part of the first amendment, that deals with religion) when talking about the second part, speech?”

2. I responded by saying “I cited the Establishment Clause because you quoted the Establishment Clause to falsely claim that it allows absolute freedom of speech – that’s why”.

3. You responded with “I quoted it to answer what you asked for, a statement that is, as written, unequivocal. If I quote something to prove a point, I have to believe it?”

4. That prompted me to say “Of course, you have to believe what you quoted”.

Now you want to dance around and talk about rhetorical/logical point and ‘if’ you quote sections of the gospel, or from the Koran ?? Well, you did not quote from the gospel or the Koran and neither are you trying to make a rhetorical or logical point, - you quoted the Establishment Clause and then said “If I quote something to prove a point, I have to believe it?”

So, what are you trying to say ?? Are you saying you quoted the Establishment Clause to make a point but you don’t have to believe what you quoted ??

You just rewrote “I would say is not normal”. So this is your opinion.

An opinion which many will agree with, as I don’t think many will wait 30 minutes for the red light to change color without suspecting that the light is no longer functioning normally.

Sure, YOU say that “for someone to wait” because “I would say is not normal.” But who cares what YOU “would say is not normal”? You are claiming an objective and known moral code that applies to all and all have access to.

Yes, that would be ‘not normal’ for normal people. But then, you could be talking of ‘not normal’ people here. For these people, it does not matter whether the light is faulty or not, it also does not matter to them whether they are the cause of a jam building up behind them - what matters to them is that they don’t break the traffic rules even if the red traffic light is faulty – is that a fair assessment of how your logic works?

So my religious law isn’t a moral code? I disagree.

Religious code normally mirrors moral code and moral code normally mirrors religious code and because of that, most people see them as one and the same.

 

[JerryMyers]

No one says you are forced to, but if offending allows one to adhere to the law then that choice remains a moral choice, because, as you just said “Adhering to the law is morally the right thing to do”.

…and I also said, which you ignore, “To offend others even if the law allows it is NOT morally the right thing to do”. Crafty aren’t you?

No, it is breaking the law (and therefore immoral?). If a police person saw you do it, he could choose to issue a ticket for a moving violation, unless you can show me a law which codifies that one can go through what one considers to be a broken light.

No, going through a faulty traffic light is not breaking the law. In fact, it’s immoral and inconsiderate to wait and wait at the junction of a faulty traffic light and causing a jam to build up behind you.

Sure it is. Here: “A slap on the wrist is less painful than a punch in the face.” See how I just compared them?

And because a slap on the wrist is less painful than a punch in the face, therefore a slap on the wrist is no less violent than a punch in the face ??!! That’s a nice way to tell everyone that you are incapable to think rationally and logically.

Is that the measure of what “violence” is? That it can knock a person out? You should look up the word “violence” – it is an exhibition of physical force intended to cause hurt or intimidate. If a slap is intended to cause hurt or intimidate, it is violence. If you want to keep using your own personal dictionary and impose your personal sense of word-meanings, please let me know.

What ?? Since when is a slap on the wrist an exhibition of physical force intended to cause hurt ? You should look up the idiom ‘a slap on the wrist’, instead of using your own personal dictionary.

So if you speak in the general case, you omit the specific? Wouldn’t the specific be included in a statement of the general? “I’ll eat anything!” “Well, eat this knife.” “I didn’t mean THAT when I said anything.” “Then don’t say anything.”

Including the specific would mean you are not speaking in the general terms – that should not be too difficult to understand, is it ?

…and nobody is going to take “I’ll eat anything!” in its literal sense. If someone says to you “I’m so hungry, I can eat a horse”, do you take that literally too ?

Let’s work this through – if BOTH need to change, then either can say “I won’t change (stop killing) unless we both change, which means you have to (change how you teach) and so I will (atop killing), only if you do (change how you teach).”

Only the immature and irrational person will say “I will change only if you change”. The fact that you can even come out with such a thought is a reflection of your immaturity. Imagine two grown-ups arguing and screaming at each other, “I will change only if you change!!".

I showed you that the word “should” is a recommendation and that a “plea” is a request” so you respond by showing me that “plea” is a request? Um, yeah. That’s what I said already. You used the word “should” which is NOT a plea (according to the dictionary).

So, are you saying ‘should’ cannot be used as a plea?? Are you sure about that ??

Again, think through what you wrote:
1. “An obligation is a commitment that you are morally and duty bound to do”
Yes.
2. “to offend is a legal right”
Yes
3. “without saying it’s not an obligation”
Because it isn’t an obligation. A right is DIFFERENT from an obligation. The existence of something as a right doesn't automatically imply an obligation, or else I would be required the bear arms all the time.
4. “you are actually saying to offend is a legal right and you are legally bound to offend”
No, you have substituted terms. A legal right is what you are allowed to do. An obligation is what you are bound to do. Saying that I have a right doesn’t mean I have an obligation or, even worse, that there is an implicit obligation in the creation of the right. I’m not sure why you think there is.

Ok, let’s go through what you wrote (in ‘italic’):

1. “An obligation is a commitment that you are morally and duty bound to do”
‘Yes’.

Yes.

2. “to offend is a legal right”
‘Yes’.

Fact check - I did not say “to offend is a legal right”, I said, “So, if you said to offend is a legal right, ….”. Try to be honest in your response.

3. “without saying it’s not an obligation”
‘Because it isn’t an obligation. A right is DIFFERENT from an obligation. The existence of something as a right doesn't automatically imply an obligation, or else I would be required the bear arms all the time’.

Whether a right does or doesn’t imply an obligation will depend on the context and the subject matter. In this case, we are talking about offending words (which upset the sentiments of others) as used by people who feel they are protected, and because of that, many may also feel they are obligated to offend. So, when you said to offend is a legal right without saying ‘but it’s not an obligation’, then, it’s only natural for anyone to think that you may feel it’s your obligation to offend as you understand 'to offend' is your legal right..

4. “you are actually saying to offend is a legal right and you are legally bound to offend”
‘No, you have substituted terms. A legal right is what you are allowed to do. An obligation is what you are bound to do. Saying that I have a right doesn’t mean I have an obligation or, even worse, that there is an implicit obligation in the creation of the right. I’m not sure why you think there is’.

No, I don’t think there is, but, I have my doubts as to whether you would also feel it’s an obligation to offend others, especially when you seem to sideline moral values in favor of what you think is legally right. So, let me ask you again - if to offend is a choice, then, why would you choose to offend ?

No, they are protected but are subject to legal ramifications AFTER the fact as causes of action in civil or criminal court. Those forms of speech which are not protected are subject to prior restraint. Lies are not subject to prior restraint. Discussions of free speech under the first amendment are not discussion of post speech causes of action, but of prior restraint. If the government knows I am going to reveal troop locations, they can censor or suppress my statement or stop me before I say it, because I have no right, in the first place, to say it, as that speech is unprotecte. If this is a term or concept with which you are not familiar, I would suggest you start Prior Restraint If I can find one of my old textbooks from the first amendment law here cladss I took in grad school, I’ll send it your way.

What nonsense are you talking about here? Since when perjury, forgery, making a false police report, or bank fraud are protected ?? Revealing the army’s troop locations is never seen as a speech, it’s called ‘unauthorized disclosure of classified information’ which may jeopardize national security. Unauthorized disclosure of classified information, especially that of an army, is a crime. So, saying “If the government knows I am going to reveal troop locations, they can censor or suppress my statement or stop me before I say it”, is pure nonsense.

I just said it was a “right” and you, above, said that a right means an obligation (“So, if you said to offend is a legal right, without saying it’s not an obligation, then, you are actually saying to offend is a legal right and you are legally bound to offend.”) Just replace “to offend” as the right in question with “to eat pork.”

What??! Saying “Of course, eating pork is not an obligation” means I said “a right means an obligation”??!! How did you come to that conclusion??

Yes, because a Jew can exercise the right, even if it runs contrary to a moral/religious code.

Again, eating pork is not a question of your right, it’s not a question of a moral code, it’s not even a question of your obligation. It’s your choice.

Really? Because all you said was “you don’t cut someone’s heart out just because you want to save your father who needs a new heart.”

Yes, really. Unless you understand that as a right for you to cut someone’s heart out just because you want to save your father who needs a new heart.

Whose rules? Either side can claim that the rules are wrong, or use its own rules. Fair means “conforming to the rules of the person who made or subscribes to those rules.” If I swing at a ball 3 times, the rules of baseball say I am “out.” I might yell, “that’s not fair – the way I play there are 4 strikes.” And if I was the one in charge of the game, that could be true. If you ever play Monopoly, consider “house rules” as determining what is fair and not.

I am not talking about any game rules. I am not even talking about the law. I am talking about rules that all rational people, consciously or unconsciously, abide by. Rules that are closely related to one’s conscience. In other words, the innate or instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. I don’t expect you to understand that as you have demonstrated time and time again, you clearly lack that instinctive knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[rosends]

Except that it says nothing about absolute freedom of speech and expression, to insult, mock others. Apart from your own personal interpretation of the First Amendment, you will be hard pressed to find anything in the First Amendment that unequivocally said or implied absolute freedom of speech and expression to freely insult another community or their Faith. Here’s a good place for you to start learning - https://www.thoughtco.com/the-first-amendment-p2-721185#:~:text=The second clause in the First Amendment—"or,prohibiting the free exercise thereof"—protects freedom

You referenced the wrong clause. The second one is an unequivocal statement which has been equivocated by later case law and regulation made BY OTHERS. That isn’t a subjective statement. The wording is “congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” That is a statement that lacks equivocation as written.

So, you won’t change but you expect others to change because one person is offended??!

Well, since it was your statement that the one who offends must change, why expect me to change? You still have yet to give the number necessary, if one person's being offended isn't enough.

And please read and understand in context of what was written instead of embarrassing yourself with statement such as “You are the one who indicated that the one who offends should change”.

Are you embarrassed of what you wrote? “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.” Clearly, your actions have provoked me, and followers of my faith, so by your own admission, you should change.

Do I understand English ?? You mean like the way you understand my statement “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.” as “if someone is offended, the one who offends should change” ?? Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

So you have ignored your immoral deletion of the word “often” and have side stepped your mistakes about the meaning of the word. This is just more stuff that I and followers of my faith are offended and provoked by. More change required by you. You make this all so simple.

Why would that be a very different question? And again, you are making that statement – “Many religions preach intolerance”, so, again, I am asking you – what religions preach intolerance?

If you read the rest of what you quoted, you would have seen examples. Judaism is intolerant of polyandry. Christianity is intolerant of lust. Islam is intolerant of pictures of Muhammed.

So, what are you trying to say ?? Are you saying you quoted the Establishment Clause to make a point but you don’t have to believe what you quoted ??

Sure. I quoted the first amendment (though, no, not the Establishment clause) to satisfy what YOU were asking about. I don’t believe in absolute freedom of speech even though I quoted a statement which confers absolute freedom of speech. I also can quote religious texts I don’t believe in when I want to make a point. I often quote Romans 11 to show Christians of a theological problem with their trying to convert me.

An opinion which many will agree with, as I don’t think many will wait 30 minutes for the red light to change color without suspecting that the light is no longer functioning normally.

Many might. Some might not. You are still replacing a rule with your personal sense.

Yes, that would be ‘not normal’ for normal people. But then, you could be talking of ‘not normal’ people here. For these people, it does not matter whether the light is faulty or not, it also does not matter to them whether they are the cause of a jam building up behind them - what matters to them is that they don’t break the traffic rules even if the red traffic light is faulty – is that a fair assessment of how your logic works?

No. My logic works more like “one person thinks that 30 minutes is long enough, one decides 15 is too long. Another figures that 2 minutes is his personal line. They all know that they will have to break the law and could be given a ticket, but each one establishes a personal threshold which he feels would be defensible to a police officer. Some might be right, some wrong, because all are making the conscious choice to break the law.”

Religious code normally mirrors moral code and moral code normally mirrors religious code and because of that, most people see them as one and the same.

Moral codes are driven by religious codes for religious people. They are one and the same.

 

[rosends]

…and I also said, which you ignore, “To offend others even if the law allows it is NOT morally the right thing to do”. Crafty aren’t you?

So you have contradicted yourself. That’s great. To follow the law is to be moral, but to follow the law and offend is not moral.

No, going through a faulty traffic light is not breaking the law. In fact, it’s immoral and inconsiderate to wait and wait at the junction of a faulty traffic light and causing a jam to build up behind you.

You confuse moral and breaking the law. Can you show me the traffic code which dictates how one should behave if one feels the light is broken and that allows one to go through it? That would make it “not breaking the law.”

And because a slap on the wrist is less painful than a punch in the face, therefore a slap on the wrist is no less violent than a punch in the face ??!! That’s a nice way to tell everyone that you are incapable to think rationally and logically.

You claimed they couldn’t be compared. I compared them. I defined violence to show that a slap is violence. I said it was less severe violence. That doesn’t make it “not violent.” What I wrote is that it is "no less violence" not "no less violent." (post 221, " It is no less violence, though it is less severe violence.")

What ?? Since when is a slap on the wrist an exhibition of physical force intended to cause hurt ? You should look up the idiom ‘a slap on the wrist’, instead of using your own personal dictionary.

I got my definition from a dictionary. A slap on the wrist is physical force which is intended to injure

Definition of violence | Dictionary.com

but the dictionary definition is supplemented by a statement Gandhi made Violence Defined

By the way, if you are curious about the use of the word "injure" start with this " INJURE implies the inflicting of anything detrimental to one's looks, comfort, health, or success." Definition of INJURE

Including the specific would mean you are not speaking in the general terms – that should not be too difficult to understand, is it ?

And speaking in the general would not mean you are omitting the specific. Speaking in general means not listing the specific, but not ignoring its existence as part of the class.

Only the immature and irrational person will say “I will change only if you change”. The fact that you can even come out with such a thought is a reflection of your immaturity. Imagine two grown-ups arguing and screaming at each other, “I will change only if you change!!".

Then only the immature would demand that both change instead of looking at the greater evil and saying “it should change because it will lead to others to change”

So, are you saying ‘should’ cannot be used as a plea?? Are you sure about that ??

Not as you used it. You should show me otherwise if you want to be persuasive. That's a recommendation, not a request.

Whether a right does or doesn’t imply an obligation will depend on the context and the subject matter. In this case, we are talking about offending words (which upset the sentiments of others) as used by people who feel they are protected, and because of that, many may also feel they are obligated to offend.

No, that last statement is wrong. Can you show me some substantiation for the claim that “many may also feel they are obligated to offend”? I have never seen or heard of anyone who felt that the right to offend ever leads to an obligation to offend. To hide behind “may” is to equivocate. By that logic, “many MAY grow wings and fly to Mars.” That doesn’t make it a fruitful claim.

So, when you said to offend is a legal right without saying ‘but it’s not an obligation’, then, it’s only natural for anyone to think that you may feel it’s your obligation to offend as you understand 'to offend' is your legal right.

When I don’t say that something isn’t an obligation it would be “natural” for “anyone” to think that I MAY (again with that equivocation on your part) feel it is my obligation to offend? And if I say that there is a legal right to bear arms, do those same people think that I MAY feel it is my obligation to? I also claim the right to drink alcohol. Do those people naturally think I may feel that I am obligated to do so? The claim that anyone may do something doesn’t make it a logical conclusion to draw. This is a bizarre leap that only you have made. Assigning it to “anyone” is as useless as saying “reading this, it is natural for anyone to think that you may have three arms.”
It is decidedly not natural to draw that conclusion in the same way that it is not natural to draw it about what I "may feel" when discussing rights.

No, I don’t think there is, but, I have my doubts as to whether you would also feel it’s an obligation to offend others

Good – you should have those doubts, because I have explicitly said it isn’t. Again, not a request.

What nonsense are you talking about here? Since when perjury, forgery, making a false police report, or bank fraud are protected ??

You don’t understand what protected speech is under the law, do you? Speech is protected when it cannot be subjected to prior restraint. Lies are protected from censorship but are causes of action after the fact.

Revealing the army’s troop locations is never seen as a speech,

What? Expressed ideas, whether orally, visually or in written form are forms of speech protected by law.

it’s called ‘unauthorized disclosure of classified information’ which may jeopardize national security. Unauthorized disclosure of classified information, especially that of an army, is a crime. So, saying “If the government knows I am going to reveal troop locations, they can censor or suppress my statement or stop me before I say it”, is pure nonsense.

Here is some light reading discussing (via the Pentagon Papers) the court’s general stand against prior restraint including the situations in which there is more of an assumption that the government CAN suppress statements before they are made Gag Orders, Prior Restraint And ‘The Post’ - Palisades Hudson Financial Group


“The court did leave an exception to the presumption against prior restraint for information that could prove harmful to Americans or helpful to enemies in wartime – the classic example being publication of planned troop movements.”

What??! Saying “Of course, eating pork is not an obligation” means I said “a right means an obligation”??!! How did you come to that conclusion??

I showed that YOU came to that conclusion. You said that a right means an obligation if there is nothing saying it is not an obligation. Since eating pork is a right, you have just said that eating pork is an obligation. Asking me “What??” just means you aren’t reading your own statements.


You wrote in post 223:

“So, if you said to offend is a legal right, without saying it’s not an obligation, then, you are actually saying to offend is a legal right and you are legally bound to offend”


And, if we agree that eating pork is a legal right, then we can replace as follows:


So, if you said (to offend) [to eat pork] is a legal right, without saying it’s not an obligation, then, you are actually saying (to offend) [to eat pork] is a legal right and you are legally bound (to offend) [to eat pork]


If you say that eating pork is not an obligation, then you need to go back to your premises and rework them.

Again, eating pork is not a question of your right, it’s not a question of a moral code, it’s not even a question of your obligation. It’s your choice.

No, eating pork is a legal right. Not eating it is a moral obligation. The legal right cannot be taken away, nor is it an obligation because I may choose to follow a moral code which forbids it. I can choose to disobey the moral code, though.

Yes, really. Unless you understand that as a right for you to cut someone’s heart out just because you want to save your father who needs a new heart.

First you said one can’t. Then when I showed that one can (using “one” generically), you agreed, so you have to reconcile your two statements.

I am not talking about any game rules. I am not even talking about the law. I am talking about rules that all rational people, consciously or unconsciously, abide by. Rules that are closely related to one’s conscience. In other words, the innate or instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. I don’t expect you to understand that as you have demonstrated time and time again, you clearly lack that instinctive knowledge of right and wrong.

So all people who don’t agree that there is some singular transcendent code that you insist exists and that all rational people subscribe to, even without knowing it are irrational? That’s more than a bit arrogant. But I have come to expect nothing less. Or more.

 

[JerryMyers]

You referenced the wrong clause. The second one is an unequivocal statement which has been equivocated by later case law and regulation made BY OTHERS. That isn’t a subjective statement. The wording is “congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” That is a statement that lacks equivocation as written.

… And you STILL have NOT shown anything that can convince anyone the First Amendment allows one the absolute freedom to insult, to mock the beliefs of others. Try again.

Well, since it was your statement that the one who offends must change, why expect me to change? You still have yet to give the number necessary, if one person's being offended isn't enough.

Well, I did not say the one who offends must change, I said “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.”.

Speaking on my behalf and presenting them in a manner that is in contradictory to my actual intention is immoral. You are behaving like the Jews in Jesus’ lifetime – often they spoke on behalf of Jesus and presenting what Jesus said in a manner contradictory to Jesus’ actual intention.

Are you embarrassed of what you wrote? “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.” Clearly, your actions have provoked me, and followers of my faith, so by your own admission, you should change.

Why would I be embarrassed by what I wrote?? Just because you are embarrassed by yours, that does not mean I should be embarrassed by mine too. And what actions of mine provoked the followers of your Faith ?? Surely, you can’t be thinking that you represent all the Jews in the world – that would be disastrous.

So you have ignored your immoral deletion of the word “often” and have side stepped your mistakes about the meaning of the word. This is just more stuff that I and followers of my faith are offended and provoked by. More change required by you. You make this all so simple.

I ignored my immoral deletion of the word “often” ?? Hold on, which comment of mine are you responding to now ?

If you read the rest of what you quoted, you would have seen examples. Judaism is intolerant of polyandry. Christianity is intolerant of lust. Islam is intolerant of pictures of Muhammed.

Well, that depends on how you see it. I don’t see a religious commandment as intolerant as it’s supposed to come from God as preached by the respective Faith. Intolerant is more of a human nature, that is, the unwillingness to compromise or to tolerate something. So, in the case of Judaism, Jews do not practice polyandry, not because they are intolerant of polyandry, but because that’s what Judaism commands. The same with the Christians and the Muslims – they are bound by what their respective Faith commands.

Sure. I quoted the first amendment (though, no, not the Establishment clause) to satisfy what YOU were asking about. I don’t believe in absolute freedom of speech even though I quoted a statement which confers absolute freedom of speech. I also can quote religious texts I don’t believe in when I want to make a point. I often quote Romans 11 to show Christians of a theological problem with their trying to convert me.

In one of your responses, you wrote “The wording of the 1st amendment happens to be unequivocal saying ‘no law’……..” – that ‘no law’ came from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”. So, what nonsense is “I quoted the first amendment (though, no, not the Establishment clause) ??

Many might. Some might not. You are still replacing a rule with your personal sense.

What rule am I replacing?? Hey, I can’t help you if you lack common sense.

No. My logic works more like “one person thinks that 30 minutes is long enough, one decides 15 is too long. Another figures that 2 minutes is his personal line. They all know that they will have to break the law and could be given a ticket, but each one establishes a personal threshold which he feels would be defensible to a police officer. Some might be right, some wrong, because all are making the conscious choice to break the law.”

As I said – I can’t help you if you lack common sense.

Moral codes are driven by religious codes for religious people. They are one and the same.

I disagree. If you are driven by your father to help others, that does not mean your father and you are one and the same.

 

[JerryMyers]

So you have contradicted yourself. That’s great. To follow the law is to be moral, but to follow the law and offend is not moral.

Not really. Nobody is denying the importance of obeying the law, just as it’s important to have good moral values, but the question is – which you value most? Do you value foremost what is morally right or do you value foremost what is legally right ?

You confuse moral and breaking the law. Can you show me the traffic code which dictates how one should behave if one feels the light is broken and that allows one to go through it? That would make it “not breaking the law.”

I think your lack of common sense confuse you. When the traffic lights fail, the traffic rules as dictated by that faulty traffic light also cease to apply. So, let me say it again - going through a faulty traffic light is not breaking the law. In fact, it’s immoral and inconsiderate to wait and wait at the junction of a faulty traffic light and causing a jam to build up behind you. If you still cannot understand it, then forget about it, and I just have to accept the fact that you lack common sense.

You claimed they couldn’t be compared. I compared them. I defined violence to show that a slap is violence. I said it was less severe violence. That doesn’t make it “not violent.” What I wrote is that it is "no less violence" not "no less violent." (post 221, " It is no less violence, though it is less severe violence.")

Well, whatever it is, it’s STILL a nice way to tell everyone that you are incapable to think rationally and logically.

I got my definition from a dictionary. A slap on the wrist is physical force which is intended to injure
Definition of violence | Dictionary.com
but the dictionary definition is supplemented by a statement Gandhi made Violence Defined
By the way, if you are curious about the use of the word "injure" start with this " INJURE implies the inflicting of anything detrimental to one's looks, comfort, health, or success." Definition of INJURE

I said you should look up the idiom “a slap on the wrist” and you look up the word ‘violence’. I know how easily you get confused between those two, so let’s try this – now I say “you should look up the word ‘violence’” and you go and look up the idiom ‘a slap on the wrist’ - that’s how your understanding works, right ?

And speaking in the general would not mean you are omitting the specific. Speaking in general means not listing the specific, but not ignoring its existence as part of the class.

So, if you said “And speaking in the general would not mean you are omitting the specific”, then, you are saying speaking in general mean you are omitting the specific. Isn’t that just another way to say what I just said – “Including the specific would mean you are not speaking in the general terms” ??

Then only the immature would demand that both change instead of looking at the greater evil and saying “it should change because it will lead to others to change”

Now, why would you want to look at the greater evil, when both sides should change for the greater good ? You seem to be attracted by anything that’s evil, tensions, violence, upsetting the sentiments of others and the likes – you need help, Dr. Evil !

Not as you used it. You should show me otherwise if you want to be persuasive. That's a recommendation, not a request.

OK, so, ‘should’ can be used as a plea, but not like the way I used it. Got it.

No, that last statement is wrong. Can you show me some substantiation for the claim that “many may also feel they are obligated to offend”? I have never seen or heard of anyone who felt that the right to offend ever leads to an obligation to offend. To hide behind “may” is to equivocate. By that logic, “many MAY grow wings and fly to Mars.” That doesn’t make it a fruitful claim.

Well, “many MAY grow wings and fly to Mars” is NOT even a logical statement by any standard because the possibility of humans growing wings and flying to the Mars is practically ZERO. But then again, that should not surprise anyone as thinking logically is really not your forte.

When I don’t say that something isn’t an obligation it would be “natural” for “anyone” to think that I MAY (again with that equivocation on your part) feel it is my obligation to offend? And if I say that there is a legal right to bear arms, do those same people think that I MAY feel it is my obligation to? I also claim the right to drink alcohol. Do those people naturally think I may feel that I am obligated to do so? The claim that anyone may do something doesn’t make it a logical conclusion to draw. This is a bizarre leap that only you have made. Assigning it to “anyone” is as useless as saying “reading this, it is natural for anyone to think that you may have three arms.”
It is decidedly not natural to draw that conclusion in the same way that it is not natural to draw it about what I "may feel" when discussing rights.

To offend, to bear arms and to drink alcohol is a matter of choice, irrespective whether you think it’s your legal right or not. However, when one starts to favor and defend those who find joy in offending the beliefs of others, then, it’s natural for anyone to question your state of mind, and if you choose to participate in the act of offending the Beliefs of others, knowing very well it will upset millions of people, then, it’s natural for one to question your choice. I can only think of 2 reasons why anyone would mock, insult the faiths of others (in this case, Islam) despite knowing the action will upset millions of its followers – 1) that person suffers from Islamophobia and thus, he might feel ‘obligated’ to offend the Muslims and 2) that person lacks that instinctively knowledge of right and wrong.

Good – you should have those doubts, because I have explicitly said it isn’t. Again, not a request.

Good to know that to offend is not an obligation to you. But then, why would you still choose to offend others, especially on things that they are sentimentally and emotionally attached?

You don’t understand what protected speech is under the law, do you? Speech is protected when it cannot be subjected to prior restraint. Lies are protected from censorship but are causes of action after the fact.

Sure I do, but, I am not that sure you do understand what perjury, forgery, making a false police report, or bank fraud are under the law.

Here is some light reading discussing (via the Pentagon Papers) the court’s general stand against prior restraint including the situations in which there is more of an assumption that the government CAN suppress statements before they are made Gag Orders, Prior Restraint And ‘The Post’ - Palisades Hudson Financial Group
“The court did leave an exception to the presumption against prior restraint for information that could prove harmful to Americans or helpful to enemies in wartime – the classic example being publication of planned troop movements.”

Well, that specific statement itself is contradicting what you said of the First Amendment – “As written it is an unequivocal statement which allows absolute freedom”. So, do you want to redefine your understanding of the First Amendment or do you want to redefine the meaning of ‘unequivocal’ and ‘absolute freedom’?

If you say that eating pork is not an obligation, then you need to go back to your premises and rework them.

Yes, I said eating pork is not an obligation, it’s a choice, but if you say eating pork is an obligation, then you need to go back to your premises and rework them.

No, eating pork is a legal right. Not eating it is a moral obligation. The legal right cannot be taken away, nor is it an obligation because I may choose to follow a moral code which forbids it. I can choose to disobey the moral code, though.

Still not done yet with ‘eating pork’ ?? For someone who said not eating pork is a moral obligation, you sure are obsessed with the subject of ‘eating pork’ !!

First you said one can’t. Then when I showed that one can (using “one” generically), you agreed, so you have to reconcile your two statements.

What did you show me ? That you can just simply cut someone’s heart out to save your father who needs a new heart ??

So all people who don’t agree that there is some singular transcendent code that you insist exists and that all rational people subscribe to, even without knowing it are irrational? That’s more than a bit arrogant. But I have come to expect nothing less. Or more.

Well, I did say “I don’t expect you to understand that as you have demonstrated time and time again, you clearly lack that instinctive knowledge of right and wrong”, and guess what ? You prove me right… again!

 

[rosends]

… And you STILL have NOT shown anything that can convince anyone the First Amendment allows one the absolute freedom to insult, to mock the beliefs of others. Try again.

If the actual wording of the first amendment doesn’t convince you of what the first amendment says, then no one can help you.

Well, I did not say the one who offends must change, I said “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.”.

Read what you wrote: “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.”.



If that doesn’t mean “the one who offends must change” to you, then I can’t help you.

Surely, you can’t be thinking that you represent all the Jews in the world – that would be disastrous.

So if you now say that ALL members of a faith must be offended, and some Muslims were not offended by the pictures of Muhammed, then there is no reason for anyone to change! Thanks.

I ignored my immoral deletion of the word “often” ?? Hold on, which comment of mine are you responding to now ?

The same one that I have been pointing out, repeatedly. If you are lost, just reread.

Well, that depends on how you see it. I don’t see a religious commandment as intolerant as it’s supposed to come from God as preached by the respective Faith. Intolerant is more of a human nature, that is, the unwillingness to compromise or to tolerate something. So, in the case of Judaism, Jews do not practice polyandry, not because they are intolerant of polyandry, but because that’s what Judaism commands. The same with the Christians and the Muslims – they are bound by what their respective Faith commands.

And God is intolerant of polyandry, so he tells his followers not to tolerate it. If you want “tolerant” and its associated ideas to be limited to man, just say so.

In one of your responses, you wrote “The wording of the 1st amendment happens to be unequivocal saying ‘no law’……..” – that ‘no law’ came from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”. So, what nonsense is “I quoted the first amendment (though, no, not the Establishment clause) ??

The establishment clause refers to “respecting an establishment of religion”. The “no law” is a transitive verb phrase that is distributed to the various clauses in the text.

What rule am I replacing?? Hey, I can’t help you if you lack common sense.

Any objective rule about how long is too long to wait at a light. You think it is a certain amount of time and are replacing any standard to which all would have equal access with your subjective opinion.

I disagree. If you are driven by your father to help others, that does not mean your father and you are one and the same.

My father is dead. I am instructed via my religion to behave in a certain way. Its legal and moral code are one and the same.

 

[rosends]

Not really. Nobody is denying the importance of obeying the law, just as it’s important to have good moral values, but the question is – which you value most? Do you value foremost what is morally right or do you value foremost what is legally right ?

My personal reconciliation when there is a conflict between my moral code and the legal code to which I am bound is immaterial. Either you say following a law is moral, or you say it isn’t. You said both.

I think your lack of common sense confuse you. When the traffic lights fail, the traffic rules as dictated by that faulty traffic light also cease to apply. So, let me say it again - going through a faulty traffic light is not breaking the law. In fact, it’s immoral and inconsiderate to wait and wait at the junction of a faulty traffic light and causing a jam to build up behind you. If you still cannot understand it, then forget about it, and I just have to accept the fact that you lack common sense.

I hope you don’t drive in the US. https://www.startribune.com/the-drive-what-to-do-if-traffic-light-is-stuck-on-red/256910231/

I said you should look up the idiom “a slap on the wrist” and you look up the word ‘violence’. I know how easily you get confused between those two, so let’s try this – now I say “you should look up the word ‘violence’” and you go and look up the idiom ‘a slap on the wrist’ - that’s how your understanding works, right ?

A slap is violence. A slap on the wrist is about the infliction of a mild punishment, either literally or figuratively. slap on the wrist

So, if you said “And speaking in the general would not mean you are omitting the specific”, then, you are saying speaking in general mean you are omitting the specific. Isn’t that just another way to say what I just said – “Including the specific would mean you are not speaking in the general terms” ??

It would mean that just because you speak in general terms, you are not omitting the specific as part of the general. If You make a general statement and I cite a specific example, either you are including that specific or your “general” is flawed.

Now, why would you want to look at the greater evil, when both sides should change for the greater good ? You seem to be attracted by anything that’s evil, tensions, violence, upsetting the sentiments of others and the likes – you need help, Dr. Evil !

If I stick my tongue out at someone and he shoots me, I don’t think that it is useful to ignore that one of the behaviors is a greater evil that should be dealt with first. You seem to like to equate unequal things.

OK, so, ‘should’ can be used as a plea, but not like the way I used it. Got it.

Who said it can be used as a plea? I specifically said it can’t in the way you used it. If I write “Should I pick up this paper?” I am making a request. But that’s not how you used it, so, no, the way you used it, it can’t be used as a plea.

Well, “many MAY grow wings and fly to Mars” is NOT even a logical statement by any standard because the possibility of humans growing wings and flying to the Mars is practically ZERO. But then again, that should not surprise anyone as thinking logically is really not your forte.

And neither is the conclusion you draw. You just don’t want to see that.

To offend, to bear arms and to drink alcohol is a matter of choice, irrespective whether you think it’s your legal right or not. However, when one starts to favor and defend those who find joy in offending the beliefs of others, then, it’s natural for anyone to question your state of mind, and if you choose to participate in the act of offending the Beliefs of others, knowing very well it will upset millions of people, then, it’s natural for one to question your choice. I can only think of 2 reasons why anyone would mock, insult the faiths of others (in this case, Islam) despite knowing the action will upset millions of its followers – 1) that person suffers from Islamophobia and thus, he might feel ‘obligated’ to offend the Muslims and 2) that person lacks that instinctively knowledge of right and wrong.

So you jump to a conclusion, impute meaning and intention and then decide on a sense of obligation based on your interpretation and imputation. Your limitation of what you can “only think of” doesn’t mean that anyone else is bound by your conclusion. Legal rights aren't obligations.

Good to know that to offend is not an obligation to you. But then, why would you still choose to offend others, especially on things that they are sentimentally and emotionally attached?

Answered in post 221.

Sure I do, but, I am not that sure you do understand what perjury, forgery, making a false police report, or bank fraud are under the law.

They are causes of action after the fact.

Well, that specific statement itself is contradicting what you said of the First Amendment – “As written it is an unequivocal statement which allows absolute freedom”. So, do you want to redefine your understanding of the First Amendment or do you want to redefine the meaning of ‘unequivocal’ and ‘absolute freedom’?

Prior restraint is not in the first amendment. It is an idea encompassing a set of legal parameters used in interpreting the first amendment by later people who decided that the unequivocal language couldn’t be the practical intent.

Yes, I said eating pork is not an obligation, it’s a choice, but if you say eating pork is an obligation, then you need to go back to your premises and rework them.

But you said that a claim of a right without the qualifying “but not an obligation” makes it an obligation. Therefore, according to what you said, eating pork IS an obligation. I laid this out in post 225.

Well, I did say “I don’t expect you to understand that as you have demonstrated time and time again, you clearly lack that instinctive knowledge of right and wrong”, and guess what ? You prove me right… again!

I lack instinctive knowledge of your idea of right and wrong. Your belief that your idea is the end all and be all is the problem.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[JerryMyers]

If the actual wording of the first amendment doesn’t convince you of what the first amendment says, then no one can help you.

Well I know for sure what the actual wording of the first amendment did not say – it did not say it allows the absolute freedom to mock, insult the beliefs of others.

Read what you wrote: “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.”.
If that doesn’t mean “the one who offends must change” to you, then I can’t help you.

Let me try to make this as simple as possible that even a 4 years old kid can understand. First, the phrase you used “the one who offends must change” means anyone who offends must change. Second, the phrase I used “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.” is conditional, meaning I will change, only, and only if, you can prove that my actions provoked not only you, but also the followers of your Faith. See the difference between the first and the second? The first – unconditional, there’s no 2 ways about it - you offend, you change. The second – conditional. Repeat after me, first – unconditional, the second – conditional, first – unconditional, the second – conditional. Try repeating a few more times, then maybe you’ll get it, but, if you still cannot see the difference, then I can’t help you.

So if you now say that ALL members of a faith must be offended, and some Muslims were not offended by the pictures of Muhammed, then there is no reason for anyone to change! Thanks.

I can assure you all Muslims are offended when their Prophet be degraded in any way or form. The only difference is, the greater majority of the Muslim world chose to just let it pass, while a handful few chose to retaliate with physical violence.

The same one that I have been pointing out, repeatedly. If you are lost, just reread.

Problem with that is, the more I read your so-called ‘pointing out’ responses, the more I see how detached you are from reality and common sense logic.

And God is intolerant of polyandry, so he tells his followers not to tolerate it. If you want “tolerant” and its associated ideas to be limited to man, just say so.

You are telling me you don’t know why God prohibits polyandry?? Really?? In fact, common sense should already told you why, but since you lack common sense, I suggest you ask your local rabbi.

The establishment clause refers to “respecting an establishment of religion”. The “no law” is a transitive verb phrase that is distributed to the various clauses in the text.

I am not asking you what the Establishment Clause is.
Let me refresh your memory again – you wrote “I quoted the first amendment (though, no, not the Establishment clause)..”, so, the question is – did you or did you not quote the Establishment Clause when you quoted the First Amendment ?

Any objective rule about how long is too long to wait at a light. You think it is a certain amount of time and are replacing any standard to which all would have equal access with your subjective opinion.

In other words, you are telling me you lack that instinctive knowledge to know how long is too long. OK, that explains why you are not able to tell how long is too long.

My father is dead.

I am sorry to hear that. I think it would be more respectful to say your father has passed away than to say your father is dead. Then again, what do you know about being respectful.

I am instructed via my religion to behave in a certain way. Its legal and moral code are one and the same.

I am pretty sure your religion does not instruct you to (or support those who) offend, mock and upset the sentiments of others. A Jewish friend of mine told me, one of the basic teachings of Judaism is that it requires people to treat one another with dignity and respect. Well, I guess, he must be wrong about Judaism.

 

[JerryMyers]

My personal reconciliation when there is a conflict between my moral code and the legal code to which I am bound is immaterial. Either you say following a law is moral, or you say it isn’t. You said both.

That’s because you think going through a broken traffic light is breaking the law, when clearly there’s an exception to that scenario.

I hope you don’t drive in the US. https://www.startribune.com/the-drive-what-to-do-if-traffic-light-is-stuck-on-red/256910231/

Well, if you have read to understand the article, you will note that in the paragraph of “But if a light does not turn green after an unreasonable amount of time and a motorist takes an illegal course of action, the driver can be cited”. It did not say “the driver will be cited”, but it says “the driver can be cited”, meaning, there are exceptions to that rule, that is, the driver can be cited if he cannot prove to the officer that the red light has not turned green after an unreasonable amount of time.

Maybe you should write to the writer of the article and ask him, “Any objective rule about an unreasonable amount of time to wait at a light ?” He will probably give you the middle finger and ignore your ‘lack of common sense’ question, but who knows, he just might respond to you.

A slap is violence. A slap on the wrist is about the infliction of a mild punishment, either literally or figuratively. slap on the wrist

I would say a slap on the face is violence, but a slap on the wrist is not. Just because the word ‘slap’ is there, doesn’t mean any phrase that has the word ‘slap’ means it’s about violence. Likewise, just because you saw a woman gave a very passionate kiss on the lips to her lover that you will think if a woman gives you a kiss on your forehead, it means she’s passionately in love with you and wants to take you home….. and all because you cannot tell the difference between a passionate kiss on the lips and a kiss on the forehead, just as you cannot tell the difference between a slap on the face and a slap on the wrist.

It would mean that just because you speak in general terms, you are not omitting the specific as part of the general. If You make a general statement and I cite a specific example, either you are including that specific or your “general” is flawed.

Just like most of your comments, you are not making much sense here either.

If I stick my tongue out at someone and he shoots me, I don’t think that it is useful to ignore that one of the behaviors is a greater evil that should be dealt with first. You seem to like to equate unequal things.

Well, the reason he shot you was that you, of all things, stick your tongue out at him. So, let me ask you – who was the initiator in this classic case of yours? Answer - You. Any winner in this encounter? Answer – No one, you got shot for doing the stupidest thing and he will most likely be thrown in jail for reacting irrationally.

Here’s the thing, if you want to solve issues or problems, you need to identify the cause and fix it. If every time it rains, you find your bed wet, and all you do is just change the bedsheets and blame your bed, you think that will solve the problem ?? No, you need to find the source of your bed getting wet every time it rains, which is probably, a leaking roof. Instead, taking your classic case, you stick your tongue out at someone, you got shot, blame the man for shooting you, the man got arrested and put away, next day, you stick your tongue out at another man, this time you got stabbed, and again, you blame the man who stabbed you, he got arrested and next day, you stick your tongue out again, and you got punched in the face, again you blame the man who punched you, he was arrested, next day, you stick your tongue out at another man and you got kicked in the groin and on and on and on .….. so, tell me how is this going to end if you refuse to recognize that you are the initiator and the cause for you getting shot, stabbed, punched in the face and kicked in the groin ??

Who said it can be used as a plea? I specifically said it can’t in the way you used it. If I write “Should I pick up this paper?” I am making a request. But that’s not how you used it, so, no, the way you used it, it can’t be used as a plea.

Sure, the way you used it. However, if used as, ”Please, you should think of your wife and your new born son before pulling that trigger on me”, then, anyone can say the man is uttering a plea for his life, and they will not be wrong.

And neither is the conclusion you draw. You just don’t want to see that.

And what conclusion could that be ?? Be specific.

So you jump to a conclusion, impute meaning and intention and then decide on a sense of obligation based on your interpretation and imputation. Your limitation of what you can “only think of” doesn’t mean that anyone else is bound by your conclusion. Legal rights aren't obligations.

Well I said “1) that person suffers from Islamophobia and thus, he might feel ‘obligated’ to offend the Muslims”, I did not say legal rights are obligations. And why did I say people who “suffer from Islamophobia might feel ‘obligated to offend the Muslims”? Because Islamophobia “describes mentalities and actions that demean an entire class of people” - Islamophobia in America

Insulting, offending the Muslims through their Faith, would be an action that demeans an entire class of people. “Actions that demean” would mean any action that would humiliate, degrade or put anyone down including those who have a close relationship with him or her. Muslims have a very close relationship or bond with their Prophet, so, degrading Muhammad by drawing caricatures of him, would also mean degrading every Muslim around the world.

Answered in post 221.

That’s your answer ?? That it’s educational to offend others ?? So, you concluded the teacher, who upset the sentiments of Muslims when he displayed a caricature of Muhammad, was being ‘educational’ ?? The only education everyone can learn from that unfortunate episode is that offending the beliefs of others is not immoral, but also not a very smart thing to do… but then again, for someone who lacks common sense and that instinctive knowledge of right and wrong, you probably wouldn’t understand what I am talking about, do you?

They are causes of action after the fact.

Ok. If before I was not that sure, now I am very sure you do not understand what you are talking about.

Prior restraint is not in the first amendment. It is an idea encompassing a set of legal parameters used in interpreting the first amendment by later people who decided that the unequivocal language couldn’t be the practical intent.

As I said earlier, “If before I was not that sure, now I am very sure you do not understand what you are talking about”.

But you said that a claim of a right without the qualifying “but not an obligation” makes it an obligation. Therefore, according to what you said, eating pork IS an obligation. I laid this out in post 225.

That was in the context of Islamophobia and “if you think to offend is a legal right..”, not in the context of “eating pork..”. Context is what make a specific word to have a different meaning or intent when that word is used in two different sentences or phrases.

I lack instinctive knowledge of your idea of right and wrong. Your belief that your idea is the end all and be all is the problem.

I never claimed that my idea of right and wrong “is the end all and be all”. I can’t help you if you lack the instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. In case you have not realized it yet, the lack of instinctive knowledge of right and wrong in you IS the problem.

 

[rosends]

Well I know for sure what the actual wording of the first amendment did not say – it did not say it allows the absolute freedom to mock, insult the beliefs of others.

Actually, it did. I provided a quote by a supreme court justice who agrees with me.

Let me try to make this as simple as possible that even a 4 years old kid can understand. First, the phrase you used “the one who offends must change” means anyone who offends must change. Second, the phrase I used “If you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith, then, yes, I should change.” is conditional, meaning I will change, only, and only if, you can prove that my actions provoked not only you, but also the followers of your Faith.

“The followers”? Do you mean “any” of the followers” or “all the followers.” You have offended some – how would you like me to provide proof? But I haven’t finished asking all. So either you have to change because you offended “any” but no civics teacher has to change because showing a picture of Muhammed didn’t offend “all.” Your choice.

I can assure you all Muslims are offended when their Prophet be degraded in any way or form. The only difference is, the greater majority of the Muslim world chose to just let it pass, while a handful few chose to retaliate with physical violence.

This guy disagrees with you Rashid Razaq: As a Muslim, I know there is no God-given right not to be offended - Index on Censorship

You are telling me you don’t know why God prohibits polyandry?? Really?? In fact, common sense should already told you why, but since you lack common sense, I suggest you ask your local rabbi.

All I said is that God is intolerant of it and tells his followers not to tolerate it. When did I say I don’t know why? Imputing a way of thinking so you can respond to it doesn’t help anything.

I am not asking you what the Establishment Clause is.

Good, because I already told you what it is. To ask again would smack of ignorance.

Let me refresh your memory again – you wrote “I quoted the first amendment (though, no, not the Establishment clause)..”, so, the question is – did you or did you not quote the Establishment Clause when you quoted the First Amendment ?

You made an assertion in post 215 “ the clause of the First Amendment – ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” is NOT unequivocal as it’s subjected to interpretations.”

And then followed with “that clause aka the Establishment Clause, has nothing to do with mockery or such, let alone, allowing mockery. This may help to enlighten you - Establishment Clause - Wikipedia”


Since the establishment clause is the section specifically about establishing religion, your choice to refer specifically to it when actually discussing the next clause about speech is an error.


In post 219 you then claimed “you quoted the Establishment Clause to falsely claim that it allows absolute freedom of speech – that’s why.”



Except I didn’t quote the Establishment Clause to claim anything. I quoted the first Amendment in post 187 and you specified the Establishment clause.

In other words, you are telling me you lack that instinctive knowledge to know how long is too long. OK, that explains why you are not able to tell how long is too long.

Rewording “in other words” to create your position is poor thinking. I could say “in other words, you think that your instinct is the universal instinct and that is a symptom of narcissism.”

I am sorry to hear that. I think it would be more respectful to say your father has passed away than to say your father is dead. Then again, what do you know about being respectful.

You can think what you want. He happens to be dead. I think it would be more respectful for you to stop talking about him, but you clearly have a different moral code.

I am pretty sure your religion does not instruct you to (or support those who) offend, mock and upset the sentiments of others. A Jewish friend of mine told me, one of the basic teachings of Judaism is that it requires people to treat one another with dignity and respect. Well, I guess, he must be wrong about Judaism.

Well, he isn’t exactly right, but that’s immaterial. The question is not whether I do something to offend as a Jew, but whether I am protected doing something which offends, under civil law.

 

[rosends]

That’s because you think going through a broken traffic light is breaking the law, when clearly there’s an exception to that scenario.

Under the law, there is only an exception when ground sensors are used. Claiming that there is a common sense exception because you think there should be is wrong.

Well, if you have read to understand the article, you will note that in the paragraph of “But if a light does not turn green after an unreasonable amount of time and a motorist takes an illegal course of action, the driver can be cited”. It did not say “the driver will be cited”, but it says “the driver can be cited”, meaning, there are exceptions to that rule, that is, the driver can be cited if he cannot prove to the officer that the red light has not turned green after an unreasonable amount of time.

If the driver CAN be cited, then the police officer has a cause to issue the ticket, meaning that the police officer can say that the law was broken. The officer gets to decide whether the amount of time was reasonable or not, or whether there is any mitigating factor. But he CAN cite. Do you know why? Because objectively speaking, the action was still against the law.

Maybe you should write to the writer of the article and ask him, “Any objective rule about an unreasonable amount of time to wait at a light ?” He will probably give you the middle finger and ignore your ‘lack of common sense’ question, but who knows, he just might respond to you.

No, he’d probably say it depends on the officer and his opinion and that there is no objective rule which was the point I was making anyway. So thanks.

I would say a slap on the face is violence, but a slap on the wrist is not.

OK, you would say that. You would be wrong, but that’s ok. Not everyone can understand English.

Well, the reason he shot you was that you, of all things, stick your tongue out at him. So, let me ask you – who was the initiator in this classic case of yours? Answer - You. Any winner in this encounter? Answer – No one, you got shot for doing the stupidest thing and he will most likely be thrown in jail for reacting irrationally.

Yeah, the victim was asking for it. Classic victim blaming. Well done.

so, tell me how is this going to end if you refuse to recognize that you are the initiator and the cause for you getting shot, stabbed, punched in the face and kicked in the groin ??

I would hope it ends with people realizing that responding to a tongue with physical violence is wrong. You want me to stop sticking my tongue out because so many people are incapable of controlling their reactions. So noted.

Sure, the way you used it. However, if used as, ”Please, you should think of your wife and your new born son before pulling that trigger on me”, then, anyone can say the man is uttering a plea for his life, and they will not be wrong.

The plea for his wife is in the word “please” but the recommendation of the course of action is in the “should.” If you want a pure plea, take “should out “Please think of your wife…”

And what conclusion could that be ?? Be specific.

Your conclusion that because one has the right to offend, “ “many may also feel they are obligated to offend”

Muslims have a very close relationship or bond with their Prophet, so, degrading Muhammad by drawing caricatures of him, would also mean degrading every Muslim around the world.

Well, except the guy I quoted in the previous message.

That’s your answer ?? That it’s educational to offend others ?? So, you concluded the teacher, who upset the sentiments of Muslims when he displayed a caricature of Muhammad, was being ‘educational’ ??

Yup. Sometimes, offending is a pedagogical method.

The only education everyone can learn from that unfortunate episode is that offending the beliefs of others is not immoral, but also not a very smart thing to do

It isn’t? Wow. Nice pivot.

ok. If before I was not that sure, now I am very sure you do not understand what you are talking about.

If you haven’t studied the first amendment and communication law on the graduate level, then I can understand why you can’t grasp the difference between a priori protection and causes of action afterwards.

That was in the context of Islamophobia and “if you think to offend is a legal right..”, not in the context of “eating pork..”. Context is what make a specific word to have a different meaning or intent when that word is used in two different sentences or phrases.

You wrote about a legal right. Are you saying that not all legal rights are treated the same? All I did was make an equivalence and replace words that stood for legal rights.

I never claimed that my idea of right and wrong “is the end all and be all”. I can’t help you if you lack the instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. In case you have not realized it yet, the lack of instinctive knowledge of right and wrong in you IS the problem.

You wrote “I am talking about rules that all rational people, consciously or unconsciously, abide by. “

Since I assume you would think that YOU abide by them, and that they are the specific rules that ALL people who are rational abide by instinctively then you are claiming that your idea of right and wrong IS that end all and be all. Or are you saying that there are other rational ideas of right and wrong?

 

[JerryMyers]

Actually, it did. I provided a quote by a supreme court justice who agrees with me.

What exactly did the Supreme Court Justice agree with you?? That you have the right to offend and mock the beliefs of others ??

“The followers”? Do you mean “any” of the followers” or “all the followers.” You have offended some – how would you like me to provide proof? But I haven’t finished asking all. So either you have to change because you offended “any” but no civics teacher has to change because showing a picture of Muhammed didn’t offend “all.” Your choice.

Common sense should tell you that if I said ‘the followers of your Faith’ then, it means ALL the followers of your Faith. If I meant to say “if any of the followers”, then, I would have said “if any of the followers…”. So are you a mentally-challenged person or you just lack common sense ?? Your choice.

This guy disagrees with you Rashid Razaq: As a Muslim, I know there is no God-given right not to be offended - Index on Censorship

Well, Muslims are not offended by drawings, cartoons or caricatures. What offends the Muslims is the degradation of their Prophet in any way or form. Rashid Razaq, as a Muslim, will be offended too if he sees the drawings, cartoons, caricatures of Muhammad as an attempt to degrade the Prophet, but, reading his article, it’s obvious that Rashid Razaq sees caricatures, cartoons of Muhammad only as just caricatures and cartoons and nothing more. Likewise, people who see nudity as an art would never be offended as they don’t see nudity as obscenity.

All I said is that God is intolerant of it and tells his followers not to tolerate it. When did I say I don’t know why? Imputing a way of thinking so you can respond to it doesn’t help anything.

If you know why, then, you should know ‘intolerant’ is not the right word. If the authority stops you from using a bridge and you know why (the bridge is unsafe as cracks are spotted along the whole length of the bridge), can you then say the authority is intolerant of the bridge ?

Good, because I already told you what it is. To ask again would smack of ignorance.

You need to do better than that. So, let me refresh your memory yet again – you wrote “I quoted the first amendment (though, no, not the Establishment clause)..”, so, the question is – did you or did you not quote the Establishment Clause when you quoted the First Amendment ? Now repeat that question again slowly – did… you…. or did you not ….. quote the Establishment Clause …….when you quoted….. the First Amendment ? Take a deep breath and repeat the question again. Repeat again until you can see that I was NOT asking you what is ‘the Establishment Clause’.

You made an assertion in post 215 “ the clause of the First Amendment – ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” is NOT unequivocal as it’s subjected to interpretations.”

Yes, it’s not an unequivocal statement. So ?

And then followed with “that clause aka the Establishment Clause, has nothing to do with mockery or such, let alone, allowing mockery. This may help to enlighten you - Establishment Clause - Wikipedia”;

Yes, the Establishment Clause has nothing to do with the absolute freedom to insult or to mock the Faiths of others. So ?

Since the establishment clause is the section specifically about establishing religion, your choice to refer specifically to it when actually discussing the next clause about speech is an error. In post 219 you then claimed “you quoted the Establishment Clause to falsely claim that it allows absolute freedom of speech – no.”

In post #219, I wrote “I cited the Establishment Clause because you quoted the Establishment Clause to falsely claim that it allows absolute freedom of speech – that’s why”, in response to your question - “Why would you cite the Establishment Clause (the first part of the first amendment, that deals with religion) when talking about the second part, speech?”. Unlike you, I don’t simply quote anything just for the fun of it…. And try to be honest when quoting any of my statements – quote the full statement and don’t chop it, edit it or/and add your own word to it.

Except I didn’t quote the Establishment Clause to claim anything. I quoted the first Amendment in post 187 and you specified the Establishment clause.

Can you quote the First Amendment without quoting the Establishment Clause ?

Rewording “in other words” to create your position is poor thinking. I could say “in other words, you think that your instinct is the universal instinct and that is a symptom of narcissism.”

Well, yes, the instinctive knowledge to know how long is too long IS part of that universal knowledge of right and wrong – nothing to do with narcissism, just plain fact. Unable to tell how long is too long is a clear sign that you lack that universal knowledge of right and wrong – it’s also a sign of poor thinking, which you have demonstrated time and time again.

You can think what you want. He happens to be dead. I think it would be more respectful for you to stop talking about him, but you clearly have a different moral code.

OK, I will stop talking about your father and remember him as your ‘father happens to be dead’ – that’s a very respectful way to remember your late father

Well, he isn’t exactly right, but that’s immaterial. The question is not whether I do something to offend as a Jew, but whether I am protected doing something which offends, under civil law.

So, you are telling me, to you, being protected by some laws is more important than for you to abide to the teachings of your faith, Judaism. OK, got it.[/QUOTE]