Is it blasphemous to lampoon a prophet?

[JerryMyers]

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.

Then again, there should be common sense too in making any decision or verdict, including to determine whether a person has broken the law or not. If everything is decided based on first impressions and ‘mechanized’ systems, then you don’t need lawyers, juries, or judges.

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.

‘Can be cited’ does not mean he will be cited, and having a cause to issue a ticket does not mean the police officer must issue a ticket. Objectively speaking, the action initially can be seen as breaking the law, but further observations, can show the motorist was not breaking the law as the traffic light has ceased to function, and stopping at broken traffic lights can cause a jam to build-up behind his car.

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.

No, he will not say that because ‘to say ‘it depends on the officer’ would mean the officer needs a clear objective rule to determine what defines ‘an unreasonable amount of time’. Since there’s no clear objective rule to determine of such, the officer, therefore, only has his instinctive knowledge of right and wrong to determine when a waiting time becomes unreasonable. Anyway, since you lack that instinctive knowledge, you will not understand what I am talking about.

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

Well, yes, anyone who said a slap on the wrist is violence cannot be having a high level of comprehension in English – glad you admit that.

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

No, I wouldn’t say the victim was asking for it. I would say he’s dumb enough not to know he’s the initiator of the confrontation and the cause of his own suffering. Or are you telling me, in your classic example, he shot you first (making him the initiator of the confrontation), and only after you are shot, you stick your tongue out to him?

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.

LOL. Unless you are suffering from some kind of muscle spasm where you cannot control the action of your tongue sticking out every 3 seconds, I would say you have the logic of a 4 years old kid.

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…”

You don’t read very well too, don’t you ?? The plea is for his life, not his wife. So, let’s try this again, without ‘Please’ – ‘You should think of your wife and your newborn 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”.

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

I also said “1) that person suffers from Islamophobia and thus, he might feel ‘obligated’ to offend the Muslims”.

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

See my response to that previous message.

Yup. Sometimes, offending is a pedagogical method.

Because you say so ?? Oh grow up… and don’t forget to get your mum to change your diapers.

It isn’t? Wow. Nice pivot.

So, I unconsciously miss the word ‘ONLY’ in that sentence. A mistake which I make once in a while. Despite the obvious joy you take in capitalizing on someone’s ‘mistakes’, I think you know I meant to say “.. offending the beliefs of others is not ONLY immoral but also not a very smart thing to do”. It would be ridiculous for me to say offending the beliefs of others is not a smart thing to do, but also it’s good moral. Fact is, I have not changed my stand – offending others is immoral and not a smart thing to do.

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.

As I said, if before I was not that sure, now I am very sure you do not understand what you are talking about. And trying to paint yourself as someone learned in the First Amendment and Communication is not going to work too. It’s not who you said you are or what you said you have studied that’s going to tell people whether you are learned or not, it’s what you wrote here that’s going to tell readers your logic of thinking and whether you are learned or not. Someone who comes out with a classic example of himself getting shot for, of all things, sticking his tongue out and blaming the other guy when he or she is the initiator of that confrontation, simply cannot be having a sound logical mind.

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.

We are talking about obligation – is ‘eating pork’ an obligation ?

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?

Not me, but you - you are the one who claimed MY idea of right and wrong is the end all and be all. In fact, there’s no such thing as ‘my or your idea of right and wrong’, there’s only right and wrong which is closely related to one’s conscience. I would even say, this universal instinctive knowledge of right and wrong is not defined by man but by God Himself. So is this instinctive knowledge the end all and be all? Yes, but then again, not everyone keeps it and abides by it.

 

[rosends]

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

That the first amendment protects the right to mock.

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.

So you equate “the followers” with “all the followers”? And if anyone sees the word “all” as a necessary word to specify “all” that person lacks common sense or is mentally challenged? Wow. The people who speak English and see that each word adds meaning would disagree with you. Well, maybe not all of them, but that’s why I didn’t say “all the people who speak English…”

it’s obvious that Rashid Razaq sees caricatures, cartoons of Muhammad only as just caricatures and cartoons and nothing more.

Which means that not “all” the people of the Muslim faith are offended, and therefore, no one should have to change to accommodate the sensitivity of “not all of the followers.” Thanks for the confirmation.

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 ?

If the authority passes a law forbidding use of the bridge and applies that law, then it is intolerant of the use of the bridge. If it demands that the bridge be fixed, then it is intolerant of the bridge. It might actually be tolerant of law breaking though, not enforcing the law. As faith dictates that God does keep track of every breaking of religious law and that there will be consequences, saying God is intolerant is precisely the right word.

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

Except that as written, yes, it is. There is, in its writing, no equivocation. You can’t show any. The equivocation came by others, external to the document, in the interpretation. As written, it is unequivocal.

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

In post 215, you wrote “Your interpretation of that clause is that it allows absolute freedom (such as to mock, to insult, etc) is a misinterpretion of that clause. 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”[/quote]
You started with my interpretation of “that clause” and then wrote “That clause aka the Establishment Clause”

My question was “why cite the Establishment Clause” when I had only mentioned the First Amendment as a whole. You specified that the Establishment clause, which we both now accept as irrelevant to the argument, yet it was “that clause” that you isolated. Your response “you quoted the Establishment Clause to falsely claim that it allows absolute freedom of speech” is in error unless you can show me that I did that. In post 187, I quoted the first half of the amendment which includes the establishment clause, but I was simply not skipping words before I got to the section I was speaking of, the clause regarding freedom of speech, as that was the focus of my argument. In fact, in 187, itself, I followed up the quote with my statement “the law of freedom of speech is unequivocal, allowing mockery”. So while I included the words of the Establishment Clause, I made no claim that the Establishment Clause has to do with absolute freedom of speech.

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

I can quote parts of it, yes. Would you prefer that I skip parts and write ““Congress shall make no law…or abridging the freedom of speech…” I leave the “or” in because it begins a second clause after the semicolon, but I can take that out also.

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.

I’ll just leave this out there for anyone to giggle at.

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

Yes (though I notice you continued to speak of him…very disrespectful of you) that is how I remember him, and the way he remembered his own father.

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.

Actually, what I said was that the formulation of the teachings of my faith that you think you have access to is wrong, but also that the entire question is immaterial as the question at hand is about protection under the law. You want to mix them, and then mix them using the version you think is right. That’s wrong in 2 ways.

If everything is decided based on first impressions and ‘mechanized’ systems, then you don’t need lawyers, juries, or judges.

Juries decide issues of fact, not law. Judges decide issues of application/interpretation of law. The law is a mechanized system. Commit an act, be subject to the law or protected by it.

but further observations, can show the motorist was not breaking the law as the traffic light has ceased to function, and stopping at broken traffic lights can cause a jam to build-up behind his car.

No, further observation would reveal that there were mitigating factors excusing having broken the law, or that there is a superseding law brought into play. The officer CAN cite because the action is still breaking a law.

‘to say ‘it depends on the officer’ would mean the officer needs a clear objective rule to determine what defines ‘an unreasonable amount of time’. Since there’s no clear objective rule to determine of such, the officer, therefore, only has his instinctive knowledge of right and wrong to determine when a waiting time becomes unreasonable.

And, as you insist that there is a universal instinctive knowledge of how long is too long, this makes sense to you. Others who might disagree with it lack your access to a universal version of right and wrong. Got it.

No, I wouldn’t say the victim was asking for it. I would say he’s dumb enough not to know he’s the initiator of the confrontation and the cause of his own suffering.

And to you “the cause of his own suffering” and “initiator of the confrontation” isn’t the same as victim asking for it? The rape victim wearing a short skirt is also the “cause of her own suffering” if you absolve the rapist because she is the “initiator” by her mode of dress. If someone sticks his tongue out at another and gets shot, you feel comfortable blaming him for causing the confrontation. That’s horrible.

Unless you are suffering from some kind of muscle spasm where you cannot control the action of your tongue sticking out every 3 seconds, I would say you have the logic of a 4 years old kid.

And you are OK with someone’s shooting that kid who sticks his tongue out because the kid started it.

You don’t read very well too, don’t you ?? The plea is for his life, not his wife. So, let’s try this again, without ‘Please’ – ‘You should think of your wife and your newborn 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”.

Shifting focus isn’t a good approach. The plea is in the word “please”. You didn’t have that word in your earlier claim. You had only “should” which is a recommendation. Obfuscating doesn’t erase your error.

I also said “1) that person suffers from Islamophobia and thus, he might feel ‘obligated’ to offend the Muslims”.

Yes, you also said that. That doesn’t change the conclusion that you drew, that I cited when you asked to what I was referring.

Because you say so ?? Oh grow up… and don’t forget to get your mum to change your diapers.

Well, no, not because I say so, but because I have some experience in pedagogy and effective instruction.

Fact is, I have not changed my stand – offending others is immoral and not a smart thing to do.

But still legally protected.

it’s what you wrote here that’s going to tell readers your logic of thinking and whether you are learned or not.

Until you can see the difference between a priori restraint and causes of action after the fact, you won’t understand the meaning of the first amendment. What you have written here shows a lack of said knowledge.

Someone who comes out with a classic example of himself getting shot for, of all things, sticking his tongue out and blaming the other guy when he or she is the initiator of that confrontation, simply cannot be having a sound logical mind.

I'm not sure why you call the example "classic" but thank you -- it is a very stark demonstration of the point of differences in cause and effect. And someone who is focused on equating all actions and not seeing the distinction between levels of behavior has no understanding of good and evil.

We are talking about obligation – is ‘eating pork’ an obligation ?

I answered this in both 225 and 235. You accepted that it is a right, and also said that a right without a qualifying “not an obligation” is an obligation, making the fact that eating pork is a right into an obligation.

there’s no such thing as ‘my or your idea of right and wrong’, there’s only right and wrong which is closely related to one’s conscience. I would even say, this universal instinctive knowledge of right and wrong is not defined by man but by God Himself. So is this instinctive knowledge the end all and be all? Yes, but then again, not everyone keeps it and abides by it.

But you insist everyone knows and acknowledges a singular version of it and you have access to that? That’s hilarious.

 

[JerryMyers]

That the first amendment protects the right to mock.

Seriously ? Read again and try to understand what the Supreme Court Justice really said, and NOT understand it by what you want him to say.

So you equate “the followers” with “all the followers”? And if anyone sees the word “all” as a necessary word to specify “all” that person lacks common sense or is mentally challenged? Wow. The people who speak English and see that each word adds meaning would disagree with you. Well, maybe not all of them, but that’s why I didn’t say “all the people who speak English…”.

When reading, try to understand the context of the sentence. I know reading out of context comes natural to you, but try. When you are referring to the followers of a Faith, and unless you specify otherwise, you ARE referring to ALL the followers of the Faith. It’s common sense that even kids can understand.

Which means that not “all” the people of the Muslim faith are offended, and therefore, no one should have to change to accommodate the sensitivity of “not all of the followers.” Thanks for the confirmation.

I think I specifically said “What offend the Muslims is the degradation of their Prophet in any way or form”. So, when I said “I can assure you all Muslims are offended when their Prophet be degraded in any way or form”, it means all those Muslims who see caricatures, cartoons of Muhammad as a degradation of their Prophet, will be offended. Try to see the ‘qualifying word or phrase’ when reading a sentence – something which you seem unable to do. Thanks for the confirmation.

If the authority passes a law forbidding use of the bridge and applies that law, then it is intolerant of the use of the bridge. If it demands that the bridge be fixed, then it is intolerant of the bridge. It might actually be tolerant of law breaking though, not enforcing the law.

Like I said before, intolerant is more of a human nature, that is, the unwillingness to compromise or to tolerate something. If there’s such a law passed by the authority forbidding the use of a particular bridge, you don’t really interpret that as the law ‘is intolerant of the bridge’, but you interpret that as the authority being sensitive to the safety of the people – laws are passed to protect and give fairness and equal rights to the people.

As faith dictates that God does keep track of every breaking of religious law and that there will be consequences, saying God is intolerant is precisely the right word.

Faith does not dictate what God should do or should not do, Faith is what keeps you believing in God and to lead your life by His rules.

Except that as written, yes, it is. There is, in its writing, no equivocation. You can’t show any. The equivocation came by others, external to the document, in the interpretation. As written, it is unequivocal.

Thar’s just your screwed-up interpretation, but as written, it says nothing about absolute freedom for one to mock, insult the faiths of others. Are you aware the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam ?? Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules

You started with my interpretation of “that clause” and then wrote “That clause aka the Establishment Clause”

My question was “why cite the Establishment Clause” when I had only mentioned the First Amendment as a whole. You specified that the Establishment clause, which we both now accept as irrelevant to the argument, yet it was “that clause” that you isolated. Your response “you quoted the Establishment Clause to falsely claim that it allows absolute freedom of speech” is in error unless you can show me that I did that. In post 187, I quoted the first half of the amendment which includes the establishment clause, but I was simply not skipping words before I got to the section I was speaking of, the clause regarding freedom of speech, as that was the focus of my argument. In fact, in 187, itself, I followed up the quote with my statement “the law of freedom of speech is unequivocal, allowing mockery”. So while I included the words of the Establishment Clause, I made no claim that the Establishment Clause has to do with absolute freedom of speech.

To things –


1. In an earlier response, you wrote “The wording of the 1st amendment happens to be unequivocal saying ‘no law’…”. Here, you misinterpreted “no law” as the unequivocal term allowing absolute freedom of speech to mock, when in fact, the “no law” is part of the Establishment Clause, which have nothing to do with the absolute freedom of speech, but have a lot to do with freedom of religions.


2. As you said, in post#187, you followed up the quote with your statement “the law of freedom of speech is unequivocal, allowing mockery”. So while I included the words of the Establishment Clause, I made no claim that the Establishment Clause has to do with absolute freedom of speech”. You know what’s the problem here ? The problem is while you said “the law of freedom of speech is unequivocal, allowing mockery” and you made no claim that the Establishment Clause has to do with absolute freedom of speech, the term that you understand as allowing the absolute freedom of speech to mock is the term “no law” which is part of the Establishment Clause and have nothing to do with freedom of speech. So, what you are doing here is a crafty way to mislead readers into accepting your false understanding of the First Amendment that “the law of freedom of speech is unequivocal, allowing mockery”. Fact is, there’s no unequivocal statements that say the law of freedom of speech allows mockery, insults, degrades any Faith.

I can quote parts of it, yes. Would you prefer that I skip parts and write ““Congress shall make no law…or abridging the freedom of speech…” I leave the “or” in because it begins a second clause after the semicolon, but I can take that out also.

Sure you can, but then, you are NOT quoting the First Amendment Clause, you are just pulling out excerpts from the First Amendment. However, you said you quoted the First Amendment Clause, which you did, and then said you are not quoting the Establishment Clause, which is nonsense because you cannot quote the First Amendment Clause without specifying the Establishment Clause too – the two are the ‘ying and yang’ of the First Amendment Clause. Is the Shema which you are supposed to recite twice daily valid if you just recite certain parts and omit some other parts?

I’ll just leave this out there for anyone to giggle at.

That’s funny, especially when your comments thus far are more than enough for anyone to giggle at for a lifetime.

Yes (though I notice you continued to speak of him…very disrespectful of you) that is how I remember him, and the way he remembered his own father.

So, you remember your father as someone who ‘happens to be dead’? OK. Please take note, I am not talking about your father, I am talking about you and how respectful you are to your late father.

Actually, what I said was that the formulation of the teachings of my faith that you think you have access to is wrong, but also that the entire question is immaterial as the question at hand is about protection under the law. You want to mix them, and then mix them using the version you think is right. That’s wrong in 2 ways.

Except that this is NOT a question of mixing them up, this is the reality of the matter – we are living in a time where the rules of man-made laws co-exist with the rules of our respective Faith. Thus, my question to you is very valid and appropriate. So again, according to you, is being protected by some laws more important than for you to abide to the teachings of your faith, Judaism ??

Juries decide issues of fact, not law. Judges decide issues of application/interpretation of law. The law is a mechanized system. Commit an act, be subject to the law or protected by it.

But the interpretation of the law is not a single universal interpretation. The defense attorneys will present their case of the law to save their client from being convicted while the prosecutors will present their case to convict the man on trial. The juries and the judge will still need to rely on their common sense, intelligence and that instinctive knowledge of right and wrong for them to derive to a sound decision. It’s not as simple as you put it - “Commit an act, be subject to the law or protected by it”.

No, further observation would reveal that there were mitigating factors excusing having broken the law, or that there is a superseding law brought into play. The officer CAN cite because the action is still breaking a law.

Now just because you cannot tell when a wait time spent at traffic lights is too long or unreasonable, does not make it unlawful to go against a broken traffic light.

And, as you insist that there is a universal instinctive knowledge of how long is too long, this makes sense to you. Others who might disagree with it lack your access to a universal version of right and wrong. Got it.

No, I never insist on that, but, yes, there is a universal instinctive knowledge of right and wrong and to deny that is plain ignorance. For example, you have always presented your case of offending the beliefs of others from the legal right perspective, but you have never (as far as I can remember) presented that from the moral perspective. Why? Because deep down in you, you still have a tiny strand of instinctive knowledge of right and wrong that tells you to offend the beliefs of others is (morally) wrong.

And to you “the cause of his own suffering” and “initiator of the confrontation” isn’t the same as victim asking for it?

Of course, it isn’t the same. ‘Asking for it’ would mean you knew you will get shot if you stick your tongue out to him, and yet you STILL stick your tongue out to him – now, that’s really stupid and asking for it.

 

[JerryMyers]

The rape victim wearing a short skirt is also the “cause of her own suffering” if you absolve the rapist because she is the “initiator” by her mode of dress.

Now why would you blame the victim of a rape just because she’s wearing a short skirt? Rapists are those who just cannot keep their ’libidos’ and lusts in check - it got nothing to do with how the girls or women dress and rapists can be anyone, even the elects. Do you know even nuns (and nuns don’t wear short skirts) are not safe from rape ?? Abused nuns reveal stories of rape, forced abortions

If someone sticks his tongue out at another and gets shot, you feel comfortable blaming him for causing the confrontation. That’s horrible

Of course not. If I am very uncomfortable with anyone who mocks, insults or ridicules another human being for his/her belief, you think I am comfortable seeing someone shooting another human being? You on the other hand, seem to be very comfortable with seeing oyhers mocking and insulting the beliefs of others, so, I would not be surprising if you also feel comfortable seeing someone shooting another human being.

And you are OK with someone’s shooting that kid who sticks his tongue out because the kid started it.

I just told you NO.

Shifting focus isn’t a good approach.

It’s not shifting focus when you are stating the obvious.

The plea is in the word “please”. You didn’t have that word in your earlier claim. You had only “should” which is a recommendation. Obfuscating doesn’t erase your error.

The plea is not necessarily in the ‘please’, although the ‘please’ do give a more dramatic effect to the sentence. The plea is in his effort to save his life. Do you know you can plea for your life without uttering a single word but just from your physical expressions??

Yes, you also said that. That doesn’t change the conclusion that you drew, that I cited when you asked to what I was referring.

Yes, but you also need to understand contexts to know why a person said what he said.

Well, no, not because I say so, but because I have some experience in pedagogy and effective instruction.

Well, if it’s true you have some experience in pedagogy, then, clearly, you have learnt nothing from your experience.

But still legally protected.

Only you think it is. Other than your false interpretation of the First Amendment, you have yet to show me any unequivocal statement that says offending others is legally protected.

Until you can see the difference between a priori restraint and causes of action after the fact, you won’t understand the meaning of the first amendment. What you have written here shows a lack of said knowledge.

Well, I don’t expect anyone who said the First Amendment Clause unequivocally allows the absolute freedom to mock the beliefs of others, to be able to see the difference between a priori restraint and causes of action after the fact either.

I'm not sure why you call the example "classic" but thank you -- it is a very stark demonstration of the point of differences in cause and effect. And someone who is focused on equating all actions and not seeing the distinction between levels of behavior has no understanding of good and evil.

I was making a facetious statement when I called your example ‘classic’, so I don’t why you are thanking me.

I answered this in both 225 and 235. You accepted that it is a right, and also said that a right without a qualifying “not an obligation” is an obligation, making the fact that eating pork is a right into an obligation.

I think we have been through this many times and again I have to ask to read my comments in context. If you cannot understand contexts, then, please quote my full statements where you think I accept obligation is a right and without quoting an obligation is an obligation, then I will be more than happy to give you a free lesson on contexts.

But you insist everyone knows and acknowledges a singular version of it and you have access to that? That’s hilarious.

LOL, you are hilarious! No, I am not insisting that everyone knows and acknowledges a singular version of it and I have access to that – again, making claims on my behalf when I have never made such a claim. I guess old habits die hard.

 

[Muffled]

It's not that you should respect Muhammad per se but you have to respect that Muslims give him respect and what is insult to them.

I believe I try to get Muslims to take a more reasonable approach to Mohammed. People can be thin skinned and be insulted by even the most innocuous things.

 

[Muffled]

Well unless you have words of condemnation of the lgbt crowd from Mary how can you claim that her support for it is slander?

I believe it would be a question of whether she was following Jewish law or not. I believe the assumption is that because she was favored of God that she would not go against God's will. Saying that she would, would be considered blasphemy but I doubt it would work as slander. I suppose the slander would be against those who believe Mary was faithful to God.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus worshiped YHWH.
Christians worship Jesus.

Jesus worshiped the same God as Jews because, yes, he was a Jew.

Christians don't worship the same God as Jews and which Jesus did.

Christians deviated away from the God of Israel.

I believe that is false.

 

[danieldemol]

I suppose the slander would be against those who believe Mary was faithful to God.

The meaning of slander is to author something untrue about a person which defames their character.
Doing a rainbow halo over Mary isn't making mention of the people who believe in Mary at all, and I think such a suggestion shows how desperate you are to convict in the absence of evidence.

 

[rosends]

Seriously ? Read again and try to understand what the Supreme Court Justice really said, and NOT understand it by what you want him to say.

He “really” said “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.””

So the expression of an idea that society is offensive is protected.

When reading, try to understand the context of the sentence. I know reading out of context comes natural to you, but try. When you are referring to the followers of a Faith, and unless you specify otherwise, you ARE referring to ALL the followers of the Faith. It’s common sense that even kids can understand.

If you are going to repeatedly insert your personal vision for what you think things mean, ignoring what is actually said, then there is no use in discussing anything with you. If you omit words, you omit ideas. Jumping to the conclusion you want, regardless of the actual words chosen is an expression of willful ignorance.

I think I specifically said “What offend the Muslims is the degradation of their Prophet in any way or form”. So, when I said “I can assure you all Muslims are offended when their Prophet be degraded in any way or form”, it means all those Muslims who see caricatures, cartoons of Muhammad as a degradation of their Prophet, will be offended. Try to see the ‘qualifying word or phrase’ when reading a sentence – something which you seem unable to do. Thanks for the confirmation.

Your statement: "all Muslims are offended when their Prophet be degraded in any way or form"
Your explanation of what you meant "all those Muslims who see caricatures, cartoons of Muhammad as a degradation of their Prophet, will be offended"
Your application to the argument at hand, "is upsetting the sentiments of all the followers of a certain faith"
and "if you are offended by my actions which provoked you and the followers of your Faith"
So you now want to read in a qualifying statement to the statement you made in post 196 and 209? In post 240 you clearly said that it meant "all the followers" not just some.

So since this guy didn’t see that the pictures of Muhammed is offensive, then not all followers see it as offensive. You can dance around that all you want, but you are insisting on 100% agreement, and you don’t have it because I gave an exception.

Like I said before, intolerant is more of a human nature, that is, the unwillingness to compromise or to tolerate something. If there’s such a law passed by the authority forbidding the use of a particular bridge, you don’t really interpret that as the law ‘is intolerant of the bridge’, but you interpret that as the authority being sensitive to the safety of the people – laws are passed to protect and give fairness and equal rights to the people.

I interpret the law to state that the state cannot tolerate the bridge - it cannot abide its continued existence and use. You can twist the wording all you want to fit your interpretation.

Faith does not dictate what God should do or should not do, Faith is what keeps you believing in God and to lead your life by His rules.

I don’t recall recommending what God should do, just what he does.

Thar’s just your screwed-up interpretation, but as written, it says nothing about absolute freedom for one to mock, insult the faiths of others. Are you aware the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam ?? Defaming Muhammad does not fall under purview of free speech, European court rules

Label it however you want. As written, it says that there is an absolute protection for speech. The ECHR ruling about what a woman said (unrelated to American law) brings up 2 points you might want to consider:


1. If what the teacher did was legally actionable, someone should have pursued a legal recourse instead of killing him.

2. Paragraph 557 tells of another case in which the court found that, regarding ““the critical perspective of a non-believer with regard to religion in the socio-political sphere”, the Court did not perceive an insulting tone to the comments aimed directly at believers, or an abusive attack against sacred symbols, in particular against Muslims, even if, on reading the book, they could nonetheless feel offended by the caustic commentary on their religion.”


So being offended is not a cause of action under article 10 if the context (like, an educational discussion) presents it as part of a discussion of religion in the socio-political sphere, like, for example, a civics class.

To things –

or not “to things”

1. In an earlier response, you wrote “The wording of the 1st amendment happens to be unequivocal saying ‘no law’…”. Here, you misinterpreted “no law” as the unequivocal term allowing absolute freedom of speech to mock, when in fact, the “no law” is part of the Establishment Clause, which have nothing to do with the absolute freedom of speech, but have a lot to do with freedom of religions.

so the phrase “no law” does not refer to other clauses in the amendment? Really? So there is no actual statement in the first amendment about freedom of speech because “no law” doesn’t apply? The “or” has no value to you? Wow.

Nothing else to say then. If you want to take “no law” and say it ONLY applies to the Establishment Clause then the rest of the amendment is worthless as it is included for no reason.

Sure you can, but then, you are NOT quoting the First Amendment Clause, you are just pulling out excerpts from the First Amendment. However, you said you quoted the First Amendment Clause, which you did, and then said you are not quoting the Establishment Clause, which is nonsense because you cannot quote the First Amendment Clause without specifying the Establishment Clause too – the two are the ‘ying and yang’ of the First Amendment Clause.

You have just invented something else. The First Amendment includes:
The establishment clause prohibiting the establishment of a religion, the prohibition against limiting free expression of religion, the prohibition against limiting freedom of speech, the prohibition against limiting the freedom of the press, and prohibitions against limiting freedom of assembly and petitioning the government. The two are only part of a series of a few expressions of free speech, not a yin and/or yang which would assert the two are seemingly contrary but in fact, in balance with each other. And since you insist that “no law” doesn’t apply beyond the Establishment Clause, there is no value to saying that any other part can be in balance with the Establishment Clause (and what’s a “First Amendment Clause”? The whole thing is the First Amendment).

Is the Shema which you are supposed to recite twice daily valid if you just recite certain parts and omit some other parts?

That depends on a variety of variables. In some cases, yes, it is. You might want to stop bringing up Jewish law and philosophy as you are clearly unfamiliar with it.

So, you remember your father as someone who ‘happens to be dead’? OK. Please take note, I am not talking about your father, I am talking about you and how respectful you are to your late father.

It is better than remembering him as someone who “is still alive” because he isn’t. But this would not make sense to someone who dismisses murder victims as “no longer around” (post 222).

So again, according to you, is being protected by some laws more important than for you to abide to the teachings of your faith, Judaism ??

You do realize that in this era of COVID, some local governments have banned all religious gatherings as part of total shut downs and this has meant that Jews cannot follow the dictates of religion and prayed in groups. For many of us, this has made us choose abiding by law rather than following a requirement of our religion. Some have rebelled against local law and have assembled anyway, and have been taken to task by religious leadership for breaking the civil law. Again, you should stop bringing up Jewish law.

Now just because you cannot tell when a wait time spent at traffic lights is too long or unreasonable, does not make it unlawful to go against a broken traffic light.

It actually does. The law is still the law.

rosends said: ↑

And, as you insist that there is a universal instinctive knowledge of how long is too long, this makes sense to you. Others who might disagree with it lack your access to a universal version of right and wrong. Got it.

àNo, I never insist on that, but, yes, there is a universal instinctive knowledge of right and wrong and to deny that is plain ignorance.

So, yes, you do insist it. And you did so in post 240 also when you wrote “the instinctive knowledge to know how long is too long IS part of that universal knowledge of right and wrong “

For example, you have always presented your case of offending the beliefs of others from the legal right perspective, but you have never (as far as I can remember) presented that from the moral perspective. Why? Because deep down in you, you still have a tiny strand of instinctive knowledge of right and wrong that tells you to offend the beliefs of others is (morally) wrong.

Um, no, though creating straw men seems to work for you. I haven’t discussed the moral perspective because it is immaterial in a discussion of murder.

Of course, it isn’t the same. ‘Asking for it’ would mean you knew you will get shot if you stick your tongue out to him, and yet you STILL stick your tongue out to him – now, that’s really stupid and asking for it.

And the victim blaming continues.

Now why would you blame the victim of a rape just because she’s wearing a short skirt? Rapists are those who just cannot keep their ’libidos’ and lusts in check - it got nothing to do with how the girls or women dress and rapists can be anyone, even the elects.

Good, so even if she knows that she will get raped because of what she wears, we shouldn’t blame her. Or is it “stupid” and she is just “asking for it” like someone who sticks his tongue out and gets shot?

 

[rosends]

Of course not. If I am very uncomfortable with anyone who mocks, insults or ridicules another human being for his/her belief, you think I am comfortable seeing someone shooting another human being? You on the other hand, seem to be very comfortable with seeing oyhers mocking and insulting the beliefs of others, so, I would not be surprising if you also feel comfortable seeing someone shooting another human being.

You seem comfortable equating behavior that is not nice with behavior that is not legal, and saying that one can explain the other in some sort of logical way. I'm comfortable following the law and pursuing infractions by applying law and not excusing anyone's turning vigilante.

I just told you NO.

Good, then stop trying to explain away murder as the fault of the kid who sticks his tongue out, let alone one who shows a picture and has no reason to know that this will lead to his being murdered.

It’s not shifting focus when you are stating the obvious.

Actually, shifting focus is shifting focus regardless of whatever reason you want to concoct.

The plea is not necessarily in the ‘please’, although the ‘please’ do give a more dramatic effect to the sentence. The plea is in his effort to save his life. Do you know you can plea for your life without uttering a single word but just from your physical expressions??

Sure, just not from the word “should” which is a recommendation, and the word you used. Or did you have some sort of physical expression when you typed it that I should know about?

Well, if it’s true you have some experience in pedagogy, then, clearly, you have learnt nothing from your experience.

That would be your opinion. My success at my profession says otherwise.

Only you think it is.

Well me and the supreme court.

Other than your false interpretation of the First Amendment, you have yet to show me any unequivocal statement that says offending others is legally protected.

The first amendment, as written is unequivocal. You haven’t shown otherwise. Later court cases have interpreted the language, but the language is written without equivocation unless you can show me some.

LOL, you are hilarious! No, I am not insisting that everyone knows and acknowledges a singular version of it and I have access to that – again, making claims on my behalf when I have never made such a claim. I guess old habits die hard.

Ah, so not everyone knows and acknowledges a singular version? Or you DON’T have access to it? If my claim was wrong, then which of these other alternatives is right? Either way, it proves my point.


At this point you have shown an ignorance of the first amendment and laws in general, a lack of understanding about Jewish law (which you keep trying and failing to bring in to prove something), a lack of self-awareness about your position and a real ignorance of how communication in general and teaching in specific work. If you want to continue to chase your tail and repeat the same errors, feel free. You really should take a step back from your claims about some universal right and wrong that you know and anyone who has “common sense” also knows. You should stop trying to excuse illegal violence by citing some “immoral behavior” based on a vision of a “universal instinct” that everyone shares, or should.

A man was killed. He was murdered because he taught a class (engaging in a behavior covered in paragraph 557 of article 10) and engaged in dialogue, even though he allowed those who might be offended to walk out. He was murdered because some people who weren’t even there felt that their being offended trumped the demands of the law. There is no context, no justification and no excuse that makes the decision to be violent rational. You should quit while you are behind, but you won’t, so I will bow out and let you get whatever “last statements” you want in, unopposed. I have tried to explain and educate honestly, citing sources and quoting directly with attribution but you have been more comfortable running around, shifting your point and trying to explain what you meant, regardless of what you said. Have fun with that.

 

[JerryMyers]

You should quit while you are behind, but you won’t, so I will bow out and let you get whatever “last statements” you want in, unopposed. I have tried to explain and educate honestly, citing sources and quoting directly with attribution but you have been more comfortable running around, shifting your point and trying to explain what you meant, regardless of what you said. Have fun with that.

I thought I will start with this interesting twist from your normal style of response.

Normally, people will say, ‘You should quit while you are ahead”, but you, being you, said “You should quit while you are behind” – that’s hilarious !!

So you want to bow out and let me have my last statements in, unopposed ?? Why, that’s very noble of you but, I seriously doubt it. Let’s see how noble you are and whether you are a man of your words and bow out gracefully or is this just one of those empty talks of yours ?? Well, you can prove me wrong, or as always, you can prove me right. So, here are my “last statements” or rather my last responses (depending whether you are a man of your words or not) to your last comments -

You seem comfortable equating behavior that is not nice with behavior that is not legal, and saying that one can explain the other in some sort of logical way. I'm comfortable following the law and pursuing infractions by applying law and not excusing anyone's turning vigilante.

Yes, behavior that is not nice are normally behavior that is not legal too, so, yes, I am comfortable equating the two. Maybe for someone who need the law to tell him when he can feel comfortable and when he cannot feel comfortable, equating behavior that is not nice with behavior that is not legal may be difficult for him to do…. Maybe he need the law to tell him that too..

Good, then stop trying to explain away murder as the fault of the kid who sticks his tongue out, let alone one who shows a picture and has no reason to know that this will lead to his being murdered.

Murder ? fault of the kid who sticks his tongue out ?? What are you talking about here ?? I thought in your ‘classic’ example, you were using yourself as the one who stick his tongue out, but now, it’s the kid ?? Or are you just stating the obvious – you know, you and 'the kid' are one and the same person ??

Actually, shifting focus is shifting focus regardless of whatever reason you want to concoct.

Right, just like shooting is shooting regardless of whether you are shooting tin cans or shooting another human being – great logic !!

Sure, just not from the word “should” which is a recommendation, and the word you used. Or did you have some sort of physical expression when you typed it that I should know about?

We are talking about the word ‘please’ which you insist is where the plea is, and I proved to you, that is not necessarily so. Are you trying to shift focus ??

That would be your opinion. My success at my profession says otherwise.

What profession is that ? Spreading hate and tensions by encouraging people to offend, mock and insult others ?? Yup, I can see you are quite successful in that.

Well me and the supreme court.

In your dreams, maybe.

The first amendment, as written is unequivocal. You haven’t shown otherwise. Later court cases have interpreted the language, but the language is written without equivocation unless you can show me some.

That’s what you want to believe. Maybe in your dreams, that is so - that’s ok as no law ever prohibits anyone from dreaming. So, carry on.

Ah, so not everyone knows and acknowledges a singular version? Or you DON’T have access to it? If my claim was wrong, then which of these other alternatives is right? Either way, it proves my point.

Let me see - I wrote, “No, I am not insisting that everyone knows and acknowledges a singular version of it and I have access to that….”, and you understand that as ‘so not everyone knows and acknowledges a singular version’. OK, but then, ‘not insisting’ does not mean the non-existence of a universal right and wrong and the instinctive knowledge of right and wrong, just like if you are not insisting Biden had won the election does not mean he lost the Election, but you are right in one thing – either way, it proves you lack logical thinking and common sense.

At this point you have shown an ignorance of the first amendment and laws in general, a lack of understanding about Jewish law (which you keep trying and failing to bring in to prove something), a lack of self-awareness about your position and a real ignorance of how communication in general and teaching in specific work. If you want to continue to chase your tail and repeat the same errors, feel free. You really should take a step back from your claims about some universal right and wrong that you know and anyone who has “common sense” also knows. You should stop trying to excuse illegal violence by citing some “immoral behavior” based on a vision of a “universal instinct” that everyone shares, or should.
A man was killed. He was murdered because he taught a class (engaging in a behavior covered in paragraph 557 of article 10) and engaged in dialogue, even though he allowed those who might be offended to walk out. He was murdered because some people who weren’t even there felt that their being offended trumped the demands of the law. There is no context, no justification and no excuse that makes the decision to be violent rational.

First of all, I have never supported murder, violence or any senseless killing. In fact, I don’t even support anything that can lead to potential murder, violence or senseless killing. I am just stating a fact which you are trying to deny. For every action, there’s a reaction – familiar with that ? When put that simple saying in our everyday life, it means, for every behavioral action, there are consequences, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

So, if you are really serious about making this world a better place for everyone, irrespective of race, beliefs or color, then, you need to focus on both sides of the divide, don’t just focus on the reactions or consequences, but, also focus on the actions that trigger the reactions because common sense should tell you, you cannot have a reaction if you don’t have an action. The lesson we all can learn from that simple sayings is we should think and reflect before we act or say anything. Showing caricatures or cartoons of Muhammad may be fine with US laws, but that does not cancel the reactions and consequences (violent or non-violent) of displaying such images. Just because you find comfort and joy in offending, mocking, and upset the sentiments of others, you think you can simply go out and offend, mock or stick your tongue out at anyone (that’s hilarious) and expect no reactions or any consequences ?? Maybe in your dream world, that’s how it works, but that’s not how it works in the real world. So, wake up and grow up !! Don’t be like your hero, the lame-duck Trump who cannot accept reality and continues to rant of electoral frauds.