Pakistan wants Facebook CEO Zuckerberg dead

[Bobby Sands]

^^they just like to thank each others posts

its like one big circle jerk

 

[THEV1LL4N]

locus of control.

 

[Tha_Wood]

this went off topic with the first response lol

 

[Synful*Luv]

Originally.. you were talking about what is offensive.

As a general rule of thumb I try not to attack a person social identity. Race, religion and sexual preference. That's just me though.

*edit* Unless I'm trying to offend them.

But then Sebastian changed the topic slightly by saying:

Race and sexual preference are not in the same category with religion though.

And he defended that topic with:

Nah, thats not what i meant. I wasnt talking about the most offensive topics.

What i mean is, its okay to criticise someone for their belief or political view because the person actually chooses to see things that way. Or the person could change the point of view if he/she really wanted to.

Now its a totally different thing with race and sexual preference. Last time i checked i couldnt pick my sexual preference.

However at this time you were still referring to what is offensive or not, while he was referring to race and sexual preference not being in the same category as religion. This is what you posted right before his other post that I just quoted:

Really? I have to humbly disagree. If I made a top ten list of offensive topics I think religion would be close to the top if not number 1. Along with political views...etc.

Then you tried to pull the topic back in your original direction with this:

But in regards to where to draw the line as to whats offensive and whats not....you're attacking someones social identity.

Now we get to the quote that I thanked.

Okay, so Sebastian quoted you.. the last quote that I posted from you. And he said:

Yeah, well, if you want to see it this way, religion might be part of someones social identity. However, i cant see any reason why you shouldnt attack a part of someones social identity (which is his/her religion in this example). You didnt give an explanation to this either. You just said you dont do it.

Its offensive to them. So what? Im definitely not walking around telling everybody i dont agree with them on some issue. But something being offensive is not really the question to ask here. So, yeah, both of you are not making any point. At all.

My interpretation of his above post is that he was going along with your original post and saying fine, religion can be in the same category as race and sexual preference with regards to what's offensive. But rather or not it's offensive isn't the point. Now that we've (or you guys) have established the point that it's offensive..what's next? or in his words "So what?" He also makes a purpose of stating that he doesn't go around telling people that he doesn't agree with them constantly or I guess he doesn't go around purposefully insulting people.

I agree with my interpretation of his post. Rather that's what he meant or not.. IDK. But it's how I read into it. Fine, it's offensive. So.. now what? Should we all make nice and never post or say anything that might offend someone? Do we throw all rules out the window and say whatever we want? What's the next step?. I wasn't thanking the part about his conceding to your point of social identity. Social identity is just a theory anyway.. not a definition. So technically, anything (like Casey's post stated) can be a part of someone's social identity. But I still wouldn't put race and sexual preference in the same category with religion and politics. It's like.... do you settle down with someone because they are only attractive (the equivalent of race and sexual preference.. something they were born with) or because they have a good personality or are funny (Something that they can control).

That's why I thanked the post. lol

 

[Casey]

its like one big circle jerk

I guess you're the expert on that.

 

[tHuG $TyLe]

Thanking is mad homo yo.

 

[Bobby Sands]

I guess you're the expert on that.

indeed i am.

 

[Casey]

indeed i am.

Did your priest show you how?

 

[Bobby Sands]

^^yea

i dont want to talk about it though

 

[Sebastian]

Originally.. you were talking about what is offensive.



But then Sebastian changed the topic slightly by saying:



And he defended that topic with:


However at this time you were still referring to what is offensive or not, while he was referring to race and sexual preference not being in the same category as religion. This is what you posted right before his other post that I just quoted:



Then you tried to pull the topic back in your original direction with this:



Now we get to the quote that I thanked.

Okay, so Sebastian quoted you.. the last quote that I posted from you. And he said:



My interpretation of his above post is that he was going along with your original post and saying fine, religion can be in the same category as race and sexual preference with regards to what's offensive. But rather or not it's offensive isn't the point. Now that we've (or you guys) have established the point that it's offensive..what's next? or in his words "So what?" He also makes a purpose of stating that he doesn't go around telling people that he doesn't agree with them constantly or I guess he doesn't go around purposefully insulting people.

I agree with my interpretation of his post. Rather that's what he meant or not.. IDK. But it's how I read into it. Fine, it's offensive. So.. now what? Should we all make nice and never post or say anything that might offend someone? Do we throw all rules out the window and say whatever we want? What's the next step?. I wasn't thanking the part about his conceding to your point of social identity. Social identity is just a theory anyway.. not a definition. So technically, anything (like Casey's post stated) can be a part of someone's social identity. But I still wouldn't put race and sexual preference in the same category with religion and politics. It's like.... do you settle down with someone because they are only attractive (the equivalent of race and sexual preference.. something they were born with) or because they have a good personality or are funny (Something that they can control).

That's why I thanked the post. lol

Exactly, you got it right (i dont agree with your last analogy but thats besides the point).

Im still waiting for a reply regarding the issue you and i are mentioning.

 

[Duke]

What's that? A book? Isn't that what caused the problems in the first place? Wait... no, first and foremost is the stupidity of some humans, but second is the book they follow blindly and literally. How do people learn moral values? Books? School? Parents? Each of those three ways can vary to an infinitesimally small extent and still cause the same problems religion causes today.

Books? You show "Morality for Dummies." Won't there then be a "Morality Demystified?" "Morality Cliffnotes" "Morality Sparknotes?" Each say the same thing in different words, yet people will fight over the proper way to say it all.

Schools? Then schools become exclusive "fraternities" or societies and with the number of schools in the world, each teaching "morality" on a different level (think private schools and then public schools and the methods used to teach it) we're, again, looking at different schools of thought. Which is what religion is.

Don't be stupid, Jokerman didn't actually mean a book with that picture.

How do people learn moral values?

Society. Ourselves. Not books, not religion, not law. Those are mere consequences of what we are. Not reasons.

Understand that. Chimpansees have no books, no written laws and (as far as we know) no religion. Yet they don't bash each other's head in in the social circle of their own tribe. Why?

Social evolution.

 

[keco52]

I just typed up a long response and it got deleted. :evil:

Anyway...my original and ONLY point was that it's offensive. No IDGAF if you say offensive things. I don't care that Casey wants to kill Allah. I didn't care when whoever said n*gger...repeatedly. I'm all for freedom of speech. But obviously some members do care bc they left and the n-word was censored and another member was banned. I was using this thread to point out the hypocrisy on the board (like someone else mentioned older members mouthing off bc they've been here longer) Where the line is drawn is common sense to me. You respect ppls differences. Either the rules be enforced...or we say whatever we want.

 

[keco52]

Understand that. Chimpansees have no books, no written laws and (as far as we know) no religion. Yet they don't bash each other's head in in the social circle of their own tribe. Why?

Social evolution.

They bash neighboring tribes when they want to expand their territory

 

[Duke]

I just typed up a long response and it got deleted. :evil:

Anyway...my original and ONLY point was that it's offensive. No IDGAF if you say offensive things. I don't care that Casey wants to kill Allah. I didn't care when whoever said n*gger...repeatedly. I'm all for freedom of speech. But obviously some members do care bc they left and the n-word was censored and another member was banned. I was using this thread to point out the hypocrisy on the board (like someone else mentioned older members mouthing off bc they've been here longer) Where the line is drawn is common sense to me. You respect ppls differences. Either the rules be enforced...or we say whatever we want.

I don't think anyone ever denied that "fuck allah", "fuck islam", "fuck pakistan" or whatever isn't offensive.

It's just that sometimes there's a solid reason to say it and people like Casey and me aren't going to tread on glass to avoid hurting people's feelings who we think are wrong anyway for making such a meal out of it.

Like Gotti said a few times: Yes, it's offensive but there's more important shit to worry about. If someone really thinks a slight offense is more important and relevant than *insert real global topic here*, they should just kill themselves :thumb:

 

[Farzin]

Holy shit this thread is still going?

Duke give me a quick recap of what I missed since page 10 or so lol

 

[Duke]

They bash neighboring tribes when they want to expand their territory

That's a tribe vs. tribe situation, though. We humans still wage war as well.

Globalisation is moving towards one tribe: humanity. That is the way forward.

 

[Synful*Luv]

I just typed up a long response and it got deleted. :evil:

Anyway...my original and ONLY point was that it's offensive. No IDGAF if you say offensive things. I don't care that Casey wants to kill Allah. I didn't care when whoever said n*gger...repeatedly. I'm all for freedom of speech. But obviously some members do care bc they left and the n-word was censored and another member was banned. I was using this thread to point out the hypocrisy on the board (like someone else mentioned older members mouthing off bc they've been here longer) Where the line is drawn is common sense to me. You respect ppls differences. Either the rules be enforced...or we say whatever we want.

Hey, no reason to be upset, especially if this is directed towards me. LOL I was simply responding to your question.

You questioned rather I actually understood the post.. or if I was going around thanking people that also don't believe in god.

or do you guys just go through and thank all the ppl who don't believe in god bc that's really what it seems like.

There was evidence that seemed to support your accusation, so I simply took the time to get the facts straight and explain my line of thinking. *shrug* Isn't that what a rational person does when faced with a question? I wasn't looking for an explanation from you at all.. I was just explaining my interpretation of Sebation's post and why I thanked it. :amuse:

 

[Duke]

Holy shit this thread is still going?

Duke give me a quick recap of what I missed since page 10 or so lol

People caught feelings, got called out on it, and caught more feelings.

Some prominent non-muslim members caught even more feelings on some pathetic principal tip.


It kinda evolved from the Pakistan topic to how people look at it and the criticism about it.

 

[Pittsey]

They bash neighboring tribes when they want to expand their territory

And they do bash members of their own "tribe" in when the urge takes them. Poor analogy by Duke. Chimps are one of the most brutal animals on the planet. Recent studies have shown chimps to be extremely sadistic, and to rape and beat other chimps for fun. It is also the hardest chimp who rules the group, until he gets too old when a younger chimp, usually a blood relative will smash his head in. Not a society I would enjoy, I'd prefer the Christians.

 

[Pittsey]

I don't think people have a right to be immune to being offended just because they're religious. We have a moral duty to think, and religious people have stopped being moral at the point where they've stopped thinking about something and just accept it on faith. If you don't kill or steal or cheat on your spouse because of your religion or fear of god or hell, you are an unthinking immoral fool that needs to have their shit called out. You need to be made an example of as much as possible. )

Why?

I agree it's a ridiculous reason to be a decent human being. But I also don't think most religious people obey a moral code just because their holy book says so. They genuinely try to help others, not because they fear punishment. There are exceptions, such as extremism. But that isn't the norm.


I also don't think anyone should make it their "job" to educate others about their religion. To be a normal functioning member of society you need to be accepting.... And not be so opinionated. People are different, so what....