World events

Yeah, yeah and Hitler was vegetarian. So what?

My point is: I believe that only domination-free discourse (agression-free principle) can result in any progress in the long term. Therefore I always have to acknowledge my copunterpart as my equal without regard to his world view as long as his faring with me is likewise. No tolerance for intolerance.

Therefore I dislike bad behaviour while hiding away in the net's anonymity.

We owe some respect to our religious fellows that are of good will.

My model here is the discourse between the agnostic philosopher Jürgen Habermas and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

That's all

Volker

But you seem to contradict yourself, my Captain.
Steven's initial remark, which prompted your outburst never addressed any individual but humorously connected two religious symbols, hence cannot possibly be construed as disrespectful even in your own post above (I strongly doubt Jesus, Ishtar or the Easter Bunny took offense).

Now if some individuals should elect (!) to take offense at Steven's statement, then that would be their choice. But that couldn't possibly reflect badly on the maker of the statement as being disrespectful towards that individual! And moreover, how could one *possibly* weigh each an all consequence, imagined or not, of any statement to have any potential bearing on any and all belief, value or conviction? Would it be just as disrespectful to make such a statement (the chocolaty one) about freedom of speech! About Death? About the Yeti? About representational democracy?

I hold that the difference between "you are a manipulative, sick fuck" is FUNDAMENTALLY different from "Mohammed was a manipulative, sick fuck".

Whether or not one agrees with your non-aggression approach (I personally think it's well-intentioned, but disagree strongly with it as a structural approach but that's an entirely different subject (which I'll be happy to entertain and discuss if required)), the simple fact of the matter is that no person has the RIGHT not to feel offended (note the subtle change I made to Pullman's axiom there).

And exactly there is where we part ways: the very fact that 'Mohammed' is mentioned seems to trigger a knee-jerk reaction (on pretty much anyone's side). This particular case is interesting (I chose my example carefully), because there is absolutely no doubt that the historical war lord Mohammed WAS a manipulative, sick fuck on the level of Dzenghis Khan or China's Band Of Four.

But oddly no one seems to think twice about calling Stalin a sick, manipulative fuck, even though he is quite literally (still) revered throughout Russia and its satellite states as a saint!

Therefore the conclusion is inescapable that it's not the discourse or the epithets that really matter: it's the actual object! It *matters* whether you refer to Kim Jong Un or to Jesus!
And that worries me.
What you may consider cultivation and proper purpose to me may seem appeasement and fear. Not all parties are always equal. Not all values are always equally proper.

You are very correct that in all communication, no matter the cultural context or background, as a matter of general principle the responsibility lies with both sender and receiver.
But my sense is that especially in cases of religion, there is an inordinate amount of responibility currently on the shoulders of the sender, while the receivers, at times quite literally, get away with murder.

...which, incidentally, is veering away rather diametrically from Steven's quite innocent, humorous post on chocolate and messiahs. But then I sense that your response to that had less to do with that particular post (which to my mind would have been a case of slightly overreacting), but with the principle of the thing which we are discussing now. (I may be wrong, of course!)

Exactly. Vegetarians are anti-Semitic.

To Martijn:



(I'm feeling lazy, as you can see.)

Gee! I take all this effort composing proper, cogent and coherent answers and arguments, and all I get (more or less) is a "ditto" and a "whatever".

See if I ever get involved in any discussion again!




Ya did...but I thought it would have been really petty of me to comment on it (although that sadly entailed me also deleting a really awful pun about surfing <purposes> on a public board. So thanks for mentioning it anyway! )

NOT helping.

Something to make EVERYONE happy!

I guess if that was given for Communion, religion would have much more followers today

Mwah!

When I read things like this I am ashamed to be anti-dictatorship myself.

Stop it! Stop taking liberal, democratic culture downstream!

Okay, I'll stop now.

My God, that dickhead is announcing today that he got the ok to launch nuclear weapons against the US. Somebody kill the little-dick prick!

It's just war rhetorics. I doubt anything is actually going to happen this way or that way, even though the rhetorics might be a bit more intense than under his father's rule.

Do I remember rightly that when he was first shown off to people there was a level of (short-lived) optimism that he may be a person to do business with?