Any PASTAFARIS out there?

[Alex_from_NZ]

15 minutes ago, Dingfelder said:

 

Funny, I haven't talked to one Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Bahai (sp?) or agnostic, or atheist too many.  And especially Christians, it's certainly been in the thousands.  Yet I'm still fine with it.  

I can understand being sensitive, but it can go too far.  Nobody has a right to go through life with his or her ideas unopposed.

I really don't believe people should be safe from speech.  Outside of the usual "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" kind of thing.  You have to choose between having a truly free society and curtailing speech.  You can't have both at the same time.

In several European countries, people are put in jail for having opinions, writing books or articles, or even making jokes.  In Britain, a guy who goes on youtube by the name of Count Dankula found his girlfriend's dog annoying, so he played a prank on her. He taught it to raise its hand in a sort of "Sieg Heil!" nazi salute.  The video went viral.  He went to jail for bad taste.  

And of course in many countries where religion is inextricable from government, it gets much worse than that.

If such systems become our role model, we will have lost the uniqueness of our place in history as people who have never been more free.

There is always someone who wants to shut speech down "for our own good."  When the question arises as to whose speech should be stifled, virtually nobody ever leaps up to sacrifice the rights he cherishes in order to get the ball rolling and as a show of good faith.  Yet there is always unceasing clamor to sacrifice the next guy over and discard his rights.

Hate speech is not protected, nor should it ever be sorry mate.  Sounds like we just disagree on this point.

[Mono]

6 hours ago, Dingfelder said:

In several European countries, people are put in jail for having opinions, writing books or articles, ...

The only speech I know of that have gotten people into jail in Europe due to what they wrote in a book or article is denying that the holocaust happened (or anything alike closely related to the Third Reich). Do you know any other cases? This part of history is kind-of a sensitive issue on this side of the ocean, for understandably reasons even.

Quote

...or even making jokes. In Britain, a guy who goes on youtube by the name of Count Dankula found his girlfriend's dog annoying, so he played a prank on her. He taught it to raise its hand in a sort of "Sieg Heil!" nazi salute.  The video went viral.  He went to jail for bad taste.  

You are (vastly) exaggerating. He had to pay a 900 bucks fine for "racism and insult", because the judge didn't believe him that it was meant to be a joke. I tend to disagree with the judge, I tend to feel the judge didn't follow the law properly (though, how would I know whether this guy was believable), but in any case it's very few people if any who go to jail for "bad taste" in Europe.

[Mono]

10 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

I need to preface this by saying I believe ridiculing people's legit beliefs is the same as ridiculing them.

Then essentially all of satire, stand-up comedy etc must be off limits for you?

I think we must keep people clearly separate from ideas in that it is a fundamental consequence of free speech that ideas are fair game to viciously attack, ridicule or destroy or reason against their legitimacy. Many of these we can't allow happening to people.

14 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

I again disagree. And again I'll use the kkk example. If you run with a bunch of racists, your going to be seen as racist. Whether or not you utter racist statements, your support of the racist group paints you as a racist. 

Attribution by association would make any catholic man a misogynist, and someone secretly tolerating child rape if done by certain privileged people, and the list would go on and on and on.

6 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Hate speech is not protected, nor should it ever be sorry mate.  Sounds like we just disagree on this point.

The funny thing with hate speech is that it protects people from being attacked based on attributes they cannot possibly change (which looks like a legitimate protection), except for one attribute: religion.

This showcases the legitimate concern many people share: in the marketplace of doctrines, philosophies, politics, and ideas in general, religion gets special pleading protection against being attacked.

[Alex_from_NZ]

Devil's advocate and all.. 

50 minutes ago, Mono said:

Then essentially all of satire, stand-up comedy etc must be off limits for you?

I think we must keep people clearly separate from ideas in that it is a fundamental consequence of free speech that ideas are fair game to viciously attack, ridicule or destroy or reason against their legitimacy. Many of these we can't allow happening to people.

 

No, and for me the difference i feel really boils down to two things..

1. Pastafarianism is trying to define itself as an actual religion. 
2. By doing so they are wanting license to bring their satire (at the expense of others) into social settings it doesn't belong.  Forcing their views/satire onto others.

I personally expect to be a potential victim of satire at a comedy club, with friends or maybe at a show.  Not at school or work.

Quote

Attribution by association would make any catholic man a misogynist, and someone secretly tolerating child rape if done by certain privileged people, and the list would go on and on and on.

1

I'm not here to defend religion.  BUUUT...  The Misogyny ill give you because i really don't know enough about the dogma to comment, but I'll take your word for it that it is still a fundamental part of modern Catholicism. 

But the child rape, although I'm not disputing it happened and was covered up and all that horrible shit, was never a core part of the religion itself.  It was done by bad actors within (many, maaany bad actors - not defending here in any way to be clear) the organization who used the organization to do it, and people who tried to cover it up for a variety of reasons.  Stupid motherfuckers.  But, ive never met a Catholic who condones their actions when presented with what happened, and from what i know the last couple of Popes at least have spoken out against the abuses of the past and, at least publically, have been seen to be working to rid their flocks of such black sheep.   

Sorry, got carried away with the puns there.  My point being though is bad actors will always find ways to commit their sins.  Huh, guess i had one more in me..

Jimmy Saville? That Epstein fella?  Blimmin Cosby man, like wtf!? It's sad, but the world is full of some pretty vile people.  But we can't let the few ruin or define it for the many.  Otherwise, none of us would be ever riding EUCs, skateboards, having strip clubs, bars or anything the fun in life.

Quote

The funny thing with hate speech is that it protects people from being attacked based on attributes they cannot possibly change (which looks like a legitimate protection), except for one attribute: religion.

 

Look, I'm atheist with a bit of Agnostic thrown in so I get what you're saying here in a sense.  

But look at it from the other perspective.  Someone who truly believes, like truly believes.  They don't feel they have any possible way to change. To do so would be to send them to eternal damnation. A fate literally called Hell.

I'm postulating here, but I'm betting this is the main reason its protected.

Quote

This showcases the legitimate concern many people share: in the marketplace of doctrines, philosophies, politics, and ideas in general, religion gets special pleading protection against being attacked.

 

Because of the above.

But we are adults, and we are capable of drawing the line using reasonable logic. 

Jokes about your mum going to Church for the prayer karma before Bingo; Being Black in a White man's world; Loving the transgender monkey elephant penis on K road; or How you find it weird a lot of banks have Jewish names, when your at the Comedy Club, with friends or in private conversation...  Fine.

At work or School, where people are not choosing to be exposed to your Jokes; Disgust; Bigotry.. whatever.. not so much.

[Alex_from_NZ]

To be clear.  I don't think OP was doing any of that here and he seems like a nice guy, i have absolutely zero problems with him posting about Pastafarianism or whatever in this forum. 

This is just a thought debate at this point.  I got asked to explain what i thought and meant behind the bad taste comment, people engaged, i engaged back and here we are.  I did mention i like to argue didn't i?   

[Dingfelder]

23 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Hate speech is not protected, nor should it ever be sorry mate.  Sounds like we just disagree on this point.

There is no such thing as hate speech anyway.  And actually, aggressive speech is protected.  Here in the U.S., anyway.  And of course, aggressive speech is protected in many countries throughout the world ... so long as it is the speech that the authorities favor.  Often it is positively encouraged, or even demanded.

Isn't it interesting that the speech people want to curtail is always someone else's rather than their own?

Coincidence?  I don't think so.

 

[Dingfelder]

Re Catholics being universally against the child rape thing, the last pope was up to his eyeballs in trying to stifle the scandal and re-route the guilty.

Regarding Count Dankula, he was arrested and brought before the courts.  I was wrong about the jailing, as pointed out, though I do think he was threatened with far greater repercussions than he received.  But I agree with David Coburn's description of the treatment as horrendous.

Here is a wiki page on censorship cases in the U.K.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Specific_cases

At: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

"As of 2017, it was estimated that nine people per day were being arrested for online speech in the UK with five leading to convictions."

The BBC has a number of stories about quite a number of police being hired to monitor instagram and other social media for perceived offense, and being sent out to arrest people.  At the very least, this intimidates people into self-censorship, which should not happen where free speech is enshrined into the constitution itself.  And, in Great Britain, it is not.  That's why what cannot happen here does happen there.  I can't see that as an improvement.

I'm strongly in line with the idea that the best cure for bad speech is more speech and better speech, not forcing people to stay quiet.

[Alex_from_NZ]

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

There is no such thing as hate speech anyway.  And actually, aggressive speech is protected.  Here in the U.S., anyway.  And of course, aggressive speech is protected in many countries throughout the world ... so long as it is the speech that the authorities favor.  Often it is positively encouraged, or even demanded.

1

Not all of us live in the USA bud.  And i have no idea where you think hate speech is demanded from its citizens on a reg..  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

Isn't it interesting that the speech people want to curtail is always someone else's rather than their own?

Coincidence?  I don't think so.

 

I think you have a different definition of Hate speech than the rest of us.

[Dingfelder]

Who exactly is this rest of us?  And are you quite certain you speak for them?  I'm calling ... "baloney" on that.

At any rate, I'm sure New Zealand is no match population-wise for the U.S., nor anywhere near the influence on virtually any conceivable level, either now or anytime remotely near-future, if ever.  You are the representative of yourself alone ... IF you are lucky.  And if your speech is stolen from you by authority, you won't even have that ...

Re the other stuff, try not contributing to Hamas if you live in their territories.  Or being pro-Israel.  See ya in heaven, buddy.  Or the converse, being pro-Palestinian independence in Israel. 

North Korea is none too fond of anything less than utter adulation of the Dear Leader latest, and they have the prison camps to show it.

On a (sometimes) lesser level, try cheering for Japan or the Uighurs in China, the U.S. in Peru or any ISIS-controlled territories, speaking openly and uncritically of Sunni in Iran or Shia in any number of Sunni-controlled countries and villages across the Middle East.  Find how comfortable people are as Christians in Indonesia or as an atheist or agnostic in any highly-religious setting ... or even when running for secular public office.  In America, at least, Atheists rank no higher than Satanists in public confidence.  Hey, at least Satanists are HONEST about it, right???  As an Atheist, you are effectively disqualified in even the most free country in the history of the world merely for saying who you are.

The nastiest speech possible is rewarded around the world, so long as the people capable of doing the rewarding are either those in power or those cowed by those who are.  The most benign speech imaginable is constantly outlawed and punished by those doing it "for our own good" because they cannot be controlled and cannot control themselves.

It's not about righteousness or belief.  It's certainly not about anything remotely close to good will.  It's about power and control.

The whole human enterprise.

This too.

Do you want to fit in that badly?

[Alex_from_NZ]

Ok, thats some serious level of rambling, but ill give a shot at answering..

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

Who exactly is this rest of us?  And are you quite certain you speak for them?  I'm calling ... "baloney" on that.

 

Your calling balony on the fact we have a universal definition (linked for your benefit) of what constitutes hate speech?  OK.

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

At any rate, I'm sure New Zealand is no match population-wise for the U.S., nor anywhere near the influence on virtually any conceivable level,

 

Kick your ass at Sailing, Rugby, Netball, Actual Freedom Rankings, Per capita sheep, fuck im sure there are some other things...   But, i really dont care.  Im aware your constitution (i think) grants you the right to what many other countries would consider hate speech.  My point was simply that not all of us walk under the American banner.

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

either now or anytime remotely near-future, if ever.  You are the representative of yourself alone ... IF you are lucky.  And if your speech is stolen from you by authority, you won't even have that ...

 

"from my cold dead hands!!"   Am i doing it right?  

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

Re the other stuff, try not contributing to Hamas if you live in their territories.  Or being pro-Israel.  See ya in heaven, buddy.  Or the converse, being pro-Palestinian independence in Israel. 

North Korea is none too fond of anything less than utter adulation of the Dear Leader latest, and they have the prison camps to show it.

1

Some of that stuff i guess could be bordering on what we consider to be hate speech, so ok give ya that one.

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

On a (sometimes) lesser level, try cheering for Japan or the Uighurs in China, the U.S. in Peru or any ISIS-controlled territories, speaking openly and uncritically of Sunni in Iran or Shia in any number of Sunni-controlled countries and villages across the Middle East.  Find how comfortable people are as Christians in Indonesia or as an atheist or agnostic in any highly-religious setting ... or even when running for secular public office. 

 

Now your stretching a little..

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

In America, at least, Atheists rank no higher than Satanists in public confidence.  Hey, at least Satanists are HONEST about it, right???  As an Atheist, you are effectively disqualified in even the most free country in the history of the world merely for saying who you are.

1

Maybe because its not actually the most free country in the History of the world?

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

The nastiest speech possible is rewarded around the world, so long as the people capable of doing the rewarding are either those in power or those cowed by those who are.  The most benign speech imaginable is constantly outlawed and punished by those doi except to not make eye contact and back away slowely..ng it "for our own good" because they cannot be controlled and cannot control themselves.

It's not about righteousness or belief.  It's certainly not about anything remotely close to good will.  It's about power and control.

The whole human enterprise.

This too.

Do you want to fit in that badly?

1

This feels like a weird ramble by someone on a soapbox, im not sure what to say ehre except to not make eye contact and back away slowely...  

[Mono]

19 hours ago, Dingfelder said:

There is no such thing as hate speech anyway.

What do you mean? It seems to be well established term and concept with a long wikipedia entry. I had to lookup myself what exactly that means. I can agree that the term isn't particularly well chosen for what it is meant to represent, but that is how language sometimes works.

 

[Mono]

9 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

1. Pastafarianism is trying to define itself as an actual religion. 
2. By doing so they are wanting license to bring their satire (at the expense of others) into social settings it doesn't belong.  Forcing their views/satire onto others.

Yes, let's go with that. Now let's replace "satire" with "religion" in the second point. Then we know exactly why they want this.

I think that the second point should read more accurately "By doing so they are wanting license to bring their satire (at the expense of religions) into social settings religion doesn't belong" (changes in bold). I am sure they want this under the strongly and truly held belief that satire is less harmful than religion.

8 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

But the child rape [...] was done by bad actors within (many, maaany bad actors - not defending here in any way to be clear) the organization who used the organization to do it, and people who tried to cover it up for a variety of reasons. 

I give you the bad actors for the rape and the cover up itself. That's why I wrote "secretly tolerating child rape if done by certain privileged people". That (remain silent while knowing or suspecting), I would think, did almost every person representing the catholic church on a higher level. Let's assume I am wrong, there are tons of other examples of terrible doctrine, I am sure.

8 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

But, ive never met a Catholic who condones their actions when presented with what happened, and from what i know the last couple of Popes at least have spoken out against the abuses of the past and, at least publically, have been seen to be working to rid their flocks of such black sheep.

Fully agreed. But then, why don't you give Pastafarians you don't know the same leeway, instead of painting them with the broad brush of their supposedly group doctrine? That was my point, you surely wouldn't make the group association for catholics in the same way you seemed to have made for Pastafarians.

8 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

But look at it from the other perspective.  Someone who truly believes, like truly believes.  They don't feel they have any possible way to change. To do so would be to send them to eternal damnation. A fate literally called Hell.

True, but we know that many of them can change their mind even in this case and ridicule is one path to lead that change. To link the suffering from fear of eternal damnation to those who viciously attack and ridicule the doctrine and call out the latter instead of the doctrine seems like putting the cart before the horse.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should (must) protect children against crippling ridicule anywhere (but of course we need to protect them against religious indoctrination as well).

Yet for adults, the argument that I truly believe something to be true and if you tell me otherwise I will suffer badly cannot be a valid argument to gain special protection from ridicule. It's hard to understand, but some people truly believe that killing infidels will send them to paradise. Some people feel truly and deeply offended when a picture of their prophet surfaces. You don't think that any of those should get special protection because they are truly held beliefs and the holders don't feel it could possibly change, or do you?

8 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

At work or School, where people are not choosing to be exposed to your Jokes; Disgust; Bigotry.. whatever.. not so much.

Of course, but protection in schools and the workplace must go all ways. I bet there is only minor protection against the indoctrinations that leads children and grown ups suffer from fear going to hell.