I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics0 min ago
Russian Parliament Passes New Blasphemy Law
84 Answers
http://
Why? This can only be a retrograde step, surely?
Why? This can only be a retrograde step, surely?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro. Godwin's law is errant tripe. This (from the internet) just about sums it up:
Person A: The earth is flat
Person Z: The earth is round
Person A: The earth is flat. Look at it!
Person Z: The earth is definitely round. There's lots of scientific evidence and we have pictures from space! What's next? Are you going to say that Hitler wasn't real and the Holocaust didn't happen?
Person A: Godwin's Law!!! I win! You brought up Hitler first, so that automatically makes me right and you wrong! I knew the earth was flat!
The point, dear reader, is that, while many bad arguments have been made using Hitler, not all arguments using Hitler are actually fallacious. In fact, a good number of them are perfectly valid (though not necessarily true).
Person A: The earth is flat
Person Z: The earth is round
Person A: The earth is flat. Look at it!
Person Z: The earth is definitely round. There's lots of scientific evidence and we have pictures from space! What's next? Are you going to say that Hitler wasn't real and the Holocaust didn't happen?
Person A: Godwin's Law!!! I win! You brought up Hitler first, so that automatically makes me right and you wrong! I knew the earth was flat!
The point, dear reader, is that, while many bad arguments have been made using Hitler, not all arguments using Hitler are actually fallacious. In fact, a good number of them are perfectly valid (though not necessarily true).
Godwins Law says nothing about who is winning or who is losing an argument. All Godwins Law says, is that the longer an online debate goes on, the more likely it becomes that someone will draw an analogy involving Hitler. That says nothing about the strength or weakness of the respective arguments or analogies drawn.
I think that when someone attempts to assert Godwins Law, or in this case, Khandros Corollary, it is usually in an effort to avoid answering a question.
I think that when someone attempts to assert Godwins Law, or in this case, Khandros Corollary, it is usually in an effort to avoid answering a question.
LG, that's true, but ... //The law is sometimes invoked prescriptively to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument.//
.... and when Khandro said this...
//It never fails! when posters are getting low on sound argument they bring in either Hitler or paedophiles. //
... that would appear to be exactly what he meant.
http://
.... and when Khandro said this...
//It never fails! when posters are getting low on sound argument they bring in either Hitler or paedophiles. //
... that would appear to be exactly what he meant.
http://
If I were to *** Ian Huntley off I think most people would regard it as fair comment. Why would my slagging Mohammed off not be fair comment too, Khandro? I am truly surprised and, even more, disappointed to see you side with the enemies of free speech; I had always judged you to be an educated and civilised man.
Yours faithfully,
Muddled Communicator.
Yours faithfully,
Muddled Communicator.
v-e; The question of causing offense is a large one, and the subject of the OP in my opinion hinges on motivation.You can offend someone by telling them the truth -they might in fact BE a neighbour from hell ! but the Russian spokeswoman was talking about 'intentionally' being offensive, not to demonstrate freedom of speech, as you put it, but to publicly hurt and humiliate someone for your own gratification.
It would be similar to, on the grounds of disagreeing with someone, to publicly pour insults on their mother.
It would be similar to, on the grounds of disagreeing with someone, to publicly pour insults on their mother.
If that is the extent to which you want coercion, then I agree with you, Khandro. (A few cobwebs brushed from muddled brain - approve?). For instance I don't see banning the Orange Order from marching in predominantly Catholic areas in NI or the BNP from demonstrating outside mosques as issues of free speech. As has been pointed out (by LG I think) these are issues of public order and are covered by existing statute. Laws which give special status to religion will be used by the vile minority who are allowed (or assumed) to speak for Islam to suppress criticism. We have already seen the power that the Islamic skinheads wield. Who, for instance, has seen the Danish cartoons? A rhetorical question: could a Life of Mo ever be made? We are already afraid to upset the sensitivities of primitive morons whose knee-jerk reaction to any form of criticism is the sword and the meat cleaver. They have been allowed to get away with this and even encouraged by the likes of Rowan Williams and (whom I think of as) his spiritual wife Shirley. The latter debating the knighthood Salman Rushdie on Question Time with C. Hitchens (RIP): "I think the timing of it is regrettable". Tut, tut, tut! He (or many like him passim): ".. causing grave offence to the deepest held beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims". Blah, blah, blah. The latter remark, properly construed, is itself extremely offensive, that is to all the Muslims who are not ignorant bullies. La trahison des clercs. Some muddled thinking there, I propose.
You don't lack the intelligence and sophistication to understand this, do you, Khandro?
Pax tibiscum.
MM.
You don't lack the intelligence and sophistication to understand this, do you, Khandro?
Pax tibiscum.
MM.
@ Naomi - To clarify my comments regarding Godwins Law. I agree with you. I felt Khandro was attempting to invoke it using the Khandro corollary - Pedophiles - in order to avoid answering v_e's question.
And v_e has a far higher opinion of Khandros ability or desire for objective reasonining when it comes to defending religion or religious practice, or in this case, a blatant case of special pleading, enacting a blasphemy law as yet another means of repression and suppression.
And v_e has a far higher opinion of Khandros ability or desire for objective reasonining when it comes to defending religion or religious practice, or in this case, a blatant case of special pleading, enacting a blasphemy law as yet another means of repression and suppression.
