it is absolutely fine to make fun of the prophet muhammad (freedom of expression right) but don't you go make fun of the holocaust victims, or school shooters! do you subscribe to the idea that morality is much like a sense that can be polished and advanced to a "better stage"? how can one pinpoint what is best for "progress" or "justice" if every century or so there is a definitive shift in social/political/ideological paradigm? arent we just slaves to the momentary thought currents that dictate what is best for everyone in our efemeral historical localization?
In general, people consider it morally reprehensible to take pleasure in the suffering of others. By making fun of holocaust victims or school shootings, you're trivializing the anguish brought upon them and their families. This isn't necessarily a problem if you're a nihilist who believes that human life has no meaning, but the majority of people choose to believe that humans have innate value simply by virtue of existing. And since death is the opposite of existence, those who mock death are often ostracized by the group for being insensitive animals. Our emotional concern for the lives of our fellow humans is part of what separates us from lesser creatures. The prophet Muhammad is not (to my knowledge at least) mocked for what he is, but rather for what he believed and what he compelled others to believe. There are also people who mock him simply because it triggers Muslims. But leaving that aside, the right to disagree and criticize the thoughts of other people is ingrained into our social structure, and I daresay it is part of human nature. Schadenfreude (the technical term for taking pleasure in the suffering of others) on the other hand is a learned behaviour in 99% of cases. Therefore it only makes sense to reprimand those who display it, in the hopes that they will change said behaviour into one more socially acceptable.
Then there must be a clear definition of the border between "sheer pleasure out of someone else's suffering" and "freely expressing an idea that, for any reasons, made someone suffer". Would that be measured by how much the other person suffered? If it is an ordinary frustration and a common idea, than the offensive value is usually dismissed. But if it is a brand new concept that made someone suffer heavily then it will be stomped upon by society. It makes sense, society regulates itself to make sure that noone is freely causing suffering and discontent. But things get way too complicated when you try to classify what is actually OKAY to be said and whats UNACCEPTABLE. I think you should go "either all are ok or none are ok". This classificatory game of whats cool and whats not ends up creating an intellectual bureaucracy that is not defined by "instrinsic values of respect and freedom" but are actually what the majority of the society (and what the power structures) believes at the time to be essencially right or wrong. Repression (on a larger scale) is conducted by the State, and so repression of unaccepted movements and ideas will be highly dependent on what the current government believes or wants to adress in order to fulfil the interests of its agents or colaborators. Is there really something social or moral that is intrinsic? The right to disagree and criticize other people is a super recent achievment in human history. And it is still ilegal in some places today. Would you call these societies that censor anti-gvrnmt speeches, for instance, to be a step bellow in the "morality pyramid"?
I personally dont make fun of many things because I know lots people are sensative. On the other hand I could care less what people make fun of, I have never been offended by anyones words.
The difference is members of the religion of islam will lose their sht and go out and shoot to death people or riot over something as silly as mocking Mohammed. I think Israeli political action groups will try and put u in jail or take you to court maybe if u mock holocaust victims. You will get sht from SJW's if you mock school shootings. Those are some differences I can see between making fun of those three things.
No but a christian fanatic who watches tv and hears carly fiorina talk about planned parent hood will totally not go out and shoot the workers there the very next day. To the original post, I agree dead people good or bad shouldnt be talked about in a negative aspect period. I dont mind and infact encourage people to challenge religion whether with humour or reasonable scientific arguments, however insulting a religious symbol should be off limit. The gyst is everyone deserves respect till they prove that they dont, and ideas should always be opened to ridicule and being challenged (including but not limited to religion)
Nice that you bring up right wing terrorism but if you are going to compare islamic terrorism to right wing terrorism I think you will find that the numbers will show islamic terrorist attacks dwarf the number of right wing terrorist attacks. http://ijr.com/2016/01/518045-a-stu...rorism-then-a-real-researcher-looked-into-it/ https://apholt.com/2016/01/11/right...m-in-the-united-states-a-look-at-the-numbers/
I didnt mean to say they were anything less than a disgrace to humanity but at the same time dead people are dead, and I am just saying that whatever waits for them on the otherside good or bad we shouldnt talk about them. And to prof. ... mate I can bring up my numbers from a left wing website and we can play ring around the rosies with numbers. The point is Islam as a religion is part of the problem but christianity is the same and not very far off in terms of numbers regardless of what alex jones and co will tell you xD. Lastly all religions are brain washing machines built to make you conform to a norm and by association all of them are harmful to people because they take away ur freedom of choice.
You see in America we have something called separation of church and state. It is a safe guard to protect the people from lunatic religious fanatics who want to turn american government into a theocracy. I don't listen to Alex Jones either he is a lunatic and a puppet for Israel. You seem pretty ignorant for someone so well informed. Really religion takes away your freedom of choice? Christianity is based on choice. Choose god or not. If you don't no worries no one will chop off your head if you don't want to go to a christian church. Islam on the other hand has some very bad consequences if you choose to leave their religion. I don't see large groups of christians throwing homosexuals off buildings daily in America. Islam however makes a contest of murdering homosexuals in certain middle eastern countries. Shall I go on with my comparisons of religions? I believe you mistake me for some right wing conservative. My political identification is liberterian my flag is black and yellow.
Eh no there were just burning at the stake for free thinking women and you are just honestly either incredibly naive or blind to think that homosexuals do well in conservative christian environments. The worst sentence u spouted was that christianity is based on choice...LOL arent we all doomed to suffer hell unless we accept jesus as our lord and savior or is that also something i am misinterpreting? All in all .... all religions are bad and we would do better without them. Christianity that u seem to think is just perfect ....please google what happened between the catholics and protestants when elizabeth the first took the crown or what the crusaders did in the holy land, and thats discounting the mass shootings done today ((the one story that comes to mind is the extremely fanatical chrisitan who the media ''as always'' labelled him mentally ill walked into a gay nightclub and shot all those people, or the christian who walked into a church and started shooting at people from ''other race'' as that **** labelled them randomly.
Religion is a form of control your belief in god is manufactured by your parents and your priests and eventually you manufacture it yourself. like auto erotic asphyxiation all you are doing is choking your brain. tightening the leash to enhance your peace of mind while robbing you of a full understanding of the world. amazing how yours is a choice but those in the mirror are evil and opressive. do you honestly believe it is a god pullint your strings? As for death. there is no afterlife and to expect people to face justice after death is false. there is no suffering in death because there is nothing in death for the dead. A doctor who assissted many people in ending their life through euthanasia has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and now chose to be his own practicioner. he lives his life knowing that in time he will deteriorate to being unable to walk and live unassisted. at that point he chooses his death day to break out good wine to share with friends and family his last day. similarly it is increasingly more common for people of advanced age in their 90's and 80's to choose the day of their death rather than face a slow decline of health or mental state. In my view this is as it should be, lives lived to fullfilment and on the terms of the person living them. which makes it good and moral. How do you religious people feel about that? The United States; One nation under one or maybe many god(s) maybe under nothing we don't know anyways.... the US; One nation. Where the money has in god we trust on it because that will stop communism!
The gay nightclub shooting had nothing to do with christianity. If I remember right Omar Mateen declared allegiance to ISIS before he killed everyone and was a muslim. There is also strong evidence showing omar mateen was struggling with his own homosexuality and couldn't reconcile that with his muslim religion. It appears his family was strongly against homosexuality as muslims are to the point of murdering them in middle eastern countries. Further research will reveal that Omar's gay lover said the nightclub shooting was a revenge act against gays. Do some research.... http://time.com/4369577/orlando-shooting-sitora-yusufiy-omar-mateen-gay/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooter-omar-mateen/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13223...n-he-had-threesome-with-revealed-he-had-aids/ Dylan Roof the south carolina church shooter had no history of being religious. He did have a long history of drug use, a broken home, and child abuse. I believe those factors might had more to do with what he did than ignorantly attaching his deeds to christianity. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hase-background-check/?utm_term=.ed908ed52088 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/us/charleston-shooting-dylann-roof-troubled-past.html?_r=0 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-destroyed-violence-reports-article-1.2264715 You seem like your virtue signaling to the leftwing idiots who have turned this forum into a political echo chamber for the last few years.
I am not saying Profhulk is ignoring the overall morality in order to jump on a small detail to try and force his way through in a method he doesn't like when others use it for his far greater errors. completely ignoring that there are in fact christian factions that try to pray away the gay because they consider it a mental issue and throwing in some of his right wing buzzwords at the end. But do none of you want to contest the moral good of euthanasia?
Yes, I would. There is nothing good about a judge granting parents the permission to euthanize their 12 year old daughter (first article). I get the daughter's conditions were extremely difficult, but now, other people are making the decision for an other's life. Also, ending your life for depression (second article). I know several depressed people. I suffered from it too for a time. These articles are part of that slippery slope from terminal, to critical, to clinical that we are moving into. So no, this is not good moral ground. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...nts-permission-euthanize-disabled-12-year-old https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...oses-life-moments-before-scheduled-euthanasia
obviously self ellimination and euthanasia should not be carried out willy nilly or without the go ahead of the person involved or in case of this person not being able to communicate this with an ethics commitee. slippery slope be arsed that is a bad excuse, many people die and many suffer doing so and allowing people the freedom to choose not to suffer is morally justified. you however are talking about the freedom to CHOOSE that being taken away not about the act itself. which is what I say is not an immoral or bad act.
morals or just things people make up for themselves and then often try to force on others really entertaining to watch the "reasoning" though
