Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Skavau

Newbie
  • Content count

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Skavau

  1. Who Was Behind The "danish" Cartoons?

    Grow up. We are in a discussion about free-speech and to what it and who it applies to and you decide to throw personal insults on my character. You do not know me, and therefore you are not in any position to declare any vices that I may or not have. You are making personal attacks on me and if it persists, I will report it to the moderators. It is in complete contradiction to good discussion, and I have lost tolerance of accepting personal attacks on forums now. Back on the topic however, your assertions are nonsense. Let us actually look at your definition of hate speech provided: Your definition claims that hate speech is a term for speech which intends to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people. The key there is intent. The own definition focuses on the intent to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudice. Now, what your definition defines as hate speech is therefore not Anti-Islamic viewpoints. Your definition defines hate speech as intending to degrade someone's character. Your definition defines hate speech as intending to intimidate a person or a group of people. Your definition defines hate speech as intending to incite of violence. Your definition defines hate speech as an intent to incite prejudice (how subjective can you get?) Your definition says absolutely nothing about 'Anti-Islamic viewpoints' being hate speech. Your definition does not even mention Anti-Islamic viewpoints. No, this is your prejudice. How do you know that all 'Anti-Islamic' videos and books intend to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against Muslims? Have you read all Anti-Islamic books? Have you personally asked the authors of their intent? You don't know this. This is prejudice from your behalf. My 'arrogant' statement? Lol, what is arrogant about it? Right. Congratulations for completely misrepresenting my point to reductio ad absurdum. I never said I insult people. At least, when I do 'insult' people - I most often do it in the context of humour. How do you even pretend to know my own morality from a single statement? You don't even read your definitions. Congratulations. I suspect every human being has at some point in their history done that. Going to punish everyone? And you did not answer my questions posed to you: Why is it immoral to insult Islam? Is it immoral to insult Atheism, or Secularism?
  2. Who Was Behind The "danish" Cartoons?

    What research is this? I understand entirely. However the second book '100 reasons Islam is wrong' (which I cannot find any evidence of actually existing) however nasty or insulting to you - is still a product of free speech. You seemed to think peace is synonymous with truth - I corrected it. What was so funny about that? Your second revised definition does not negate this fact. I never said anything about freedom of expression being synonymous with peace. Your argument is a strawman. He is at liberty to explain his intent. He is under no compulsion to do so.
  3. Who Was Behind The "danish" Cartoons?

    Hate speech might indeed be a criminal offense. But making 'anti-Islamic' sentiments is not by definition hate speech. No. But then free expression is again not dependent on my sensibilities. Absolutely not. Someone asserting Anti-Islamic sentiments does not mean that they are committing hate speech. It means they are making Anti-Islamic statements. Are you saying all books which criticise Islam (and therefore become Anti-Islam) are therefore books that should be banned? Are you saying all videos that criticise Islam (and therefore become Anti-Islam) are therefore videos that should be banned. You are essentially demanding all criticism of Islam be publicly censored. Insulting, mocking or parodying something is not hate speech. Your liberal use of it is interesting to say the least. So where does Anti-Islamic viewpoints come in for hate speech there? According to you, everyone should be in jail. I have a right to insult whatever ideology I damn well like in public or privately. I have mocked, parodied and insulted all manner of things in the past. I am glad that I distinguish the difference between that and hate speech. Why is it immoral to insult Islam? Is it immoral to insult Atheism, or Secularism?
  4. How Many Countries Can You Name In 5 Minutes:

    Exactly 100. Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Falkland Islands, Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, Svalbard, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vatican City, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Neither Svalbard, Greenland or the Falklands are actually countries. The thing takes into account various semi-independent autonomies.
  5. Who Was Behind The "danish" Cartoons?

    The effects are irrelevant. If someone saying something causes you to go insane, or start an act of aggression on people - then that is your responsibility. No-one else should change themselves on account of the sensibilities or psychological loopiness of another. I just used the Muslims rioting as an example. Yes. They do. Threatening is an interesting issue. If threatening involves stalking someone, sending constant death threats then an individual could be arrested for harassment and rightly so. Claiming there is a bomb in a building is also a no-go. There is a limit to what one can do, but that limit should not based purely on 'offense'. You said yourself it is very hard to define.
  6. Who Was Behind The "danish" Cartoons?

    Circular Argument! You declare that offensive opinions should be censored because they are offensive opinions and yet you have to actually show us what constitutes as an offensive opinion. You have only rooted your answer in total subjectivity, but referring to people who find comments offensive for subjective opinions. What if I find someone criticising Secularism as offensive? Should I then have the right to censor all criticism of Secularism? Yes or no? Your criteria is rooted in subjectivity. Peace involves successful co-existence. A society presuming its existence on utter lies is still peaceful if the crime rate is redundant. Sorry, where in the 'Freedom of Expression' right does it require an individual to before committing an act of speech to explain his intent? We would not command anyone else to declare their intent, so why the cartoonist? Why is it necessary? Now, see - when you impose limits on freedom of speech, you impose censorship of it.
  7. I suppose it must be easy to quell criticism when you assume everyone who is anti-Islam or critical of Islam to be Zionists hell-bent on your destruction.
  8. Who Was Behind The "danish" Cartoons?

    The most 'damage' free expression can have is the cause of offense, or anger. The consequences can then be violence. The consequences then are an imposition of a view on a group of unwilling people. When Muslims rioted and set Danish Embassies on fire, it was an imposition of force, an imposition of values on other people. The Muslims involved were saying 'Do not insult Muhammad. Do not insult Muhammad'. They were then imposing this. They were by force, making sure other people had to observe this. The events now serve as a reminder to why freedom of expression acts as a value against censorship and repression. If we sacrifice various forms of expression on the basis of how volatile some people are when their feelings are hurt - we endorse recognition of values we have no obligation to endorse. There is no right not to be offended. How do you balance it, Redeem? Where does free speech begin and end?
  9. Who Was Behind The "danish" Cartoons?

    No. Only some of the above there would be allowed. It is against the law to to rape and commit pedophilia. So those who released a video of rape and pedophilia would be jailed accordingly. There would be no problem with a video of a mother having sexual intercourse with a pimp. You speak of opinions and not offense. What opinions should be censored? Objectively define this limit. It is all well and good asserting a limit, but it needs to be objectively understood to mean anything. This is what peace allows. Peace allows people to express their opinions, however obscene, revolutionary or standard. Censorship is the failure of peace and the victory of oppression. That is not hypocrisy. It is against the law to rape anyone. It is against the law to commit pedophilia. It is not against the law to insult Islam. Some Non-Muslims have a negative viewpoint of Islam and feel quite within liberty to insult it. Just as some Non-Muslims have a negative viewpoint of Christianity and feel quite within liberty to insult it. The same reason why anyone feels within liberty to insult anything. And Free-Expression grants this. No. Please understand the difference between freedom of expression and acts of violence. You are free for example to complain about a law, protest about a law and actively demonstrate against a law. You are however, not free at any time to break that law. Freedom of expression extends only to freedom of expression and not freedom of violence. All examples of criminality that you cite above are completely against human co-operation. They are all against what makes a society one of peace. They are all against the rights of other people. When I insult Islam, I hurt no-one. When someone kidnaps someone, they very much intrude on that individual's rights.
  10. Atheist's Psychology

    What is true will explain things, yes. Whether the truth will make any sense however, is another question. Whether something makes sense depends on our ability to understand it. Not necessarily. The truth explains what is. We give our own lives meaning. This depends. Define 'falsehood'. The game I am currently playing is completely false, but I enjoy it. Nonsense can have hilarity value too. You mean the Communist Soviet Union. This is begging the question. You already assume that you Muslims make sense and your explanations make life meaningful. I disagree with both when Muslims generally talk about Islam. Secondly, you assume that having a meaningful life and making sense equal objective reality. They do not. Here is your argument, from what I can see: You assert what I am saying makes no sense yet you highlight nothing in what I have said to demonstrate this. Do not pretend to know again what my life is. I am on the verge of reporting you to the moderators in an effort to stop you from lying about me and presuming things about me. You do not know my way of life. You are in no position to declare my life is far from 'happiness and peace' - you don't know me.
  11. Atheist's Psychology

    This is the thing. You are not about truth - you are about indoctrination. You already presumed that Islam is the truth. You already finished your search and you are happy to start throwing your results at everyone else. You are impervious to considering otherwise because according to you Islam is synonymous with truth. Not everyone thinks this. If you really valued truth, you would agree that allowing people to search for themselves and you would support the sum total of all human knowledge. The sum total of all human knowledge combined is the 'truth' if there is an objective truth. What we know is only what we can assume to be the truth. The Qu'ran is not the truth by any standard other than the desire for it to be true. I've been told that Islam is true. I've been told equally that Christianity is true. On what basis do I have to differentiate here? Why believe your claims that Islam is true over the claims of another individual that Christianity is true? I have no reason to prefer either. The only sincere conclusion is to search. The only sincere conclusion is to study both Christianity and Islam and conclude whether they are true or false. That is searching for the truth. That is searching reality. What you propose and have proposed is indoctrination, or acceptance without question. Many people dislike Dawkins but he made an incredibly pertinent point about religion with this: "It worries me about religion that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding." What 'day of judgment'? The day of judgment you invoke? The day of judgment that you think will happen? And what will I be judged for exactly? My inability to accept assertions without evidence? My inability to follow the line of obedience?
  12. Atheist's Psychology

    Neither do I have a problem with free-will. But then that is because I am not a Muslim. What you think Allah did does not bother me in the slightest. Then the assertion 'everyone who is blind will always be blind' is rendered defunct. Please also use context when quoting me, I find it hard to follow what my comment was referring to. Again however, you assert a capacity to change. A potential to see. It is debatable that we are hardwired to believe in certain things or certain concepts. It is nonsense that we are hardwired to believe in Islam specifically. No we do not have a temple as you are describing in our body. Not really. You've yet to even show that a 'religious' part of the brain even exists. Your psuedo-science is undeveloped beyond assertion. I asked for peer-reviewed scientific journals documenting the existence of a religious section of the brain. You have yet to even attempt to provide this. A good thing then, that I do think about the meaning of life. Your lies about me otherwise will be corrected each time you bring them up.
  13. Atheist's Psychology

    I am not telling you what to do. I am asking you to be honest. You can psychoanalyse someone. You can psychoanalyse anyone. Let us say for arguments sake you can psychoanalyse someone who likes oranges. How likely do you think their like of oranges will influence their results or be the model for their mentality? I will repeat: What warning would this be exactly? I don't even know what 'warnings' you are referring to. No you did not. But it is just how you talk to me. I always feel as if you are talking down to me and combined with you claiming to be psychoanalysing, I seem to think you view me as a 'subject' or an 'experiment'.
  14. Atheist's Psychology

    No. Just ones that say they intend to psychoanalyse Atheists in a thread called 'Atheist's Psychology'. I can't make sense of that paragraph. Are you suggesting that us Atheists all secretly agree that you're normal and know how Non-Muslims are? Because the final part, in my case is false. You haven't the slightest clue how any Non-Muslim is much less Non-Muslims per se. My evidence? Your posts.
  15. Fitna

    The countries do not insult Islam. People from the countries do. Differentiate between Netherlands and Geert Wilders please.
  16. Atheist's Psychology

    So just ask - don't assume, and 'read between the lines'. We're all happy to give you a clear answer. But what would their responses have to do with their like of oranges? If you ask someone who likes oranges what their favourite sport is, would their answer be due to their like of oranges? I have no idea. I'm not a golfer. What warning would this be exactly? And yet you refuse to listen to the direct source (me). I have to say, I find the very method you use of psychoanalysis immoral. It is as if I am an experiment, or a subject to you. Am I right?
  17. Atheist's Psychology

    So your psychoanalysis only seeks to find out why Atheists disbelieve in God and nothing else? I don't make it complicated at all. And by the way, not all non-theists are Atheists. How can you psychoanalyse an entire person's mentality based on his or her like of oranges? Exactly. The answers will vary and you will probably get little consistency, indicating that other things influence their opinions rather than just golf. I do see your point - don't play with a knife. I do not see the relevance of that to anything. That is a very unfortunate and thoroughly despicable standpoint. You don't know me, so therefore you will conclude what you like about me and tell people the misinformation you have concluded about me. Read through and find all the gaps all you like. I'm telling you now: I am not threatened, only peeved with being told by someone over the internet that I am. Then why are you here? You're supposed to be 'psychoanalysing' are you not?
  18. Atheist's Psychology

    Correct. But they have a likely different mentality on most other things. An 'Atheist' is not by definition of being an Atheist in any group of people since Atheists are not a coherent group with a command, or accepted ideology. By your own argument people who like oranges are all in a group and can be psychoanalysed based on that. Yes. They enjoy it. You will find that most people play golf because they enjoy it. Your findings will not show you anything else about them. Yes. So? I still do not see your point in any of this. I have told you, from my own mouth that I am not threatened at all. You are willfully ignoring what I said and instead telling me that I am threatened. You are saying that what you think of me is more accurate than what I think of myself. Do you realise how incredibly arrogant that is? Especially as you have never conversed with me outside of this forum. So what exactly, pray tell is my psychology?
  19. Atheist's Psychology

    You'll need about as many categories as there are Atheists. Rendering your attempt at psychoanalysing Atheists about as useful as psychoanalysing people who like oranges. Uh, no. You will see absolutely no pattern in the mentality of golfers. All you will see is no consistency. How, exactly? No, it isn't. It is a willingness to defend myself. Moreover, are you implying you are going to tell me about my life? Are you implying you are going to tell me how I think and what I do? What is funny?
  20. Atheist's Psychology

    Atheists can be soft, strong, anti-theistic, religious, spiritual or entirely materialist. Your findings will be inconclusive. You might be able to analyse a single golfer based on their enjoyment of golf. You cannot from that, however - make generalisations indicative of all golfers. The only thing all golfers have in common is that they play golf. Nothing about 'golf' necessarily imposes itself on other parts of golfers lives. Cars serve a purpose. The roads are designed for them. Assuming the blind man is aware of cars, he should be aware of the risks. He is stupid to ignore those risks, but he is not 'guilty' or 'innocent' of anything. He represents himself. I get the above as well. But when it gets to the level of someone deciding they know about my life, and who I am - I get irritated. I do not feel degraded, and I have no faith. I just get irritated with the mass prejudice and ignorance to Atheists in general. Take the discussion from Ghazi Turk. He defines exactly what I mean. He dishonestly misinterprets what I say to suit his agenda. He patronises me. He in his first post, made massive generalisations about Atheists.
  21. Atheist's Psychology

    You seem to think that you can determine everything that Atheists believe and traits of them based purely on the fact that Atheists disbelieve in God. You also seem to think that you can do the same with golfers. I said you cannot psychoanalyse golfers based on their enjoyment of golf and then you replied "Why not?" The body organs can't speak. The blind man should have listened to those telling him the avoid the holes, but here's a different point. The holes shouldn't have been in the road in the first place. If I remember the basis for the analogy originally, the fact the holes should not be there puts it into perspective. Absolutely. So you cannot determine who an individual is based on their disbelief or belief in something. I never said you specifically, did I now? What? Why should I be grateful to those who proceed to tell me what I do and do not believe? Why should I be grateful to those who proceed to tell me how I act?
  22. Atheist's Psychology

    Lol. So you think that by talking to some golfers and based on their interest in golf, you can in fact determine how all golfers act? My memory kicks in slightly there. I do believe I explained it at the time anyway. Moreover, a blind man who does keep walking down a road in spite of warnings is innocent. What exactly would he be guilty of? Yes there is. I bet if all of us Atheists on this forum had a discussion on what we do, what we like and things - you would find significant differences between all of us. I've been an Atheist for years. And I am not threatened. I am tired of bigotry. I am tired of be labeled 'immoral' or 'stubborn' simply based on my disbelief in God. I am tired of being told what I do and don't believe, how I do and don't act. It is disgusting, quite frankly.
  23. Atheist's Psychology

    I already read it.
  24. Atheist's Psychology

    Correct. But it says nothing about the mentality of all Atheists. The common ground of everyone who plays golf is that they enjoy golf. You cannot psychoanalyse them on that just as you cannot psychoanalyse Atheists on disbelief in God. Firstly I do not remember, and you will have to remind me. Secondly, how I consider myself has nothing to do with how other Atheists consider themselves. Thirdly, you are the one who looks to vilify and generalise Atheists by finding these faults.
  25. Atheist's Psychology

    If an uncaused cause exists, then not everything needs to be caused. If not everything needs to be caused, then cause and effect become meaningless. The very idea of anything being caused becomes meaningless it is not necessary by consequence of the 'uncaused cause'.
×