If you didn't realise you tried to bullshit on the grounds of me trying to create a second Saudi Arabia based on issues that were part of Britain's history - nothing to do with Arabia in particular. Hope that clears it up for you.
I know its just your opinion but do you think its realistic that the country would make religon more important then use a religion that isnt the state religion?
"What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths."
Aka: "Condescending and sanctimonious prudes find it distressing that someone, somewhere is having fun with their supervision and approval, and find it even worse to imagine that they be having fun by mocking their ideas."
Given that the author of that quote was writing during the French Revolution where liberal revolutionaries murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Libertie, no I don't think that that is a good explanation of it.
Unless you think that the Terror etc were just a case of people "having fun"?
No, I'm "mad" that you think you should get to prevent me from expressing my opinion on Christianity, and "mad" that you think you should get to forbid me from watching/listening/reading to media that you find objectionable. That you think your values should stomp all over mine.
prevent me from expressing my opinion on Christianity, and "mad" that you think you should get to forbid me from watching/listening/reading to media that you find objectionable.
How so? Who on earth do you think you are? It's not even just that you want to ban me from expression my opinion on Christianity, it's also that you wish to ban me from seeing material against Christianity. You wish to prevent me from being exposed to new ideas.
It's not even just that you want to ban me from expression my opinion on Christianity, it's also that you wish to ban me from seeing material against Christianity. You wish to prevent me from being exposed to new ideas.
It would be silly to say that you have the right to access an idea or piece if information just by virtue of it being an idea or piece of information.
That's the language of totalitarianism.
Eh, no. Banning a couple of things is obviously not "totalitarianism".
That you think you're culturally British, is comical. You've got far more in common with Saudi Arabia or Iran than you do any Brit.
Huh, I guess no one living in Britain from the 18th century to the 1960s was culturally British then. Thanks for enlightening me.
It would be silly to say that you have the right to access an idea or piece if information just by virtue of it being an idea or piece of information.
Why should I be prevented in accessing proposed ideas? How is it "irresponsible"?
Eh, no. Banning a couple of things is obviously not "totalitarianism".
What you would have to do, in order for those bans to actually have impact, would involve totalitarian control over people's lives.
Huh, I guess no one living in Britain from the 18th century to the 1960s was culturally British then. Thanks for enlightening me.
When considering the contemporary Brit, you've got much more in common with someone in Saudi Arabia or Iran than you do anyone here.
It's also worth noting that we do not define our current culture by what it was 150 to 200 years ago. We don't look at a Spaniard, and think they should reflect the values of a 19th century Spaniard. We don't look at an American, and think that they should endorse slavery because people in the 1850's did.
Why should I be prevented in accessing some proposed ideas? How is it "irresponsible"?
Because some ideas are too immoral and damaging to be allowed to spread.
I said it is responsible for you to promulgate certain ideas, not to merely be subjected to them.
What you would have to do, in order for those bans to actually have impact, would involve totalitarian control over people's lives.
No it wouldn't. You keep saying this, but that's not how the law works.
It's also worth noting that we do not define our current culture by what it was 150 to 200 years ago. We don't look at a Spaniard, and think they should reflect the values of a 19th century Spaniard. We don't look at an American, and think that they should endorse slavery because American in the 1850's did - and indeed, any contemporary American that supported slavery and repressive social policies would be compared, unkindly, to someone in Mauritania.
Then you make the whole idea of 'culturally British' redundant.
Because some ideas are too immoral and damaging to be allowed to spread.
In what way is the moral argument against God (for example), "immoral" and "damaging"? How is hearing Christopher Hitchens scrutinise vicarious redemption harmful?
No it wouldn't. You keep saying this, but that's not how the law works.
Yes it would. If the law didn't invade people's privacy, then any attempt to prohibit blasphemy, pornography, adultery, along with whatever else you wish to ban, then it would not work.
Then you make the whole idea of 'culturally British' redundant.
Does this mean you think cultural Americans are all necessarily pro slavery?
Because he acts through sophistry rather than through argumentative rigour.
How is listening to certain types of music "harmful" and "immoral"?
Possibly through a multitude of ways.
Yes it would. If the law didn't invade people's privacy, then any attempt to prohibit blasphemy, pornography, adultery, along with whatever else you wish to ban, then it would not work.
By your logic everyone has to be under surveillence 24/7 to ensure that they aren't murdering someone, or stealing something.
Does this mean you think cultural Americans are all necessarily pro slavery?
No? I've not talked about national culture being necessarily linked t meant beingo anything. You're the one who asserted that being of a national culture meant being in consensus with the people of the modern day incarnation of that culture.
Because he acts through sophistry rather than through argumentative rigour.
I disagree. Hitchens argues from all kind of perspectives on many different topics. Would you lock him up if you were in charge?
In any case, are you saying that sophistry ought to be illegal?
Possibly through a multitude of ways.
Go on
By your logic everyone has to be under surveillence 24/7 to ensure that they aren't murdering someone, or stealing something.
When it comes to what policing what people say, or what they do behind closed doors, then yes, you would need a major surveillance state. How would the state prevent me from just uploading Hitchens material to Youtube? Or arguing against Christianity on a chatroom?
No? I've not talked about national culture being necessarily linked t meant beingo anything. You're the one who asserted that being of a national culture meant being in consensus with the people of the modern day incarnation of that culture.
You're the one who suggested that being of a national culture means being in consensus with the people of that nation 200 years ago. It follows that you think an American, to be culturally American, should have the attitudes of the 19th century.
I would not ban discussion of the Problem of Evil.
Would you lock him up if you were in charge?
For one, he's already passed away. But it depends on what he would say.
In any case, are you saying that sophistry ought to be illegal?
No, merely that it is damaging.
Go on
For example rap music that promotes gang violence and the mistreatment of women. Or rock music that promotes drug use and sexual libertinism.
How would the state prevent me from just uploading Hitchens material to Youtube? Or arguing against Christianity on a chatroom?
(Ignoring that blasphemic youtube videos could be pretty easily handled) no particular preventative action needs to be taken for something to be illegal and prosecutable. People can be held accountable for actions that are found out by the justice system without having people monitored at every opportunity - innocence before guilty and all that.
You're the one who suggested that being of a national culture means being in consensus with the people of that nation 200 years ago.
No, I suggested that being in consensus with the past people of a certain nation necessarily implies being part of that national culture.
I would not ban discussion of the Problem of Evil.
You said to me, in a separate comment thread , that "I do not believe in God" is borderline. If that's borderline, then the Problem of Evil, which criticises a theistic God and by extension Christianity (you've said that criticism of Christianity should be banned) would certainly not pass.
No, merely that it is damaging.
Right, so what's your objection then? He makes arguments against Christianity and Islam (among other things). He makes people think.
For example rap music that promotes gang violence and the mistreatment of women.
Not only is this censorship, it's also a problem in that you will have thousands of cases built on lyric interpretation. Who determines what is or is not appropriate? What level is it enforced to? Just banned from being broadcast on the BBC, or is it banned in totality? How do you ensure every single site online stops hosting the material?
Or rock music that promotes drug use and sexual libertinism.
You would make existence for me, under your state, pointless.
(Ignoring that blasphemic youtube videos could be pretty easily handled)
No they couldn't. Hitchens has likely thousands of videos uploaded to Youtube from a myriad of different users. Dozens get added every day. This isn't counting the massive amount of material on Youtube of just atheists being mean about Christianity.
People can be held accountable for actions that are found out by the justice system without having people monitored at every opportunity - innocence before guilty and all that.
So you'd have a functionally inept and useless system, unless you literally censored the internet to the extent that the Uk internet resembles the North Korean Intranet.
No, I suggested that being in consensus with the past people of a certain nation necessarily implies being part of that national culture.
Almost no-one who is British is now agrees with the attitudes and values that you espouse. Does that mean that you think that almost everyone who is British now aren't culturally British?
If that's borderline, then the Problem of Evil, which criticises a theistic God and by extension Christianity (you've said that criticism of Christianity should be banned) would certainly not pass.
The Problem of Evil poses a logical question to us about God. That's an opportunity to learn more about God and His creation, rather than necessarily being disrespectful or showing malice.
He makes people think.
He doesn't. He makes people smug about investing in half-baked and incoherent ideas.
Who determines what is or is not appropriate? What level is it enforced to? Just banned from being broadcast on the BBC, or is it banned in totality? How do you ensure every single site online stops hosting the material?
I'm not talking about banning these things here. This particular point was about music being immoral and harmful.
You would make existence for me, under your state, pointless.
You live solely for rock music?
No they couldn't. Hitchens has likely thousands of videos uploaded to Youtube from a myriad of different users. Dozens get added every day. This isn't counting the massive amount of material on Youtube of just atheists being mean about Christianity.
yeah, because youtube doesn't already censor sexual content already, for example.
So you'd have a functionally inept and useless system, unless you literally censored the internet to the extent that the Uk internet resembles the North Korean Intranet.
Again, not how the law system works.
Almost no-one who is British is now agrees with the attitudes and values that you espouse. Does that mean that you think that almost everyone who is British now aren't culturally British?
No, you keep missing the point and it's getting tiring.
The Problem of Evil poses a logical question to us about God. That's an opportunity to learn more about God and His creation, rather than necessarily being disrespectful or showing malice.
It's also used as an argument to criticise Christianity. People also attack what they perceive to be depravities within the Bible. Should that be illegal?
He doesn't. He makes people smug about investing in half-baked and incoherent ideas.
What a flippant and dismissive comment about a man regarded as one of the most prominent intellectuals on the planet. What about his ideas were "half-baked" and "incoherent"? He made me evaluate many of my ideas on various things.
I'm not talking about banning these things here. This particular point was about music being immoral and harmful.
It's worth noting I bought up media in the context of things you might ban, or prevent me from consuming.
Why is being rude about Christianity somehow worse than misogynistic lyrics in rap music? I mean, if you don't think they should be banned then it follows that you think that blasphemy is uniquely worse. Why?
You live solely for rock music?
No, but the things that you insist should be banned would make a lot of the media I consume illegal.
yeah, because youtube doesn't already censor sexual content already, for example.
It does sexual explicit content, but not stripteases, or flirting, or semi-nudity. That's also Youtube's own policy. They could, if they so wanted to, be as liberal as Pornhub as to what they allow to be hosted.
In any case, Hitchen's speeches aren't sexually explicit. What would you do about the thousands that exist on there?
Again, not how the law system works.
To have a society where there is almost no blasphemy, or sexually explicit content, you'd have to lock down the internet and make sure that it isn't just being outrighly openly ignored online. Otherwise it's completely worthless.
No, you keep missing the point and it's getting tiring.
What point? The point is that the values that you express now, ensure that you have more in common with the Imams of Saudi Arabia than you do any modern Brit.
44 comments
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-03-28
/u/Ayenotes
Any particular reason you feel the UK should become a Catholic Saudi Arabia?
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
I don't. My positions are more reflective of British history than Saudi. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a big bad quasi-Muslim.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-03-28
What does history have to do with making it illegal to say "fuck god?"
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
If you didn't realise you tried to bullshit on the grounds of me trying to create a second Saudi Arabia based on issues that were part of Britain's history - nothing to do with Arabia in particular. Hope that clears it up for you.
n/a jmdg007 2017-03-28
I know its just your opinion but do you think its realistic that the country would make religon more important then use a religion that isnt the state religion?
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
None of this is realistic.
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
This doesn't even have drama in it?
n/a Matthew1J 2017-03-28
Liberty.
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
"What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths."
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
Aka: "Condescending and sanctimonious prudes find it distressing that someone, somewhere is having fun with their supervision and approval, and find it even worse to imagine that they be having fun by mocking their ideas."
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
Given that the author of that quote was writing during the French Revolution where liberal revolutionaries murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Libertie, no I don't think that that is a good explanation of it.
Unless you think that the Terror etc were just a case of people "having fun"?
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
No, but your usage of it definitely is.
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
I think you're just mad that I actually think people should act responsibly.
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
No, I'm "mad" that you think you should get to prevent me from expressing my opinion on Christianity, and "mad" that you think you should get to forbid me from watching/listening/reading to media that you find objectionable. That you think your values should stomp all over mine.
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
Because you would be acting irresponsibly.
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
How so? Who on earth do you think you are? It's not even just that you want to ban me from expression my opinion on Christianity, it's also that you wish to ban me from seeing material against Christianity. You wish to prevent me from being exposed to new ideas.
That's the language of totalitarianism.
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
It would be silly to say that you have the right to access an idea or piece if information just by virtue of it being an idea or piece of information.
Eh, no. Banning a couple of things is obviously not "totalitarianism".
Huh, I guess no one living in Britain from the 18th century to the 1960s was culturally British then. Thanks for enlightening me.
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
Why should I be prevented in accessing proposed ideas? How is it "irresponsible"?
What you would have to do, in order for those bans to actually have impact, would involve totalitarian control over people's lives.
When considering the contemporary Brit, you've got much more in common with someone in Saudi Arabia or Iran than you do anyone here.
It's also worth noting that we do not define our current culture by what it was 150 to 200 years ago. We don't look at a Spaniard, and think they should reflect the values of a 19th century Spaniard. We don't look at an American, and think that they should endorse slavery because people in the 1850's did.
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
Because some ideas are too immoral and damaging to be allowed to spread.
I said it is responsible for you to promulgate certain ideas, not to merely be subjected to them.
No it wouldn't. You keep saying this, but that's not how the law works.
Then you make the whole idea of 'culturally British' redundant.
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
In what way is the moral argument against God (for example), "immoral" and "damaging"? How is hearing Christopher Hitchens scrutinise vicarious redemption harmful?
Yes it would. If the law didn't invade people's privacy, then any attempt to prohibit blasphemy, pornography, adultery, along with whatever else you wish to ban, then it would not work.
Does this mean you think cultural Americans are all necessarily pro slavery?
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
You mean the Problem of Evil, or something else?
Because he acts through sophistry rather than through argumentative rigour.
Possibly through a multitude of ways.
By your logic everyone has to be under surveillence 24/7 to ensure that they aren't murdering someone, or stealing something.
No? I've not talked about national culture being necessarily linked t meant beingo anything. You're the one who asserted that being of a national culture meant being in consensus with the people of the modern day incarnation of that culture.
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
Sure
I disagree. Hitchens argues from all kind of perspectives on many different topics. Would you lock him up if you were in charge?
In any case, are you saying that sophistry ought to be illegal?
Go on
When it comes to what policing what people say, or what they do behind closed doors, then yes, you would need a major surveillance state. How would the state prevent me from just uploading Hitchens material to Youtube? Or arguing against Christianity on a chatroom?
You're the one who suggested that being of a national culture means being in consensus with the people of that nation 200 years ago. It follows that you think an American, to be culturally American, should have the attitudes of the 19th century.
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
I would not ban discussion of the Problem of Evil.
For one, he's already passed away. But it depends on what he would say.
No, merely that it is damaging.
For example rap music that promotes gang violence and the mistreatment of women. Or rock music that promotes drug use and sexual libertinism.
(Ignoring that blasphemic youtube videos could be pretty easily handled) no particular preventative action needs to be taken for something to be illegal and prosecutable. People can be held accountable for actions that are found out by the justice system without having people monitored at every opportunity - innocence before guilty and all that.
No, I suggested that being in consensus with the past people of a certain nation necessarily implies being part of that national culture.
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
You said to me, in a separate comment thread , that "I do not believe in God" is borderline. If that's borderline, then the Problem of Evil, which criticises a theistic God and by extension Christianity (you've said that criticism of Christianity should be banned) would certainly not pass.
Right, so what's your objection then? He makes arguments against Christianity and Islam (among other things). He makes people think.
Not only is this censorship, it's also a problem in that you will have thousands of cases built on lyric interpretation. Who determines what is or is not appropriate? What level is it enforced to? Just banned from being broadcast on the BBC, or is it banned in totality? How do you ensure every single site online stops hosting the material?
You would make existence for me, under your state, pointless.
No they couldn't. Hitchens has likely thousands of videos uploaded to Youtube from a myriad of different users. Dozens get added every day. This isn't counting the massive amount of material on Youtube of just atheists being mean about Christianity.
So you'd have a functionally inept and useless system, unless you literally censored the internet to the extent that the Uk internet resembles the North Korean Intranet.
Almost no-one who is British is now agrees with the attitudes and values that you espouse. Does that mean that you think that almost everyone who is British now aren't culturally British?
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
The Problem of Evil poses a logical question to us about God. That's an opportunity to learn more about God and His creation, rather than necessarily being disrespectful or showing malice.
He doesn't. He makes people smug about investing in half-baked and incoherent ideas.
I'm not talking about banning these things here. This particular point was about music being immoral and harmful.
You live solely for rock music?
yeah, because youtube doesn't already censor sexual content already, for example.
Again, not how the law system works.
No, you keep missing the point and it's getting tiring.
n/a Skavau 2017-03-28
It's also used as an argument to criticise Christianity. People also attack what they perceive to be depravities within the Bible. Should that be illegal?
What a flippant and dismissive comment about a man regarded as one of the most prominent intellectuals on the planet. What about his ideas were "half-baked" and "incoherent"? He made me evaluate many of my ideas on various things.
It's worth noting I bought up media in the context of things you might ban, or prevent me from consuming.
Why is being rude about Christianity somehow worse than misogynistic lyrics in rap music? I mean, if you don't think they should be banned then it follows that you think that blasphemy is uniquely worse. Why?
No, but the things that you insist should be banned would make a lot of the media I consume illegal.
It does sexual explicit content, but not stripteases, or flirting, or semi-nudity. That's also Youtube's own policy. They could, if they so wanted to, be as liberal as Pornhub as to what they allow to be hosted.
In any case, Hitchen's speeches aren't sexually explicit. What would you do about the thousands that exist on there?
To have a society where there is almost no blasphemy, or sexually explicit content, you'd have to lock down the internet and make sure that it isn't just being outrighly openly ignored online. Otherwise it's completely worthless.
What point? The point is that the values that you express now, ensure that you have more in common with the Imams of Saudi Arabia than you do any modern Brit.
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-03-28
Not that much of a change really.
n/a SovietWarfare 2017-03-28
Your mama
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
literally no
n/a Ayenotes 2017-03-28
You realise that that has no effect on my beliefs?
n/a TinkerTailor343 2017-03-28
He's not sadly, I've been arguing with him over at r/ukpolitcs for some time, thankfully he's always slathered in downvotes.