11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[Martinus]

What bearing does it have on whether it is an inborn trait or a choice?

I agree. There's nothing I hate more than the 'born this way' argument - even if I think it's true.

From the perspective of rights, I agree - it has no bearing.

From the perspective of respect though? I think it is relevant. Respect is not given, it is earned by contributing to the society. Homosexual lifestyle is, generally, less productive from the perspective of the society than heterosexual lifestyle (of course I am generalising greatly here). So if it were a pure choice, I would say someone choosing to lead a homosexual lifestyle would deserve less respect (for this particular thing - it is not to say there would be no other reasons to respect him or her) than someone choosing to lead a heterosexual lifestyle.

The fact that it is inborn makes it different - since for a homosexual person, the choice is therefore to live in a stable and happy relationship with another person of the same sex - or to live in a lie with a people of the opposite sex - the former being more respectful choice.

[Jacob]

You sure post a lot in your sleep Marty.

[Martinus]

Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.

And I don't agree that in our everyday lives that we should approach every idea that way.

Then we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.

[garbon]

Didn't really consider homophobia to be that encompassing, but okay, I see proof every day that the gay idea is real, which is why I in no way see those two ideas as being equal.

And there are those who would say that every day that they see proof that their religious ideas are real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZ2KBXDEcM

I consider us in agreement though and I move we put the Muslims = Gays debate to rest.

[garbon]

Anyways, since I am going to bed, it is abundantly clear to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest what Rushdie meant by saying that every idea "deserves disrespect". He did not mean to say one needs to go out of one's way to show disrespect - but that one should approach every idea from a position of disrespect - i.e. one opposed to reverence - and by merciless in pointing out its shortcomings, deficiencies and dysfunctionalities - there should be no taboos and no sacred cows in public discourse.

And I don't agree that in our everyday lives that we should approach every idea that way.

Then we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.

Critical thinking? Sure. Approaching every idea with merciless criticism? Not so much.

[Jacob]

Then we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.

I think that's the disconnect. Not everyone equates "critical thinking" with "disrespect."

[garbon]

From the perspective of respect though? I think it is relevant. Respect is not given, it is earned by contributing to the society. Homosexual lifestyle is, generally, less productive from the perspective of the society than heterosexual lifestyle (of course I am generalising greatly here). So if it were a pure choice, I would say someone choosing to lead a homosexual lifestyle would deserve less respect (for this particular thing - it is not to say there would be no other reasons to respect him or her) than someone choosing to lead a heterosexual lifestyle.

Yeah, I think we have different perceptions on respect. I don't think respect should only be accorded if one makes a "meaningful" contribution to society.

The fact that it is inborn makes it different - since for a homosexual person, the choice is therefore to live in a stable and happy relationship with another person of the same sex - or to live in a lie with a people of the opposite sex - the former being more respectful choice.

I think there are more choices than that - and I don't think "living a lie" is a less respectful choice if both partners are happy, though there is something to be said about lying to one's partner about one's true urges.

[Barrister]

Then we have to agree to disagree. To me, critical thinking is one of the cornerstones of the Western civilisation.

I think that's the disconnect. Not everyone equates "critical thinking" with "disrespect."

This.

Islam, and Christianity, and many other things are wide, wide open for harsh criticism.  I just think that doesn't have to equal disrespect.

[Martinus]

For the record - and this is really the last thing I am going to post tonight - I also disagree with laws that put preachers in jail for saying that gays go to hell. They have a right to say this and call me sinful and depraved - and I have a right to call them stupid goat-fucking moon worshippers (or whatever ethno-cultural slur applies to their particular brand of iron age mumbo-jumbo).

[Barrister]

In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.

Distinction without a difference.  "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples.  By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.

I don't buy this.

And what does it mean in practice?

And to go full godwins, a few years back millions of Germans held a deep belief in a certain ideology.

... including that a particular religion ought to be disrespected.

I'm waiting for BB to respond.

I think there are three conditions respect, no respect and disrespect. And those are probably on a continuum of reactions.

Can't one be entirely neutral to a religion or ideology until such time as it's shown its worth to the wider society?

Thread moving too fast, and I'm too busy today, to try and give a lengthy response.  Sorry.

[Duque de Bragança]

There is an anti-terrorist police operation in Reims (130 km east-northeast of Paris) right now with a RAID unit (SWAT-like team) there but details are sparse. Also some house search operations in Charleville-Mézières in the northeast.

[Jacob]

There is an anti-terrorist police operation in Reims (130 km east-northeast of Paris) right now with a RAID unit (SWAT-like team) there but details are sparse. Also some house search operations in Charleville-Mézières in the northeast.

Crossing fingers that they get the shit-stains.

[mongers]

In any case, ideas are not people. He did not say Muslims deserve disrespect - he said Islam does. Ideas have no rights and do not deserve respect.

Distinction without a difference.  "Islam" is a belief deeply held by Muslim peoples.  By showing Islam respect, you're not showing that respect to the religion, you're showing that respect to the billion or so adherents.

I don't buy this.

And what does it mean in practice?

And to go full godwins, a few years back millions of Germans held a deep belief in a certain ideology.

... including that a particular religion ought to be disrespected.

I'm waiting for BB to respond.

I think there are three conditions respect, no respect and disrespect. And those are probably on a continuum of reactions.

Can't one be entirely neutral to a religion or ideology until such time as it's shown its worth to the wider society?

Thread moving too fast, and I'm too busy today, to try and give a lengthy response.  Sorry.

Understandable.

310 post in just 11 hours, who knew languish wasn't dying. 

[Norgy]

Thread moving too fast, and I'm too busy today, to try and give a lengthy response.  Sorry.

If only there was a sacred duty to offer a response on an Internet forum. 

[CountDeMoney]

I skipped the last several pages.  Did Martinus go all lone gunman on religion and heterosexuals or something?