On 3 June 2011 17:36, Stuart Dallas <stuart@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.lind@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2011 4:52 PM, "Paul M Foster" <paulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Peter Lind wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Jun 3, 2011 3:48 PM, "tedd" <tedd.sperling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > At 1:02 PM -0400 6/2/11, Daniel Brown wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 22:13, Bill Guion <bguion@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ÂSo if I understand, you want an explode() with empty parameters
>> > > >>> to
>> > > explode
>> > > >>> Âthe host machine?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Â ÂThat's correct. ÂIf it causes too much userland confusion, we
>> > > >> can
>> > > >> alias it as detonate() as well.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, to be preceded with:
>> > > >
>> > > > echo('Alaho Akbar');
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Nice ... any idea how many people you just insulted there?
>> >
>> > I'm guessing no one with an actual sense of humor.
>> >
>> > I suspect most people snickered at the joke and admired the chutzpah it
>> > took to post it.
>> >
>>
>> Admiring people that insult an entire religion? Really, it does not take
>> chutzpah, it just takes ignorance or stupidity to do something like that.
>> Nothing admirable about it.
>
> There's everything admirable about it. Religion is not special, and does not
> deserve any special treatment when it comes to critical comment. I can say
> anything I want about a particular political party and that's ok, but I
> can't express an opinion about a particular religion because it may cause
> offence?
Tedd's comment suggested that muslims are suicide bombers. That's not
a comment on religion, that's an insult to a large group of people.
Learn to tell the difference.
> And that's not to mention the fact that tedd's comment is a fact - more than
> a few people have detonated in the name of their religion, and chances are
> that if someone does detonate themselves it will be in the name of their
> religion.
And the vast majority of religious never have, nor never will detonate
in the name of religion. Yet they are being targeted and put to hate
just the same - then afterwards told to shut up and not feel offended.
> He didn't imply that everyone who follows that religion would do
> the same, but that's the only interpretation I can think of that would cause
> offence, so surely the offence is in the interpretation not the actual
> words.
Ahh, I see, that's why he wrote "Praise Jesus" and not "Alaho Akbar" -
he really didn't mean to say anything about muslims or islam as a
whole, he only wanted to comment on religion in an abstract way.
> Offence, like all things, is in the eye of the beholder. If something
> offends you, take responsibility for the fact that it's because someone is
> challenging a belief that you don't want to be challenged so you're reacting
> against it. It's not because it is objectively offensive. There is nothing
> that is objectively offensive*.
The fact that someone offends someone else is neither more nor less an
issue just because the offence is subjective. If I hold a certain
belief and you choose to stuff that down the toilet, you're a complete
dick, whether or not my belief makes sense.
And for the record, Tedd did not challenge any beliefs. He just made a
stupid joke at the expense of muslims.
>
> * Nothing is objectively anything. Everything is subjective.
Pure, unadulterated BS.
Peter
--
<hype>
WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk
LinkedIn: plind
BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51
Twitter: kafe15
</hype>
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
