No, it’s a debate.
Guess what: dodging and weaving to avoid the contradictions in your argument, and getting all butt-hurt about it, don’t work any better in a debate than they do in court.
Looking through history to see how far keeping quiet about religious practices has gotten atheists…I’m not exactly seeing a great net gain.
Who has suggested that atheists keep quiet?
I simply propose that atheists (and others) not go out of their way to deliberately insult, offend, degrade or hurt the feelings of people they disagree with, or even find ridiculous. Because hurting people’s feelings pointlessly (as by, for example, pissing on the graves of their honored dead, or mocking their harmless little mystical ceremonies) makes them less likely to listen to and respect your point of view. And that serves none of us.
Well, what’s your opinion on the matter? Are death threats equivalent to misusing a cracker, or are they an extreme overreaction? Feel free to use your own words-this being a debate, I really don’t feel I have the right to force you to use words of my choosing.
No prob: as I’ve said many times upthread (really, reading the thread is a good idea), those making death threats are definitely and without question worse than the blogger, an extreme overreaction - to use your word.
Similarly, if someone was to threaten Fred Phelps with death, they would be in the wrong.
That doesn’t mean Phelps isn’t a bigot, troll and ass. He is all of those things, in spite of being threatened with death . And so is this blogger, albeit on a much smaller scale - one blog post vs. a whole campaign.
Nope, wasn’t disruptive in the slightest. Didn’t cause any harm, and you opposed it.
Regards,
Shodan
Really? I have a hard time this was not said tongue in cheek. How are threats harmful, and how are they different from a symbolic act like attacking a cracker?
If you really don’t understand, then I’ll point out that not only does Piss Christ have no history of preceding an act of physical violence against a person, but it doesn’t even convey a direct message of impending harm. Similarly, assaulting a cracker has never been used to intimidate anyone else.
On the other hand, a personal threat is intended to cause distress by making you feel personally vulnerable to attack, and personal threats often precede physical harm. Likewise, burning a cross has acquired a specific meaning and is used to convey a message to an individual or family. I might place a roll of toilet paper in your mailbox, but you won’t have any idea what it’s supposed to mean. The weirdness might set you on edge a bit, but it’s unlikely you’ll take any message away from that event that someone is targeting you . On the other hand, if you’re black and I burn a cross in your yard, that will convey a pretty specific message of threat.
Did you really, honestly not know all that?
Now, please pass me a Eucharist.
My position all along has been that words and symbolic acts do have power.
Some speech has the power to strengthen, to comfort, to inspire, to uplift. Other expressions have the opposite effects. Of course direct and overt threats are worse than merely mocking or degrading insults, but the results differ more in degree than in kind. The whole spectrum of spoken or symbolic attack is intended to be damaging to its target. Occasionally–as with physical violence–that may be acceptable, even necessary. But understand what you’re doing, own it. Myers’ expression here was not some random incomprehensible act like your toilet paper. He set out to publicly mock people, in terms calculated for them to take to heart–for the most part, people who had never done a thing but hold beliefs he found ridiculous.
I still haven’t seen any explanation of what good Myers’ defenders here think he was doing by this.
I have no fucking idea what you’re talking about, but if the school adminstration thought it even ghad the poetntial to be disruptive, they were within their rights to send the kid home. You’re comparing apples to oranges here. A school dress code no bearing on the discussion.
You really don’t understand the distinction? One of those things is a crime, for ine thing. A terroristic threat does harm in that it has to be taken seriously. It instills physical fear.
That’s exactly the problem.
He gave an explanation of his actions, and I believe it has been reiterated in this thread, so I believe that you have seen what you have requested, it’s just that you refuse to accept what has been offered. There isn’t much that can be done about that, really.
Symbolic acts of denegration and contempt do indeed differ from threats. Threats put people in fear of their safety. Symbolic acts of denegration and contempt do not.
That doesn’t make them morally neutral. Like threats, they are intended to work on the emotions of their targets; they just work on different emotions. Threats invoke fear, and are intended to invoke fear; denegration and contempt invokes hatred, and is intended to invoke hatred.
Invoking fear is worse than invoking hatred, particularly where it is personal and directed. “I’m gonna attack you” is worse than “I’m gonna attack Americans”. Similarly, “I’m pissing on your mother’s grave” is worse than “I’m pissing on the flag of your country”.
So a personal threat is worse than a mere gesture of contempt directed at an identifiable group - but they are of a kind. The “harm” is purely emotional.
If mere symbolic acts can move people to threats of violence(and oftentimes beyond), then I think the concern should be over what causes such violent overreaction, not the symbolic act itself. If you have been taught that violence in the defense of symbolism is proper, then you have more than a few screws loose, and (in my opinion) none of the blame lies with those who have somehow offended through indirect action.
On a scale of 1 to 10, next to those actions you name, would you place cracker taking?
This would make perfect sense if the act of symbolic hatred were confined to those who react with threats and violence. But of course it is not.
As I said above - it is one of the mental habits of bigotry to associate the worst behaviour of a few of the targeted group, and make that the characteristic of the whole of the targeted group.
Take the example of a white supremacist pissing on MLK’s grave. Some Black folk catch him at it and threaten to beat him up - hardly an astounding reaction, right? The Black community hears about it and expresses outrage over the desecration. Would you then say to them:
The assumption appears to be that the fact that some anonymous internet nuts responded with threats to Catholic-bashing, that this somehow proves the bashing was justified.
Would the fact that some Blacks reacted with threats of violence to desecrating MLK’s grave prove that the act was justified?
I thought you were against requiring people to jump through hoops … but I have no objection to playing along.
On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being “least bad” and 10 being “most bad”:
Personal-directed threat: 10
Group-directed threat: 8
Personal-directed act of contempt and hatred: 7
Group-directed act of contempt and hatred: 4
Desecrating the host would be a “Group-directed act of contempt and hatred”, so a 4. The lowest category of the four.
Threatening the life of the host-desecrator would be a “Personal-directed threat”, so a 10. Highest category of the four.
I am talking about the contradiction between your alleged opinion and your actions.
No, they were not. There was no disruption. Therefore there was no harm, and, if you were consistent, you would not have objected. But you did object. Therefore, your opinion cannot be what you claim it was. QED.
Regards,
Shodan
Instead of expecting us to take your word for it, link to the thread and post(s) where Dio said what you claim he did in context or shut up about it already.
I don’t know why you are so in love with this phrase, unless you are trying to permanently link it in peoples’ minds to cracker taking. Whether I find such a totally fictitious action offensive is of no consequence, but I am sure you hope that others do it offensive and make that link. Now, if you wish to talk about what actually happened and its possible causes and consequences I’ll gladly do so, but I refuse to go along with this association game of yours any further.
Since “personally-directed act of contempt and hatred” is a definition of your own choosing, would you mind if I substitute “cracker taking”, since it has definitely not been established that this was an act of contempt and hatred?