Terrorist attack against a mosque thwared in Kansas

[Deleted]

People should avoid doing things with the purpose of antagonizing others. This is very different. Intentionally attempting to hurt the feelings of others is still shitty behavior even when you don't agree with those feelings.

You've yet to move beyond the "but their feels" stage. You are still arguing on the basis of their feels and that their religious sensibilities should be respected. You have to realize that not everyone gives religion the same importance as you do.

[Wells]

Kitty Katt, you know you're constructing a definition of "tolerance" here that allows for anti semitism right?

- - - Updated - - -

You've yet to move beyond the "but their feels" stage. You are still arguing on the basis of their feels and that their religious sensibilities should be respected. You have to realize that not everyone gives religion the same importance as you do.

Why should I have to? Do you think others' feelings are just something you should ignore?

[Deleted]

Why should I have to? Do you think others' feelings are just something you should ignore?

If they are getting angry because of people being gay or eating pork? Definitely.

[Endus]

You've yet to move beyond the "but their feels" stage. You are still arguing on the basis of their feels and that their religious sensibilities should be respected. You have to realize that not everyone gives religion the same importance as you do.

There's no need to move beyond that stage. Their "feels" are real and matter. Hell, damage to those "feels" is grounds for legal action on their behalf.

- - - Updated - - -

If they are getting angry because of people being gay or eating pork? Definitely.

Man, look at those goalposts just flying by.

Again, not what was being discussed.

[Wells]

If they are getting angry because of people being gay or eating pork? Definitely.

Just to be clear here, you think antisemitism and tolerance aren't mutually exclusive? And no muslims here are getting angry. Neither in the story the tread is about nor in the hypothetical. That's just the assumption you brought in here with you. As if their anger justifies your behavior after the fact.

[Deleted]

Man, look at those goalposts just flying by.

Again, not what was being discussed.

There's no reason they would be angry about pork shops or gay bars otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Just to be clear here, you think antisemitism and tolerance aren't mutually exclusive? And no muslims here are getting angry. Neither in the story the tread is about nor in the hypothetical. That's just the assumption you brought in here with you. As if their anger justifies your behavior after the fact.

No, this started with you arguing with someone that wanted to build gay bars and pork shops and you said they shouldn't because it's offensive to muslims.

[Kraenen]

My ex-wife's family were all Mormon. If you're being abusive to Mormons, then it's no different than any other religious bigotry. I live in the middle on Mennonite country here in Ontario, and I've worked with their community when working up some agri-business policy in the region. I wouldn't ever make fun of their religious decisions to eschew the use of technology for personal convenience, either.

Because religious intolerance isn't magically "better" than other forms of prejudice.

So I take it you don't look down on christians who believe homosexuality is a sin?

Pretty definitively untrue. Pretty much no country in the developed world sides with that perspective, and for good reason. Respecting religious freedom has been a core human right for pretty much as long as the concept's been kicked around.

What? This is demonstrably opposite of the truth. The western developed world has become secularized because of free speech and free religion. Society has progressed because of its taking religion off a pedestal. We've made progress against religious bigots because we realize that religion is a set of ideas that should be criticized on equal footing with other ideas. If you aren't aware of this, you must've been asleep while the fight for gay rights was going on. In fact your whole analysis just shows how little you comprehend of secularization and the enlightenment and its role in western progress.

[Endus]

There's no reason they would be angry about pork shops or gay bars otherwise.

You're making two simultaneous errors, here.

1> That they would be angry about said establishments was the motivation of those building them. That was the issue; the deliberate intent to provoke and harass, whether it actually bothered them or not.

2> Whether they ever actually became "angry" about those establishments wasn't ever factored into the discussion until you decided to move the goalposts to include it.

[Deleted]

There's no need to move beyond that stage. Their "feels" are real and matter. Hell, damage to those "feels" is grounds for legal action on their behalf.

Which is ridiculous in and of itself.

[Wells]

No, this started with you arguing with someone that wanted to build gay bars and pork shops and you said they shouldn't because it's offensive to muslims.

No, that's not. He said he'd do it to "teach them lessons about tolerance". Which is just antagonizing them on the basis of their faith. Jesus, have you really thought this was the discussion the entire time?

[Deleted]

You're making two simultaneous errors, here.

1> That they would be angry about said establishments was the motivation of those building them. That was the issue; the deliberate intent to provoke and harass, whether it actually bothered them or not.

2> Whether they ever actually became "angry" about those establishments wasn't ever factored into the discussion until you decided to move the goalposts to include it.

To antagonize someone means to anger them. I'm fairly sure it was a part of the discussion from the beginning.

[Ragedaug]

Well, right-wingnut "SJW's" are dangerous. This is just another example of that.

Proof that people are dangerous . If I had some extra money, I'd send you a history book. As it is you can probably just google "bad stuff done by some people to other people through human history". You'll find this is pretty much of the consistent things throughout history that people do to other people.

The trick is stopping them before they can do the bad things. Kudos to the law enforcement folks who caught them. Granted the folks they nabbed hadn't done anything...and there's the possibility they wouldn't have. I've known plenty of nutjobs who "roleplay" being billy-bad-a.., and writing up big plans to do crap that they never would or could do.

It's a tough position to be in. You see some folks making plans and you have to decide, do we take preventively take action before they do, or do we wait for evidence that they will actually carry out the plot. Similar to cops, in a way, who have to make split second decisions and take action before their suspect takes action. Definitely times when the cops got it wrong. Hopefully they got it right this time.

[Wells]

Which is ridiculous in and of itself.

Do you oppose hate speech laws then?

[Endus]

So I take it you don't look down on christians who believe homosexuality is a sin?

If they keep that religious view to themselves? No. If they act to harass, condemn, or act against the rights of gay citizens, that changes, but then it's not based on their faith, it's based on their actions.

What? This is demonstrably opposite of the truth. The western developed world has become secularized because of free speech and free religion. Society has progressed because of its taking religion off a pedestal. We've made progress against religious bigots because we realize that religion is a set of ideas that should be criticized on equal footing with other ideas. If you aren't aware of this, you must've been asleep while the fight for gay rights was going on.

That entire concept of freedom of religion is exactly what you're attacking, here. That's the point.

[Deleted]

Do you oppose hate speech laws then?

Unless they pertain to ethnicity, nationality or sexuality, yes.

[Zaydin]

Firstly, doesn't matter unless they were Trump supporters.

Secondly, I thought this would be a Tennisace thread, and I'm honestly shocked it wasn't.

From what I've seen, at least two are Trump supporters. Wouldn't be surprised if the third ends up the same.

[Kraenen]

If they keep that religious view to themselves? No. If they act to harass, condemn, or act against the rights of gay citizens, that changes, but then it's not based on their faith, it's based on their actions.

So you literally have no problem with homophobic beliefs? Okay. But how does it morph from being based on faith to based on actions when their actions are based directly on their faith?

That entire concept of freedom of religion is exactly what you're attacking, here. That's the point.

No I'm not. You have a pretty bad problem with misconstruing others' opinions lately.

[Endus]

Which is ridiculous in and of itself.

So harassment shouldn't be legally punishable? Emotional abuse shouldn't be actionable? Ignoring the reality of people's psychiatric health is simply ridiculous.

To antagonize someone means to anger them. I'm fairly sure it was a part of the discussion from the beginning.

The discussion was about intent to antagonize, not whether said attempts were successful. Hence the moving of the goalposts, by yourself, to avoid dealing with that question of intent.

[Wells]

Unless they pertain to ethnicity, nationality or sexuality, yes.

So it should be illegal to hurt peoples feelings with speech that pertains to those things? I thought feels weren't real.

[Deleted]

So it should be illegal to hurt peoples feelings with speech that pertains to those things? I thought feels weren't real.

Yes, because these are things that are not your choice, unlike religion.