Iran: off its head

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:36 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 529198.stm

This is why religous countrys shouldnt have nukes because there worlds are based on make belive.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:25 am

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 529198.stm

This is why religous countrys shouldnt have nukes because there worlds are based on make belive.

One extremist leader being a holocaust denier does not necessarily mean that "religious countries" (however you define the term) are all that nuts.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:57 pm

True I guess I ment diety worshping religon and not spirtual based religons.

Besides the point, is this man mad as a hatter? - how can u say such a thing!

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:06 pm

Religion and politics should never mix. But they do. All the time.

Gekigengar · Post by **Gekigengar** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:58 am

Bouncelot wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 529198.stm

This is why religous countrys shouldnt have nukes because there worlds are based on make belive.
One extremist leader being a holocaust denier does not necessarily mean that "religious countries" (however you define the term) are all that nuts.

That depends, do they like mounds or joy?

As far as the leader is concern... probably his kashmiri or kufi or something like that is wrapped to tight, and not enough oxygen is going through.

Nuts... no... we should not offend him by any chance.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:01 pm

The comment that six million Jews did not die in the Holocaust is not a new one. Many others have refuted this number.

It's not that he denied the Holocaust altogether, its the number of Jews that died that he challenges, as many others have in the past.

It depends on what historian you read.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:20 pm

Hes wrong on both accounts. the only historians who say otherwise are crackpots from Iran.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:27 am

Bloody Iranians!

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:30 am

Yaya wrote:Many others have refuted this number.

Ah, but were they as dangerous and deluded as this chap?

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:34 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Hes wrong on both accounts. the only historians who say otherwise are crackpots from Iran.

And crackpots who aren't in Iran.

Post by **Best First** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:34 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Hes wrong on both accounts. the only historians who say otherwise are crackpots from Iran.

uh-huh.

so you're original point in this topic is some guy aiming irrational crap at a certain group of people right?

Also can we avoid comments like 'bloody group X'?

the 6 million figure itself is open to some debate. As in its most likley 4-6 million. The assertion the holocause did not happen is a different matter.

However the suggestion that this guy is disputing numbers with statements such as "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," seems an odd one.

Bear in mind Isreal is allied with a nation that sold chemical weapons to one of Iran's enemies the legacy of which Iran still has to deal with. Doesn'y justify his comments, but niether does saying 'this guys nuts' offer anything approaching useful analysis.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:42 pm

Best First wrote:
Also can we avoid comments like 'bloody group X'?

Twas a joke.

Bearing in mind I am one of group 'X'.

Post by **Best First** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:12 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:
Best First wrote:
Also can we avoid comments like 'bloody group X'?

Twas a joke. Bearing in mind I am one of group 'X'.

sos

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:37 pm

I know what your saying, I think thats the fundemental difference aswell. yout looking at this with, how shall we say, a 'western' rational. this guys taking his country where exactly? up **** street. hes doing himself no favours what so ever. I mean seriously, the next invasion the USA plan will be Iran, and this guy is to blame.

Uberking Robert · Post by **Uberking Robert** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:12 am

I'm not offended by what this Arabic guy said. In my opinion, freedom of speech is infinitely more important than something as friviolous and trivial as "political correctness". I believe freedom of speech is a basic human right, the right of all men, rich or poor, wise or foolish, intelligent or stupid, strong or weak, powerful or ineffectual, brave or cowardly.

As for what I think of what he said, I think it was certainly very asshole-like, but to be honest I don't really care. Nothing against the Jews, but IMO the less PC we have around, the better. PC's something Mankind can stand to do without.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:04 am

yeah, we wouldn't want anything around to challenge our own prejudices and ignorance would we?

that would suck.

Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to go unchallenged.

As for the USA invading, i serioulsy doubt it can all be put down to one man, and if it could, it wouldn't be this guy. I don't know anything about the rest of his policies/government so i can't really say whether he is taking them up **** street or not.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:39 pm

I'm an American, and I can say that there should be limits to liberty, in one's actions and in one's words. Even the founding fathers of America, like Jefferson, understood this.

No matter how tough someone is, there is always something that can be said to hurt them. That's part of being human. How does one cope with this? Just get over it? Unfortunately, because we are human, its not so easy. Having feelings is what separates us from rocks, unfeeling, unliving things.

As such, freedom of speech must have proper limits to protect the feelings of others. Today, the idea of freedom of speech has been taken too far.

I live in a country that touts freedom of speech, yet if I bash say, Christmas and Jesus, I will get bashed for it. But you know what? Though I'm not Christian, I should get bashed for it. For if I'm an intelligent human being who is considerate of the feelings of others, a human being who understands the sancitity of the feelings of others, I should have enough sense to keep my feelings to myself. There's no rule that restricts how I think or how I feel. How I think or feel offends no one. What I say can be offensive.

Obviously, this is not a perfect world, and there is no way we can avoid being offensive to others. But we sure as hell can try our freakin best not to be.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:00 pm

Yaya wrote:

As such, freedom of speech must have proper limits to protect the feelings of others. Today, the idea of freedom of speech has been taken too far.

how can you take freedom of speech to far? conceptually it has no limits.

plus who gets to apply the limits you are advocating?

Why do you consider the feelings of one group importnat but not mind trampling teh feelings of those who might feel oppressed by the restriction to speak out agaisnt the actions or beliefs of the other group? There's no logic to what you are suggesting.

Also how can you take this position and yet about 5 posts ago defend the iranian dude, he's completely guilty of hwat you are (bizarely in my opinion) complaining about.

Offending people is sometimes no different than challenging their ideas.

So yeah, essentially, get over it.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:28 pm

Im not offended by him, I just dont understand him - I mean he seems to be pissing alot of the world off at the moment with his views on ceratin things. I wonder if the ppl of his country follow his views or dont have a choice.

Its like he has freedom of speech, but I wonder if his ppl do?

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:28 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Its like he has freedom of speech, but I wonder if his ppl do?

Nope. Speaking out against the government gets you locked up. Or worse.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:06 pm

Best First wrote:
Yaya wrote:

As such, freedom of speech must have proper limits to protect the feelings of others. Today, the idea of freedom of speech has been taken too far.
how can you take freedom of speech to far? conceptually it has no limits.

plus who gets to apply the limits you are advocating?

Why do you consider the feelings of one group importnat but not mind trampling teh feelings of those who might feel oppressed by the restriction to speak out agaisnt the actions or beliefs of the other group? There's no logic to what you are suggesting.

Also how can you take this position and yet about 5 posts ago defend the iranian dude, he's completely guilty of hwat you are (bizarely in my opinion) complaining about.

Offending people is sometimes no different than challenging their ideas.

So yeah, essentially, get over it.

As far as freedom of speech conceptually having no limits, that may be true, but we live in a world of practicality, not a conceptual utopia. Limits must be placed to protect the common interest of the majority. Anyone who believes that freedom of speech can exist without boundaries and not result in conflict is deluding themselves. If you know of such a society, please, point it out to us all. You can't. It is a place only in your dreams, and there it will remain.

How I tire hearing from those proponents of the 'no-limits' freedom of speech philosophy. I know a group who expresses themselves by killing their parents and placing them atop flag posts. It is their manner of speech, of self expression. By your argument, we should allow for such 'expression', otherwise, we will be restricting the freedoms they that are due to them.

Who should define such limits? That depends on where you choose to live, and the type of government that is present. In America, supposedly the people decide the limits. People meaning the majority vote. That means there are minorities who will be somehow constrained on how they can express themselves, but you know what? That's too bad for them. A limit must be placed, and who better than the majority.

You are so right. No-limits freedom of speech is a concept. A figment. It can't be implemented and never will.

As far as defending the Irani dude, I have no idea what his intentions were, and I'm not defending him. All I'm saying is if people are going to get into an uproar about his challenging the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust , they should be so inclined to challenge the other many contemporary historians who have said the same thing.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:18 am

Im not so pissed off over the numbers or what he says, its more the way he just seams to stick 2 fingers up at the rest of the world continuly. If I was from Iran and be extreamly worried over where this 'extremist' is taking the country.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:52 am

Where's Ultimate Weapon when you need him?

Post by **Best First** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:02 pm

Yaya wrote:As far as freedom of speech conceptually having no limits, that may be true, but we live in a world of practicality, not a conceptual utopia. Limits must be placed to protect the common interest of the majority. Anyone who believes that freedom of speech can exist without boundaries and not result in conflict is deluding themselves.

who said it would not result in conflict? Anyoen who think society can progress or evolve without ideas being chellanged is deluding themselves.

You can't. It is a place only in your dreams, and there it will remain.

hee hee - you're funny.

How I tire hearing from those proponents of the 'no-limits' freedom of speech philosophy.

aw.

I know a group who expresses themselves by killing their parents and placing them atop flag posts. It is their manner of speech, of self expression. By your argument, we should allow for such 'expression', otherwise, we will be restricting the freedoms they that are due to them.

"Hey, by saying you support freedom of speech you are saying you support killing people. "

er... no?

How i tire of proponents of utterly irrational ****.

A limit must be placed,

oh! well argued. Because? I mean a logical reaosn rather than your bizarre "we should oppress people's views to spare people's feelings"

and who better than the majority.

mm, history has proven this works well.

You are so right. No-limits freedom of speech is a concept. A figment. It can't be implemented and never will.

like democracy, which you are advocating to support your censorhsip? i see.

Plus... if you are so worried about people's feelings being hurt becaus eof disagreement, why are you spouting patronising claptrap like 'this only exists in your dreams' and 'you are deluding yourself'. Is thsi you doing your damndest not to be offensive? Needs work.

As far as defending the Irani dude, I have no idea what his intentions were, and I'm not defending him. All I'm saying is if people are going to get into an uproar about his challenging the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust , they should be so inclined to challenge the other many contemporary historians who have said the same thing.

He is not questioning the numbers, he is questioning whether it has happened, by statingthat he is just questioning the numbers you appear to be trying to defend him.

I think there is an arguement for protecting people for critcism based on irrational grounds such as race, gender or sexuality, anything else is a human construct and therefore fair game.If people can't deal with their faith, polotics or taste in music or whatever they remain free to keep their oopinions to themselves thsu shielding them from criticism.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:59 pm

yeah isnt he just saying it didnt happen full stop, and the west made it up or somthing. ie Jew V's Muslim culture - it ties in nicely with his wanting to 'wipe Israel of the face of the earth' comment, which came shortly after he declared his new Nuclear program... he worrys me because it all has a certain theme and seems to be heading in one direction which might be pretty nasty.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:58 pm

Best First wrote: I think there is an arguement for protecting people for critcism based on irrational grounds such as race, gender or sexuality, anything else is a human construct and therefore fair game.

Who's putting limits now?

I mean, to you, race, gender,and sexuality are "irrational grounds". To me, I would include religion as well. And others would include intelligence, etc.. I mean, I guess its okay to bash dumb people by your argument, because they don't fall into the 'race, gender, or sexuality' category.

Look, I don't mean to be insulting or patronizing, and if I have been, I apologize. I'm merely pointing out that everyone has their own ideas about what freedom of speech even is.

Somebody has to be the definer of limits. They may be right or wrong, fair or unfair, but in order to maintain a society that is not rife with violence and disruption, there has to be limits to freedom of speech. My problem is that, like the feminist movement (let's open a new can of worms), there are extremist who take things way too far when it comes to what they feel are freedoms that are rightfully theirs.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:59 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:yeah isnt he just saying it didnt happen full stop, and the west made it up or somthing. ie Jew V's Muslim culture - it ties in nicely with his wanting to 'wipe Israel of the face of the earth' comment, which came shortly after he declared his new Nuclear program... he worrys me because it all has a certain theme and seems to be heading in one direction which might be pretty nasty.

How can someone deny that it even happened? That's ludicrous.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:17 pm

Yaya wrote:
Best First wrote: I think there is an arguement for protecting people for critcism based on irrational grounds such as race, gender or sexuality, anything else is a human construct and therefore fair game.
Who's putting limits now?

me. obviously.

But in all honesty i'd rather rely on education, empathy and the subsequent consensus.

I mean, to you, race, gender,and sexuality are "irrational grounds". To me, I would include religion as well. And others would include intelligence, etc.. I mean, I guess its okay to bash dumb people by your argument, because they don't fall into the 'race, gender, or sexuality' category.

low intelligence or willfully ingnorant?

a) no b) yes

protect people from critisim of that which is inherent.

but why the hell should religion be precluded from criticism on similar grounds to race or gender? Its illogical.

Look, I don't mean to be insulting or patronizing, and if I have been, I apologize. I'm merely pointing out that everyone has their own ideas about what freedom of speech even is.

not quite how it came across.

Somebody has to be the definer of limits. They may be right or wrong, fair or unfair, but in order to maintain a society that is not rife with violence and disruption, there has to be limits to freedom of speech.

give me an example of freedom of speech, outside of race, gender or sexuality that has led to an epidemic of violence sufficient enough to further curb peopls rights to air an opinion or has not included a vlaid criticism of some kind?

My problem is that, like the feminist movement (let's open a new can of worms), there are extremist who take things way too far when it comes to what they feel are freedoms that are rightfully theirs.

yeah - theyare causing the end of society aren't they?

where is the big issue with freedom of speech as its currently accepted in most western countries?

people's feelings get hurt? please. You want to ban relationships as well?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:01 pm

Best First wrote: but why the hell should religion be precluded from criticism on similar grounds to race or gender? Its illogical.

give me an example of freedom of speech, outside of race, gender or sexuality that has led to an epidemic of violence sufficient enough to further curb peopls rights to air an opinion or has not included a vlaid criticism of some kind?

yeah - theyare causing the end of society aren't they?
well?

I wish I knew how to break down quotes and reply to each part, but I'm not that saavy.

Anyway, does something have to cause the end of society in order to meet the criteria of being harmful? I could meet you on the street, punch you in the face, and walk away and it would have hardly an effect on society as a whole. But would that change the harmful nature of it? Nope. It's still harmful. So just because the impact of actions are not felt on some grand scale makes such actions no less evil.

An example other than gender, race, and sexuality? History is the best teacher. And it has taught us that religion is an emotionally charged subject, if not more so, than gender, race, and sexuality. Prejudices come in many forms. Regarding gender, one can be sexist. With race, racist. Can you tell me that religion has not been the basis of prejudices in the past? The Crusades and such wars have religion at their very heart.

I don't mind being challenged one bit about my religious beliefs, or any beliefs. I agree with you, being challenged is a good thing. It makes one reflect on one's actions, and if there's one thing we don't do enough of, its reflection. If Americans reflected on their war with Iraq more, they would come to see the fallacy of it all. If they stymied their prejudices, and reflected on the true nature of things, there wouldn't be a war.

But there is a big distinction between challenging one's beliefs and insulting them. Challenging one's religious beliefs, for example, is something that should be permitted and falls within one's right of freedom of speech. But insulting someone's belief's should be considered a transgression of our right to free speech, in other words, transgressing the reasonable limits of free speech. The problem is, some feel this is their right to say what they choose, whether its a challenge or insult. That's the problem I have in freedom of speech without limits. It can be taken too far, to the point of being dangerous to others, whether it is on an individual or social level.

So I don't disagree with your idea of challenging one beliefs, particularly when it comes to religion. My argument is that freedom of speech has gone too far, and too much of a good thing can be very, very dangerous.

Freedom of speech needs limits. You can disagree. It's your right.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:55 pm

Yaya wrote:I'm an American, and I can say that there should be limits to liberty, in one's actions and in one's words. Even the founding fathers of America, like Jefferson, understood this.

Mmm, the essence being that freedom of speech can't be abrogated, but people should exercise self-restraint.

insulting someone's belief's should be considered a transgression of our right to free speech, in other words, transgressing the reasonable limits of free speech.

Insult is intent rather than choice of words... and, by that criteria, pretty much everything I've ever said about religion is an insult, regardless of how polite I may come across as being.

to you, race, gender,and sexuality are "irrational grounds". To me, I would include religion as well

Religion is a choice. Personal politics are a choice. Therein lies the distinction.

TransFans.co.uk

Iran: off its head

Re: Iran: off its head

Re: Iran: off its head