The new face of hate

[kengs333]

It happened a few years ago.

Agreed. You know society is screwed up when decrying sin and evil is considered hate.

[Posit]

Agreed. You know society is screwed up when decrying sin and evil is considered hate.

"Sin" is a Christian construct and has no value in Canadian debate. "Evil" is a disingenuous attempt to label someone who fails to live up to your own sanctimonious inconsistencies. It too, has no place in Canadian debate.

So really, it is not the society that is screwed up but an individual who can't debate without using religious dogma as an argument.

[kengs333]

"Sin" is a Christian construct and has no value in Canadian debate. "Evil" is a disingenuous attempt to label someone who fails to live up to your own sanctimonious inconsistencies. It too, has no place in Canadian debate.

So really, it is not the society that is screwed up but an individual who can't debate without using religious dogma as an argument.

Here's a perfect example. Sin and evil are universal. People who choose to deny its existance and/or openly embrace them, have intentions that are clear. Personally, I would prefer to live in a society free from sin and evil, rather than one in which sin and evil becomes normalized.

[xul]

Yes people who do not like being insulted have the same rights as everyone else. But that does not mean it is their right to censor someone else's speech because it insults them. It is no one's right to demand that everyone else say things that they like. But they have the right to say what they like in return. If someone insults me, Xul, it does not infringe upon any of rights. My rights are still intact.

This is an ancient way. I think people would find some better way to deal with such problem. I saw several cases of those low educated people solving their problem by this way when I was a kid, really disgusting. I think Canada rarely have people using this way, so you have no sense how it works and think this way is better.

And no, you are wrong there, anti-hatred laws are only in place for certain protected groups. Mike would not have the right to charge them with a hate crime unless he belongs to a protected group.

I'm not sure I have expressed my mean clearly. I means those guys are racist, they act against MilkDavid because he have a white skin. So this is a race hatred case.

Now, Xul, do you think it was right that verses from the Bible referring to homosexuality as sin were deemed hate literature by courts?

I don't think so. Just as most west doctor said eating Chinese food are harmful for health. It just an opinion, not an offese, though if it was truth, China would have far less than a billian people.

But if anyone said "homosexual are pigs", he would have more chance to be called to a court.

You say that free speech should end when it comes to insulting others. The problem with that Xul, is that then hatred becomes guaged by how offended a person is. You can argue that this is not exactly what you mean, but you are not handling every case. You allow the argument to be made. The reality is that people sue over minor insults all the time claiming that their feelings were hurt etc. Perhaps you don't understand how bad this is sometimes.

It is the court which decides what kind of expression commits hatred, not the person who charges.

Even though you said you were not offended by what Mike David said to you, you would support the right of someone else to sue him for large amounts of cash over the same thing (if they were insulted by it). Do you think that is realistic, Xul? I am not praising insults. But there is no one here who has not insulted someone. No one. Do you think we should all be subject to legal punishment for it?

I really don't think MikeDavid insulted me. I may describe his way as arrogant but not insulting.

[jennie]

"Sin" is a Christian construct and has no value in Canadian debate. "Evil" is a disingenuous attempt to label someone who fails to live up to your own sanctimonious inconsistencies. It too, has no place in Canadian debate.

So really, it is not the society that is screwed up but an individual who can't debate without using religious dogma as an argument.

The reason I left the church I grew up in was because 'Christian charity' was such hypocrisy and only supported the 'status quo' and the patriarchy. I can see some have only gotten more extreme in 30 years. Sad to see Christianity subverted to corporate purposes, but that is the reality. Suffer for 'the man' and you are a good Christian. Fight 'the man' and you are an enemy. That is the Christian dogma of the new millenium: The hell with the people, we need the minerals. Bash those natives sitting on OUR minerals! It is the Christian thing to do! whoopee

[Posit]

Here's a perfect example. Sin and evil are universal. People who choose to deny its existance and/or openly embrace them, have intentions that are clear. Personally, I would prefer to live in a society free from sin and evil, rather than one in which sin and evil becomes normalized.

Perfect example huh?

In reality there is no sin and there is no evil.

[ScottSA]

In reality there is no sin and there is no evil.

That's a convincing argument. No need to elaborate here.

[jefferiah]

"Sin" is a Christian construct and has no value in Canadian debate. "Evil" is a disingenuous attempt to label someone who fails to live up to your own sanctimonious inconsistencies. It too, has no place in Canadian debate.

So really, it is not the society that is screwed up but an individual who can't debate without using religious dogma as an argument.

It doesnt matter though Posit. For instance Muslims believe it is wrong to eat pork. They do not have to prove this to anyone. But it is part of their faith. Same with Christianity. I am not saying that everyone has to accept it, but if this is what a Christian sect teaches, that it is a sin, they should have the right to say that. It does not have to be debated. It is a belief. And as long as people who believe this practice it and do not commit violence against other who are homosexual or promote it there is no reason to censor it. If someone who believed drinking was bad went and assaulted someone who is a drinker, would you then think it reasonable to take legal action against all people who say they believe it is bad. That would be ridiculous.

This guy was not using it in Canadian debate. He was asked his views concerning homosexuality. He answered quite respectfully. He said he respects their decision to be homosexual, but he himself does not condone homosexuality. He did not seek to pass legislation to raid homosexuals bedrooms. The same way a person who believes in being a teetotaler might not try to stop people from drinking, but is free to express the opinion that drinking is wrong. Expressing that opinion does not take away someone's right to have a beer. Or to think otherwise on the morality of beer.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

This is an ancient way. I think people would find some better way to deal with such problem. I saw several cases of those low educated people solving their problem by this way when I was a kid, really disgusting.

I agree with you that insult is not the best way to solve problems, Xul. But I firmly oppose the idea of giving government power over speech so that people who insult others can be punished by law. This is too much power for government to have and it creates more problems than it does good. What you fail to see is that when you do this the door is opened for anyone to claim offense over anything. You are making the assumption that it is good based upon the other assumption that the law can make a reasonable decision about what is insulting enough. I would rather you call me a pig than have you arrested for it. Simple as that. If you were to do something more maybe then I might take legal action. But I dont want courts and the law to get involved in what people say.

You say you would not support the lawsuit against the man who said he believes homosexuality is a sin. But what you don't understand is you don't get to make the decisions on how to rule in these cases. I am telling you that lines from the Bible which refer to homosexuality as a sin have been officially deemed hate literature in some courts. Do you understand? Hate laws and the way they work do not conform to the idea you have of them. And no if you said all white people were pigs I dont think you should ever be sentenced for that. That is ridiculous. I would deal with it by debating it or ignoring you. Its as simple as that. No need to fine people for thousands of dollars over trivialities like this.

[Posit]

It doesnt matter though Posit. For instance Muslims believe it is wrong to eat pork. They do not have to prove this to anyone. But it is part of their faith. Same with Christianity. I am not saying that everyone has to accept it, but if this is what a Christian sect teaches, that it is a sin, they should have the right to say that. It does not have to be debated. It is a belief. And as long as people who believe this practice it and do not commit violence against other who are homosexual or promote it there is no reason to censor it. If someone who believed drinking was bad went and assaulted someone who is a drinker, would you then think it reasonable to take legal action against all people who say they believe it is bad. That would be ridiculous.

This guy was not using it in Canadian debate. He was asked his views concerning homosexuality. He answered quite respectfully. He said he respects their decision to be homosexual, but he himself does not condone homosexuality. He did not seek to pass legislation to raid homosexuals bedrooms. The same way a person who believes in being a teetotaler might not try to stop people from drinking, but is free to express the opinion that drinking is wrong. Expressing that opinion does not take away someone's right to have a beer. Or to think otherwise on the morality of beer.

The Christian concept of "sin" says that it is answerable to God and I maintain there is no sin because even God, would not punish anyone. Sin is just one of the many ways invented by the church to control the masses.

If I'm not mistaken, eating pork is not considered a "sin" to Muslim, but it is a law with which they guide themselves.

[mikedavid00]

The Christian concept of "sin" says that it is answerable to God and I maintain there is no sin because even God, would not punish anyone. Sin is just one of the many ways invented by the church to control the masses.

Doesn't the bible talk about sin?

I do realize there is a LOT of things that the church created (ash wed), and then there's the bible.

I try not to follow the teachings of the church, but rather the bible.

When the bible was written there was no such thing as a church and it is not required of Christians to attend church. I actually looked this up online.

Islam.. wow. .that's a whole other ballgame. The book is written completely diffrent. It's like an instruction manual designed to brainwash. It's very detailed, and extremely, extremely violent. Especially towards women. Islam lays out rules such as parts of women you are allowed to view before marrying them. It even discusses farting as you bow down to pray. It's a twisted, twisted, book of violence and brainwashing.

You know reading the quaran is actually fun. I almost coulnd't put it down. It subdues you from the start. It claimes that theres 3 types of muslims. Believers, Non Believers, and those who PRETEND that they are believers. And the ones who pretend are the worst and shall pay. So basically right off the bat, if you don't fully beleive or question the book, you are a pretender.

And they go into detail. Make no mistake. It's much more readeable than the Bible. The Quaran basically says that the non believer when caught, will make it like he was just joking around. They say that you will not easily be able to tell the fakers and that they just go through the motions. So basically muslims walk around all afraid that they are not fakers and have to prove to themselves that they are true muslims.

Muslims also use a point system. They grade their sins. Every muslim breaks fast during ramadan becuase it's not just fasting, you are not allowed to chew gum or brush your teeth. You are also not allowed to have impure thoughts of women or swear etc. Those all constitute breaking fast.

But the more you TRY, the better you do. The one with the cleenest record at the end of the whole thing wins. And this point system is throught your life. You can actually break fast and make the days up later. No joking.

It's a wierd, sketchy, wild, wacked book. One thing is does profess is Islam will indeed dominate the universe.

Edited September 29, 2007 by mikedavid00

[jefferiah]

The Christian concept of "sin" says that it is answerable to God and I maintain there is no sin because even God, would not punish anyone. Sin is just one of the many ways invented by the church to control the masses.

If I'm not mistaken, eating pork is not considered a "sin" to Muslim, but it is a law with which they guide themselves.

Refraining from punishing someone does not mean that sin does not exist. I am not saying that I think there should be punishment for homosexuals either. I myself have committed adultery before. But I recognize that it is a sin according to my faith. And I know that what I did was wrong. The fact that God is merciful does not mean that sin does not exist. When Jesus said let he without sin cast the first stone, he later told the woman who committed adultery go and "sin" no more. The fact that he believed in mercy rather than punishment in her case does not mean he was saying she had not sinned. Whether you agree with me or not on the sinfulness of homosexuality is irrelevant. No one is saying that you have to agree with me. But if I am of the opinion that something is wrong I have a right to that, and I have a right to share that opinion as well. No one has to agree with me. And I am not infringing on anyone else's right by doing so. And I am not encouraging violence or ill treatment of homosexuals either. Gay people can still be gay no matter what I think. The same way I can still have a beer if someone tells me they think drinking is wrong.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

I am still awaiting Jennie's answer to the question:

If a white person were offended by someone who made demeaning comments about white people, would you then support his lawsuit against the person who offended him?

Personally I wouldnt, but that is because I do not believe in legal action over such matters.

But since Jennie supported the aforementioned case, I wonder does she also support it when racially demeaning comments are made about white people.

Jennie, have you come up with any answer yet?

[Visionseeker]

A 2nd generation is more Canadian, but how much more?

Let me dig up one of my old posts.

Here's how much:

Survey conducted on immigrants and second generation Canadians. This is truly jaw dropping.:

Do you identify as Canadian?

Immigrant ___Recent* ___Earlier** __Second Generation

Whites ______21.9% ____53.8% _____78.2%

Chinese _____30.6 ______42.0 _______59.5

South Asian __19.1 ______32.7 _______53.6

Black _______13.9 ______27.2 _______49.6

Other _______17.4 ______32.8 _______60.6

* Arrived in Canada between 1991and 2001 ** Arrived in Canada before 1991

SOURCE: JERRREY G. REITZ AND RUPA BANERJEE

So basically, this shows that the MAJORITY of Immigrants and SECOND GEN don't even consider themselves Canadian.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....cond+generation

I'm failing to see your point here (maybe I missed something in this thread). Your numbers suggest that Canadian identity becomes increasingly apparent the longer the individual has been here and with successive generations (which one would think intuitive).

Further, you are making forced conclusions when you say "the MAJORITY of Immigrants and SECOND GEN don't even consider themselves Canadian" because your own numbers demonstrate that a majority of second generation immigrants clearly identify themselves as Canadian. Lumping second gens in with recent & earlier arrivals may suit your own motives, but it doesn't represent clear and effective analysis.

[jennie]

Refraining from punishing someone does not mean that sin does not exist. I am not saying that I think there should be punishment for homosexuals either. I myself have committed adultery before. But I recognize that it is a sin according to my faith. And I know that what I did was wrong. The fact that God is merciful does not mean that sin does not exist. When Jesus said let he without sin cast the first stone, he later told the woman who committed adultery go and "sin" no more. The fact that he believed in mercy rather than punishment in her case does not mean he was saying she had not sinned. Whether you agree with me or not on the sinfulness of homosexuality is irrelevant. No one is saying that you have to agree with me. But if I am of the opinion that something is wrong I have a right to that, and I have a right to share that opinion as well. No one has to agree with me. And I am not infringing on anyone else's right by doing so. Gay people can still be gay.

See here's the catch ... gay people have a right to be gay ... without such public denigration.

People's rights are tricky things to balance.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier said something like: 'The rights of one extend only to the point where they interfere with the rights of another.'

On that, I think you are over the line.

It is the "public" issue.

Have your 'opinions' in private perhaps?

[jefferiah]

Thats ridiculous. Someone saying they believe homosexuality is wrong does not infringe upon a gay person's right at all. They can still be gay. It is not their right that everyone has to agree with them. Your own quote backs up what I am saying more than it does what you are saying. How can you not see that?

Believing that homosexuality is a sin does not take away from a person's right to be homosexual. When a homosexual demands that everyone must condone it, they are infringing upon the rights of the rest of society. No one has the right to have people condone what they do. That's completely ridiculous, Jennie. If ever I do something you think is wrong or immoral you have a perfect right to express your opinion. And if I dont like it I can ignore it or tell you to mind your own beeswax. But I do not have the right to tell you its wrong to say you think what I am doing is wrong. If you say I think what you are doing is wrong to me, it does not infringe upon my rights at all. Gays have the right to be gay. I have the right to drink. But I don't have the right to take away another person's right to say he believes drinking is wrong for himself or everyone else. If I did that I would be infringing upon his right to speak his mind, and his speaking his mind does not infringe at all upon my right to drink.

Cmon Jennie, I know you can grasp this. Use your noggin.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Have your 'opinions' in private perhaps?

This is a ridiculous statement. Completely and utterly ridiculous.

[jefferiah]

I'll go over it again Jennie, to make you see it better.

I have a legal right to drink.

Gays have legal right to be gay.

If someone says drinking is bad and its immoral (ie Drea has said this in another thread, and by your own definition earlier in this thread, that would be hate speech.), I will stay have the legal right to drink. It is my right to drink. But it is not my right that everyone should agree with me. And it is not my right to demand that they have their opinions in private. For instance, if they were to start a religious group centered on the ideal of teetotalerism how would you expect them to communicate their beliefs. How would they publish their religious documents, since espousing any kind of morality is a hate crime by your own definition?

If someone says being gay is immoral, privately or publically, that is their right. We all have a thing called freedom of conscience and freedom to profess that conscience. Professing your conscience publically does not infringe upon another persons rights, because the law does not demand that you have to do whatever another person thinks is right for you. So if a person were to say I believe that homosexual sex is immoral he would not be infringing upon someone else's right. It will still be their right to be gay, but it is not their right that everyone should have to agree with it, or that everyone who doesnt agree with homosexuality cannot be vocal.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that it is someone's right that people cannot have a moral opinion about what they do? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Dont you understand that when you think your rights include someone elses opinion and where they can say it that is a perfect example of someone' expecting his right to "not" end where someone else's rights begin. Your Laurier quote supports what I am saying.

And by the way Jennie, I was just wondering something:

Let's say....hmmm...well I dunno, lets say a white person were to be offended by a denigrating comment about white people, would you support his lawsuit against the person who made the offensive remarks?

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[Visionseeker]

IMO, their extrememly [sic] poor English ensures that they will never be taken seriosly [sic] at work. (there are many exceptoins [sic] of course. There are many sucker employers that will hire only paper qualifications. They are in our gov't jobs, RBC, CIBC, Scotia Bank, and any other gov't protected institution [banks are not government as you imply here]. Oh they love hiriing [sic] the immigrants and paying them $70,000 to sit around and speak their language around the office. That happens quite a bit. But most immigrants will not get this. It simply wont[sic] happen).

You have the nerve to question anyone's English skills whilst giving us this paragraph of error ridden filth!?

[Visionseeker]

It happened a few years ago.

Which passage was it?

[jennie]

Thats ridiculous. Someone saying they believe homosexuality is wrong does not infringe upon a gay person's right at all. They can still be gay. It is not their right that everyone has to agree with them. Your own quote backs up what I am saying more than it does what you are saying. How can you not see that?

Believing that homosexuality is a sin does not take away from a person's right to be homosexual. When a homosexual demands that everyone must condone it, they are infringing upon the rights of the rest of society. No one has the right to have people condone what they do. That's completely ridiculous, Jennie. If ever I do something you think is wrong or immoral you have a perfect right to express your opinion. And if I dont like it I can ignore it or tell you to mind your own beeswax. But I do not have the right to tell you its wrong to say you think what I am doing is wrong. If you say I think what you are doing is wrong to me, it does not infringe upon my rights at all. Gays have the right to be gay. I have the right to drink. But I don't have the right to take away another person's right to say he believes drinking is wrong for himself or everyone else. If I did that I would be infringing upon his right to speak his mind, and his speaking his mind does not infringe at all upon my right to drink.

Cmon Jennie, I know you can grasp this. Use your noggin.

Yes I can, and I do ... and I think we are close to something here ...

When a homosexual demands that everyone must condone it, they are infringing upon the rights of the rest of society.

I don't think they demand that "everyone must condone it". No, you don't have to do that. You can believe it is wrong for you ... and the vast majority of men are not gay. ... and for everyone else if you insist, in private, but you cannot disdain same-sex families publicly.

Our society, through our laws, demands that the few men and women who gay/lesbian must not be publicly disrespected.

It simply is a matter of civil public behaviour.

I think it is the expectation - in 'a public forum' in Canada.

I think perhaps the children in families of same-sex couples might have a perspective on that.

Public humiliation is something gay and lesbian parents feel strongly about protecting their children against.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jennie

[Pliny]

Cmon Jennie, I know you can grasp this. Use your noggin.

[jefferiah]

Yes I can, and I do ... and I think we are close to something here ...

When a homosexual demands that everyone must condone it, they are infringing upon the rights of the rest of society.

I don't think they demand that "everyone must condone it". No, you don't have to do that. You can believe it is wrong for you ... and the vast majority of men are not gay.

But our society, through our laws, demands that the few men and women who gay/lesbian must not be publicly disrespected.

It simply is a matter of civil public behaviour.

I think it is the expectation - in 'a public forum' in Canada.

Then there is the law about willful promotion of hatred, and inciting hatred.

I think perhaps the children in families of same-sex couples might have a perspective on that.

It is something their parents feel strongly about protecting their children against.

And those laws are ridiculous is what I am saying.

Someone believing what you do is wrong is not denigrating. Look, it is not against the law for someone to say they believe drinking is wrong. But according to the formula you have devised for hate speech (as pertains to the moral judgements aspect), it would be. You said that the line should be between espousing something for yourself or for others. So therefore when my parents said it was wrong to smoke pot, they were commiting a crime. I know you would not support punishment for that, but why in the case of gay people. It is no one's right that they should have a right to silence another person's opinion. Having the right to do something does not mean having the right to silence opposition. No one has this right.

Now, hmmmm lets ask you a question shall we.....

Hmmm I dont know....lets see here.....some hypothetical situation....hmmm

Oh yes I have one!!!!

How about, lets say, there was a white person who was offended by denigrating comments made about white people and he decided to sue the person who made the offensive comments, would you be in support of that lawsuit?

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

And those laws are ridiculous is what I am saying.

Someone believing what you do is wrong is not denigrating. Look, it is not against the law for someone to say they believe drinking is wrong. But according to the formula you have devised for hate speech (as pertains to the moral judgements aspect), it would be. You said that the line should be between espousing something for yourself or for others. So therefore when my parents said it was wrong to smoke pot, they were commiting a crime. I know you would not support punishment for that, but why in the case of gay people. It is no one's right that they should have a right to silence another person's opinion. Having the right to do something does not mean having the right to silence opposition. No one has this right.

Now, hmmmm lets ask you a question shall we.....

Hmmm I dont know....lets see here.....some hypothetical situation....hmmm

Oh yes I have one!!!!

How about, lets say, there was a white person who was offended by denigrating comments made about white people and he decided to sue the person who made the offensive comments, would you be in support of that lawsuit?

Someone believing what you do is wrong is not denigrating.

Believing and stating publicly are two different things.

Some things are just in bad taste in public.

Believe me ... there are things that I believe that I do not state publicly ... here ... to offend.

I am sure you do to.

That's just the way it works.

And I am not responding to any more made up scenarios. Get some life experience.

And as for your parents ... as far as you are concerned as a minor, they are the law.

[Pliny]

Someone believing what you do is wrong is not denigrating.

Believe me ... there are things that I believe that I do not state publicly ... here ... to offend.

Try me!

Edited September 29, 2007 by Pliny