What's new
By:

Interesting article on the Utah Jazz and Mormons from last year.

Should the Jazz kill the Mormons??

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 43.5%

  • No

    Votes: 13 56.5%
  • Total voters
    23
This article is so non-funny that if it weren't for the "onion" in the URL there's no way anybody would have even known it was supposed to be a joke. If there were some shred of humor or satire I'd get the arguments of these people who are supporting it, but all I see is a pathetic excuse to suggest that people be killed just for being members of a group that others may disagree with. The Onion editors should be embarrassed of themselves for publishing this sort of crap.
 
@jimmy eat jazz- I'm a little bit curious about your train of thought with your conversation with LogGrad. How is it that he can post a definition that shows that the law defines hate speech as involving religions and then you say, "well, I don't think it involves beliefs and ideas"?

He posted the law. It involves religion. Religious people should be protected. I think you need to change your perspective, be a little more open minded.
 
This thread went from dumb original post, to everyone (for the most part) agreeing the article wasn't funny, to .. whiny.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
You are 100% correct that I think it's an entirely different situation. I think I've made myself clear, beliefs and ideas, and people who espouse them, fair game. Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, not fair game.

Of course if it is true hate speech, the real kind, not the silly watered down definition you espouse, then that's different, and we will be in agreement. (no it doesn't remotely fit within the definition)
Click to expand...

We get it. Regardless of the law, if JEJ thinks it is worth disparaging, then disparage away. Sure sounds like a reasonable standard. Same one used by the KKK by the way.

If it applies to one protected class then under the law it applies to them all. Really, that part is not open for debate. You can certainly espouse your opinion that it is fine to discriminate or disparage a group because of their religion if you don't like it, but it does not fit within the framework of the law. I am sure glad you didn't make the laws regarding discrimination.
 
JFFR said:
@jimmy eat jazz- I'm a little bit curious about your train of thought with your conversation with LogGrad. How is it that he can post a definition that shows that the law defines hate speech as involving religions and then you say, "well, I don't think it involves beliefs and ideas"?

He posted the law. It involves religion. Religious people should be protected. I think you need to change your perspective, be a little more open minded.
Click to expand...

I'll make this my last post on the subject. I suspect people are tiring of it, for that I apologize.

Here's the critical portion of the definition he cited

"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

Satire, or most of it, does not rise to this level. More my point is that
Ideas' and 'beliefs' are fair game. How does criticism of ideas fit within this definition of hate speech? Can you imagine a truly free society in which criticism of ideas was restricted? Religious ideas have profound consequences for believer and unbeliever alike. Any cursory review of history will make this clear. So by what logic do we then privilege religious ideas from the same scrutiny, criticism, etc we apply to other ideas. In a free society this also allows mocking, it may be deemed tasteless or bad form, but that goes hand in hand with freedom of speech.

As for the people who espouse ideas, they are IMO fair game for same level of scrutiny, criticism, etc. But once such criticism pf people, not ideas, crosses the line above, then I am in full agreement with LogGrad and you. (granted it's not always clear where criticism of ideas ends and inappropriate hate speech toward people begins)

Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation are benign inherent traits that affect no one so they are treated differently.

Ideas affect people, including religious one, so they are fair game.

Sorry for hijacking thread. Its been a slow week basketball wise.
 
PKM said:
This thread went from dumb original post, to everyone (for the most part) agreeing the article wasn't funny, to .. whiny.
Click to expand...

So stop whining.
 
OK....I have learned my lesson. I will not post such stupid **** like this again (even though I laughed at it because it was soooo stupid). I underestimated that so many people would be offended by its context or content. I thought people would have taken it as it was meant to be and that is a retarded article.

You can delete, move, ban me for life or whatever needs to be done. I did not mean for this to become a religious or cultural debate.

I wish the NBA would get the CBA resolved and we can just talk about how great the Jazz will be.
 
Color me offended. As a graduate of Yale University (class of 2000) I majored in Philanthropy with a minor in Good Humor, and I can tell you, with the most pure of conviction, that this flies in the face of all that our four fathers (yes, "4 fathers".......kind of like 3 Men and A Baby, minus the baby......plus one more man. LOL at Steve Guttenberg......am I right?!?) fought so valiantly for.

With this article its almost like the British won. ****ing Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top