In reply to niggle:
> Well of course you do. But it's funny that you don't want think it's "necessary" to
> exercise that particular right in order to avoid losing it.
The right to ridicule and critically examine powerful or potentially powerful idea
systems and interest groups is essential to a free and healthy society.
If that principle is threatened it is necessary to uphold it, regardless of
offence that ridicule might cause.
The "right" to verbally harass or insult an individual going about their business
is not at all necessary, nor even desirable, in a free and healthy society.
> Could it be that you only abuse religious people? Well, well. So it's not really
> about rights at all, is it? Come on, let's just say it: it's about you being an
> anti-religious bigot. If it wasn't, you'd be standing up for the right to abuse
> everyone, not just people you're afraid of.
I am in two minds as to whether you genuinely are misunderstanding me, or
whether you are deliberately resorting to your usual distortion accompanied by sneers.
I have made it very, very clear, to anyone making even a small attempt to understand me,
that my "necessary to give offence" statement was in the context of UPHOLDING A
FREEDOM THAT IS NECESSARY FOR A FREE AND HEALTHY SOCIETY,
namely the right to ridicule, lampoon and insult idea systems.
You are completely distorting that by missing out most crucial bit and claiming I want
to give offense merely for the right to give offense. That is not what I said.
>> I am talking about the right to ridicule ideas and idea systems.
> And religions are made up of what? That's right, individuals.
Wrong. Religions are made up of ideas. The individuals are adherents to the religions.
> So by your own rationale, you'd be right behind Jade Goody and Jo O'Meara in bullying
> and abusing Shilpa Shetty.
If you'd made the slightest attempt to understand me you'd see that that was
not my rationale at all.
> After all they were just protecting their own right to abuse, bully and belittle
> someone. And you think that's not only important but necessary.
No, stupid. Once again you have missed out the ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL
part of what I said, namely the idea that offense is justified if it is
part of upholding the right to ridicule idea systems that is a vital part of a
free and healthy society.
> Admittedly, by your own admission you don't have the guts to do it to people's faces.
> But hey, what do we expect from someone who's such a spineles, gutless prick
> that he feels driven to attack people's beliefs in the first place?
<Yawn> You really have no idea do you? Just think of those "spineless gutless
pricks" like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who "felt driven" to attack the idea systems
of the Soviet Union. Such people are heros, a thousand times better than anonymous
snivellers such as you. How dare you, an anonymous internet sniveller, call Solzhenitsyn
and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi "spineless gutless pricks" for daring
to make critiques of powerful interest groups.