Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • In an (hypothetical) state where church and law are separated, anti-blasphemy laws are unconstitutional, and blasphemy must be protected as freedom of speech.

    Classical example : it's an historical truth, and for Christians a religious truth as well, to assert that Jesus died on the cross. For Muslims it's a blasphemy. Muslims believe that a ghost died on the cross in place of Jesus (a major prophet of Islam with Ibrahim and Muhammad) while Jesus was taken to Heaven by angels, because God would never let a

    • I agree. Say what you want to say. "That offends me" is not a reason to limit anyone's rights. If it offends you, don't listen. If you are for some reason held captive and forced to listen (as might be the case in compulsory education, for example), then we need to find legal remedies for that violation of your rights, which can be done without limiting anybody else's.

      "That offends God" is an even worse reason to limit somebody's freedom. Leave the matter between God and the person who offended Him.

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • Initially I was offended by the principal that someone could get into trouble for wearing a Tshirt, that surely the wearing of a Tshirt should be considered an expression of free speach, and that this conviction illustrated an immaturity in our culture.
        There is another aspect to this however. I believe the incident occured on a public beach, which was likley to have a mixture of people upon it, the young, the elderly etc. Should he have thought, before leaving the house, that such a Tshirt might be inaprop
        • Well, I think in general it's the responsibility of the parents to shield their children as they choose in public.

          I also think the problem could be solved by having private ownership of many of these public places, so then different privately-owned attractions could compete by having different standards of what is allowed.

          As it is, the government owns these places and so as property owner it gets to set the standards. And that means that the standard is set by democracy. But democracy does not always set a moral standard: we can choose to prohibit homosexuality, or alcohol, or Christianity, for example.

          How would you handle the situation of a family that complains about someone on the beach wearing a pro-homosexuality T-shirt, for example? Where do we draw the line to decide what is inconsiderate of other people? How about if it were people on the beach offended by a pro-Christianity T-shirt?

          In my family's case, we're going to handle the issue by taking responsibility for our children ourselves. We wouldn't have it any other way. Letting everybody vote on what our children may or may not see has the potential to make tyrannical decisions that could affect us in negative ways while failing to protect our children from that which we believe they really do need to be protected from.

          Yes, certainly, the man should have thought better before wearing his inciteful (not "insightful") shirt. He did something wrong, in the sense that he deliberately tried to offend people. But that's a wrong that comes from morality, not legality, and not only do I believe it is wrong to use the law and government to enforce morality, I believe it is impossible to do so consistently and correctly.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers