Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Anti-atheism billboards in Times Square and San Francisco [View all]cbayer
(146,218 posts)35. Are you making the case that anyone should be able to say anything they want
anywhere they want?
As someone who often speaks without thinking it through, I sometimes appreciate being told that what I have said is offensive.
I've got nothing against provocative speech and am not making the case that this shouldn't be allowed. So I guess were we disagree is that I don't think saying something is offensive is tantamount to saying that someone has no right to say it.
It's not about silencing Ham. It's about pointing out that what he is doing is intentionally offensive.
To do otherwise would to be complacent with and might even convey silent agreement.
I think we are just using terms differently.
Hope you are well.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's childish tit-for-tat. It's in response to billboards like these:
Common Sense Party
Oct 2013
#6
Uh, yes. It's simply designed to needle those who believe in "mythology", etc.
Common Sense Party
Oct 2013
#14
Ken Ham's messages are purposely personal, directed at atheists as people...
Humanist_Activist
Oct 2013
#48
Good one. Calling them "friends" is one of the things that makes this offensive.
cbayer
Oct 2013
#20
I would counter with. You better hope Athiests are right, if not you're probably going to hell
notadmblnd
Oct 2013
#27
Except of course, some are trying to legislate based on various theistic beliefs, which cannot be
AtheistCrusader
Oct 2013
#55
How does one legislate religious-inspired morality that is inclusive and permissible under the 1st
AtheistCrusader
Oct 2013
#63
A free society implies that ideas all have the same chance of approval or disapproval
Leontius
Oct 2013
#68
I'm not talking about the exact wording of a law. I'm talking about the motivation of the
Leontius
Oct 2013
#73
There is usually significant overlap between the motivation, and the material fact of the proposed
AtheistCrusader
Oct 2013
#75
Your own example is one. If I were to be opposed to abortion based on your example of defending a
Leontius
Oct 2013
#76
How would you meet the secular demand of invoking 'rights' for a multi-celled blastocyst that hasn't
AtheistCrusader
Oct 2013
#77
Pre-implantation equals no current pregnancy hence no potential for a medical abortion.
Leontius
Oct 2013
#78
Your statement on a unimplanted but fertilized ovum is at odds with that of the religious right.
AtheistCrusader
Oct 2013
#79
The problem is some people look so hard to be insulted, provoked, excluded, attacked and persecuted
Leontius
Oct 2013
#62
I have unfortunately described a far to large group of people in this country.
Leontius
Oct 2013
#69
What group is that? Why are they "too large" and how do you propose shrinking thier numbers? n/t
Humanist_Activist
Oct 2013
#82
Wow, you perfectly summed up the majority of Christians in this country. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Oct 2013
#81