Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

But if it cannot be proven, then you're actually saying "I will never believe in God before an impossible condition is met".

If your god exists, then it is possible to proof he exists. I say it is impossible to proof something doesn't exist.

But I wrote "if he keeps coming at you" so I meant actually, if he does stalk you. Police should take care of this problem and part of their job is to hurt people if necessary so your claim is actually wrong.

The police will fine him, and if he keeps doing it, they'll lock him up. They'll never intend to hurt people physically.

But, one can find himself in a situation where there is no police to take care of the dirty job for you. I am thankful I never had to deal with that kind of situation and I wish I never will but I won't pretend that it is theoretically impossible and that I don't know what I should and would do then.

Well, I cannot believe there is a situation (in my country) in which the police does not do what they should (in this specific matter). However, I say one shouldn't hurt that person physically in my opinion. I don't know what I would do of course, that's impossible to know until it happens.

I don't have the right to do so and you do have the right to protect yourself if I do it repeatedly. I mean, even the forum rules don't allow it. Do you think such rule should be removed? And if you don't, how can you support this as a right and also support it to be disallowed?

I don't think that rule should be removed. I support it that freedom of speech is not entirely allowed here (restricted as you cannot insult someone). Why is this acceptable? Because this forum is not public territory. It is private territory in which the owners decide what is allowed and what isn't (apart from what is legally forbidden). If you don't agree with the terms, one shouldn't come here. Everyone has the free choice.

If it was your private territory, would you allow insults, i.e. remove this rule? And do you think sokker would be a better place without this rule and its enforcement, i.e. bans?

all day just spam here :-(

If it was your private territory, would you allow insults, i.e. remove this rule?

No.

And do you think sokker would be a better place without this rule and its enforcement, i.e. bans?

No.

@sasha, I think there is no point from you towards Rubinho, since he speaks just general accepted knowledge and is right filosophical about hte issue.
The last answers says it all...so stop trying to lure him out, he won't ,cause he is just plain right, telling the truth.

The kind of sentiment that you want to have to not follow the law is the kind of "he wa slooking at my girlfriend" or "I didn't like his political vote" ....som people always find ways to claim "being harrassed or insulted"....

a good example is the ongoing thing of islamisation in europe; muslims tent to be easily insulted about very common things....should we alter our laws to cover their claims, where other people just live on and not even bother? do we still want to do this knowing the extremily uneven statistics in religion based aggression towards others?

the key towards these complex questions is bringing it to the (theoratical) base and then ahve a general law or rule explaining it.

Rubinho has just that (or followed the known paths that are already common use throughout the world), be it on higher educational levels or amongst all living people.

No.
No.

I am sorry but that is in complete contradiction to what you were saying until now. So, now you agree and support that it is wrong to insult people and that it shouldn't be allowed. How does that relate to your claim that Richard Dawkins is not en extremist and he should be perfectly free to publicly insult religious people? I am now completely puzzled by your logic again.

There's nothing complex about not mocking what other people find sacred. That's just plain politeness that even kindergarden kids are able to understand and follow.

Just because there are groups of people that find nothing sacred, doesn't mean that they don't need to at least respect what other groups of people do. The point where atheism becomes extreme is exactly the point where they decide that they are the ones being right and that it's the reason why they don't need to compromise with other religions. That's what Richard Dawkins does. It works the same for religious extremists as well. All of them believe that the fact their religion is "the right one" becomes more important than the constant need to tolerate and adapt to groups of people with different mindsets.

I am sorry but that is in complete contradiction to what you were saying until now. So, now you agree and support that it is wrong to insult people and that it shouldn't be allowed. How does that relate to your claim that Richard Dawkins is not en extremist and he should be perfectly free to publicly insult religious people? I am now completely puzzled by your logic again.

It shouldn't be allowed on this forum. It should be allowed in real life (as you cannot chose to enter real life or not, the choice you do have about this forum).

Sorry again, but what??? So, you believe that one should be allowed to insult other people because he's alive against his free will? That is just hilarious if you are not joking. Are we stil discussing this seriously or are you now acting to be a character in a Monty Python sketch?

OK, maybe I should then join in the fun. So, yes, you don't choose to enter real life but hey, you can take an exit any time. If you don't want to do it yourself, there are always some countries where you can earn yourself a death penalty easily. Just pick any country in the Middle East and learn how to draw funny sketches of a certain prophet I would never make fun of. :D

Comon, let's be serious or move to funny things topic.

You make it funny. You were comparing this forum with real life, and I showed you where the difference is. If you want to make it ridiculous, that's up to you, I'm not going to follow you there.

You showed a difference all right but that difference is completely irrelevant in the sense of what is right or what is wrong about insults. It is simply wrong to insult people. Anywhere. That's an act of agression. There are no circumstances where an insult can be justified and let alone based on such an absurd argument that you used.

Evene if we presume that such absurd argument is valid, it would stil even be in favour of insults being more apropriate in Sokker than in RL because evidently one would sooner and easier give up on Sokker than on RL if leaving would be the only way to protect himself from insults on both places.

I think you are right in that Sasha...insults are always wrong...but it is human behaviour...and it can also lead to something.Also , my point of view is about how different cultures react to certain insults..
It is also known that some culture dwell in their victim roles adn therefor react completely "out of their minds" in our view.

so it can not be objective, other than stating that who does not comply is out.

Further , it strikes me that many atheist people say they "know" nothing exists like God", or "there might be something else but not God"....and they do so having had the poorest eduation, having clearly shown no special intelligence or brains....but made these choices all "by themselves"...
Whereas, as we know, there most clever people are religious. true, there is also stupid ones, but mostly, they are decent law-obiding citizens with higher achievements and decencies.

I wouldn't go as far as comparing people's intelligence based on their beliefs. I believe that education and wellbeing are more an obstacle to understanding spirituality. There is an old Hebrew saying: “The true taste of water reveals itself only in the desert". In the same way, you understand God best mostly when you really need him. That's the reason why poor countries have more religious people and not that they are less educated as it is often mistaken.

You showed a difference all right but that difference is completely irrelevant in the sense of what is right or what is wrong about insults.

You don't get me. I always said that insulting is always wrong, always. However, I don't want to forbid it.