h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Although, oddly enough, those of us who have disagreed the most strongly with Justin have also been the ones to defend his right of free speech. I think it was the folks on the BBC's Christian Messageboards who wouldn't tolerate him.

Funny old world, eh?

Noggin

"Well, no, actually. It is the same old thing. This is run by the BBC, and as with Mr Kilroy-Silk, it is not done to tell the truth. There is this 'PC' (perverse claptrap) agenda where it is not allowed for folks to speak the truth if anyone of antichrist/pagan/amoral persuasion is upset. Sadly The Truth stings, and hence one is not allowed to speak it."

Actually, as far as I can tell, moderation has no direct connection to whether the moderated statement is one of the things you tell us is the truth. I've been mederated for saying things directly opposite to what you tell us is the truth.

I would suggest that rather, things are moderated if anyone claims to be upset about it. This is censorship and is wrong, but I don't see much that I can do about it other than just not yikesing people.

"Although, oddly enough, those of us who have disagreed the most strongly with Justin have also been the ones to defend his right of free speech. I think it was the folks on the BBC's Christian Messageboards who wouldn't tolerate him."

A few interpretations:

1.) Those of who most strongly disagree with Justin don't mind him because they think his ideas are completely crazy. They don't care because he is no more a threat to their world-view than if he was talking in Aramic--they just don't take him seriously. On the ther hand, those who somewhat agree with him don't like it because he sounds more reasonable to them and they thus see him as more of a threat.

2.) Pagans/Agnostics/Atheists are for some reason inherently more tolerant than Christians.

3.) Groups who diverge more from the mainstream of their society are more tolerent of others because they themselves want to be tolerated. The dominant group has less reason to be tolerant.

4.) Random luck involving the people who happen to have met Justin.

5.) Some sort of weird divine or satanic plan.

6.) Other.


I do not endorese any of these viewpoints--I just want to see if anyone else here does.

Personally, as a sometime Discordian, the Goddess and I and I and I endorse number 4. However, I disagree with 2; people are just people.

Justin
Are you saying that Kilroy was correct when he said that no Arabic nation has ever contributed to the world? Look at the words I am typing. Recognise that alphabet? It's more than partially Arabic. Had an operation recently? An awful lot of our earlier medicinal knowledge arrived from Arabia, and Greece and Rome via Arabia. I could argue on and on, but I'd like to say one thing instead - I am not saying this to be PC. I do not give a damn for PC; if (and this is obviously a random example) 99.9% of Asians are criminals, I will shrug and say it. However, I cannot believe that it can ever be said to be "Good" or "Right" to attack someone for being someone that they were born into being.

Not to mention some of the sailing technology used by European sailers to discover the new world--like triangular sails to sail into the wind.

And of course we got Hindu-Arabic numerals through them.

Was listening to The News Quiz on Radio 4 this morning and there was a bit on Mr Kilroy Silk, calling him 'a hard man to ignore, but it's worth the effort' It finished with the presenter referring to the infamous comment made by Mr KS 'what have the Arabs ever done for us?' and said that unfortunately none of the day-care patients in the audience had the wit to answer - what? besides medicine? philosophy? mathematics? architecture? and being the cradle of civilization?



az

Did Kilroy really say "what have the Arabs EVER done for us?" or was it actually "what are they doing for us now?"

In fairness to Kilroy I got the impression he was expressing concern with the current political situation in the Arab countries rather than their historical achievements.

It does seem something of a desperate irony that the "cradle of civilisation" - Mesopotamia - is currently being 'policed' by the youngest nation in the world.

F

The h2g2Radio 42FM Debate Channel, hosted by yours truly: A1324252
Nerd42

Aside from the gratuitous plug for your site, Nerd, where's the connection?

F

that was meant to be in reply to Post 37 by Justin the Preacher
"Nerd42,
By pure 'chance' I happened to notice your post. I don't look at this page much, and I have not been subscribed to this conversation.
What is 42FM? How do you mean 'take calls'?
Justin"
Nerd42

<"Although, oddly enough, those of us who have disagreed the most strongly with Justin have also been the ones to defend his right of free speech. I think it was the folks on the BBC's Christian Messageboards who wouldn't tolerate him.">

While (3) seems reasonable, it doesn't fit in with the evidence - those 'who most strongly disagree with Justin' hardly diverge from the mainstream of society. As for (2), well, it depends what you mean by tolerant. Tolerant of beliefs, or tolerant of rudeness? Justin's bluntness, and the pleasure he appears to take in telling people that they will die and there's nothing they can do about it, seems to me to be what makes him stand out among Christian debaters, and I can't see theory or evidence to suggest that any type of people should be more or less tolerant of this than others. I think (1), out of your interpretations, is closest to the truth: I think that the things Justin claims are insulting to Jehovah, the God presented in the Bible, and obviously a Christian will be more offended by this than an atheist will.

If a Justin goes around saying that Jehovah has created a burning hell so that he can make people suffer forever, why should an atheist care? A pagan or an agnostic might be concerned, but probably not as much as an active Christian. But someone who tries to serve Jehovah, knows he loves people, and cares for his reputation will want to put a stop to these statements, and since in Justin's case this obviously cannot be done by reason, it's reasonably likely that they will do it by force if possible.

(That's not the whole story, of course, since it is likely that many on the Christian message boards won't even know who Jehovah is, let alone be truly serving him, and there will probably even be some dishonoring him in the same way as Justin. But I think I've written enough for you to understand my point.)

We all know about Voltaire's famous saying, "I dislike what you are saying, but I will defend unto death your right to say it." Does that not include being deliberately rude about someone's beliefs in front of them? No matter how extreme they are, you don't have a right to discourage him, unless he harms others, which I cannot see him doing.

<>

And why not? If what I want to say is discouraging in opposition to someone else's rudeness, why don't I have an equal right to that?

az

Possibly. Be that as it may.
I was just saying what I thought was the reason that the Christian message boards banned him.
On whether or not they were right to do so, I don't currently have an opinion.

az, you've often told me not to stoop to certain people's levels. If you believe that Justin is so bad, demonstrate how you are so good.
Insight, I believe you're right about the Christians being more intolerant - after all, he's furthering the goals of the agnostics and atheists by being extremist.

Mal, honey - I *never* stoop . I also never insult people (on purpose, anyhow) and neither am I rude to people. But the point of my last posting was just to say that if one person has the right to be rude and nasty then why doesn't someone else have the right to discourage them?



az

If the discouragement wasn't being rude or nasty or anything other than gently and subtly ironic, they do have that right.

"Possibly. Be that as it may.
I was just saying what I thought was the reason that the Christian message boards banned him.
On whether or not they were right to do so, I don't currently have an opinion."

I don't know--perhaps the boards have a specific purpose and they claimed that he was off subject. I don't know much about them. Generally, I think banning people for acting as Justin has acted here is wrong, but there may have been cause. I'm not familiar with the situation and only know what happened from Justin's accounts.

Now look here, there's something to be said for freedom of speech.
Justin has a right to spout off like that, at least in real life, h2g2 is not obligated to give him space if he is not complying with the House Rules.
He doesn't have a right to be listened to.
If you don't like listening to him, you can go elsewhere.
Ignore him.
If he attempts to force people to listen to him somehow, /THAT'S/ when he should be kicked off the site I think.
I don't plan to ignore him, at least not just yet. I want to get to the bottom of this - and I didn't really come here to debate religion with athiests, (wow, wasn't that ironic) only to talk to Justin.
Nerd42

And there, I think, I agree.