In Canada some groups are more equal than others

[Boris Godunov]

vomiting out = forced removal. Wouldn't that be an act of hate against a group as well? Seemed to be such in Kosovo. And I hardly would call the idea that gays would suffer for eternity in hell for who they are as being anything other than hateful towards homosexuals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

vomiting out = forced removal. Wouldn't that be an act of hate against a group as well?

Which is the same as saying death = no homosexuals? That doesn't even make sense. The ad is definetly more rationally read as saying the Bible says homosexuality is illegal.

[Lincoln]

Should Peter Singer be allowed to advocate the killing of children and the disabled?

[Lincoln]

should Peter Singer be prosecuted for a hate crime for saying this:

...not everyone, Singer thinks, is capable of wanting to be alive. He argues that in order to have an interest in staying alive, you have to be a thinking, self-aware being and have an understanding of yourself as a being which endures through time. Following philosophical tradition, he calls such beings "persons," in order, as he says in his 1993 book, Practical Ethics, "to capture those elements of the popular sense of 'human being' that are not covered by 'member of the species Homo sapiens.'" Only persons, he says, can be said to have an interest in living and a right not to be killed; non-persons, by definition, cannot.

Obviously, wherever Singer's ideas are accepted as the basis for policy, it becomes a vitally important thing to be seen as a person. Infants, for example, are seen as non-persons. According to Singer they may therefore be killed with far less justification than would be required if they were understood to be persons. Certain adults to whom labels such as "persistent vegetative state" (PVS), "profound mental retardation" and "dementia" are attached may also be killed with less justification, according to Singer.

It would be okay, for example, to kill a "non-person" if you did it because everyone else's preferences would be more likely to be fulfilled if that individual were removed from their lives: that's one justification Singer gives for letting parents kill newborns expected to become disabled children. If parents, freed of responsibility for the disabled infant, were able to try again, says Singer, both they and the non-disabled child they'd ultimately raise could expect to live happier lives.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

vomiting out = forced removal. Wouldn't that be an act of hate against a group as well?

Which is the same as saying death = no homosexuals? That doesn't even make sense.

Where did anyone say that? You're picking it apart and not looking at the whole. The judge even explicitely said it wasn't the Bible verses themselves that was the problem. It was the combination of verses, three of which advocated hateful/muderous actionss against gays, PLUS a graphic that depicted two homosexuals with a slash through them.

Now it seems to be you picking out and isolating only one of the passages for the convenience of your argument!

The ad is definetly more rationally read as saying the Bible says homosexuality is illegal.

For you, perhaps, but I'd just say that's your own bias showing. I'll ask again: If a Nazi group ran an ad showing a Jewish symbol with a slash through it, and references some quotes that, among other things, talked about killing Jews, would you think it's more reasonable to assume the ad runners are advocating violence against Jews, or are just trying to peacefully express that they happen to think Judaism is wrong?

[Tingkai]

I initially wrote that truth is not a defence against a libel charge in Britain, but then I started thinking this can't be right. It's been over 10 years since I did a media law course and I remember truth is treated differently in British libel law compared to US libel law.

Anyways, the difference is:

In the US, the person accusing someone of libel must prove the alleged libellous statements are false.

In Britian and Canada, the "defendent" must prove the statements are true.

So in the US, if you publish something that you believe in good faith to be true then you cannot be sued for libel.

In Britain and Canada, even if you believe something to be true, and even if you act without malice, if you cannot prove it to be true then you could lose a libel case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The judge even explicitely said it wasn't the Bible verses themselves that was the problem. It was the combination of verses, three of which advocated hateful/muderous actionss against gays, PLUS a graphic that depicted two homosexuals with a slash through them.

So I can't call a judge a utter moron, now?

I'll ask again: If a Nazi group ran an ad showing a Jewish symbol with a slash through it, and references some quotes that, among other things, talked about killing Jews, would you think it's more reasonable to assume the ad runners are advocating violence against Jews, or are just trying to peacefully express that they happen to think Judaism is wrong?

So now Christians are akin to Nazis?

If some Anti-Israel or Jewish group quoted some Biblical references that made mention of doing stuff against Jews and some that said Jews are wrong and said that = the star of David crossed out, then I wouldn't think that meant that all Jews had to be killed.

[notyoueither]

It took me a few minutes, but then I can see the reason the tribunal, and the judge ruled the way they did.

The point was the people crossed out, when linked with the words in the verses.

I agree that it is not a clear cut case of KILL ALL THEM BIATCHES, but it was also something very stupid to publish. The guy was an idiot. He got nailed, and not very harshly. He is still free to roam the streets and stir things up. No tears need be shed for him. And he has not been silenced, just deterred from being a total moron.

To be honest, that is a very good reason why this maggot should have faced jail time for it as a criminal matter, and not a slap on the wrist from a provincial HRC.

[Lincoln]

On the other hand, Peter Singer makes it clear that children up to 28 days after birth can be killed by a "responsible" adult. He teaches this at Princeton University. Is this a hate crime? And are the kids that he advocates killing entitled to "more equal than other" status?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So I can't call a judge a utter moron, now?

You can, but you've offered nothing but a personal interpretation that the ad didn't obviously express hatred of homosexuals. Clearly, many people disagree with such an "obvious" interpretation.

So now Christians are akin to Nazis?

Yeah, sure...that's exactly what I said. Learn a little about analogies, and you might realize comparing situations isn't the same as stating the groups are akin to one another...

If some Anti-Israel or Jewish group quoted some Biblical references that made mention of doing stuff against Jews and some that said Jews are wrong and said that = the star of David crossed out, then I wouldn't think that meant that all Jews had to be killed.

We're not just talking killed, Imran, m'dear. We're also talking violence and other acts of hate, which is what the law protects against. At any rate, I think you'll find your opinion isn't shared by most Jews, were they to see such an ad. I'll note you omitted, for the convenience of your argument, the references including calls to execute the target, which is what Leviticus and Romans do. Do you honestly think that an ad run with an image of a slash through a Jewish person plus verses that included a direct command to execute Jews would not be seen as a hate-inciting ad? Please.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you honestly think that an ad run with an image of a slash through a Jewish person plus verses that included a direct command to execute Jews would not be seen as a hate-inciting ad?

Would there also be some verses that said, say, Jews (or unbelievers.. since I don't think there are any Bible verses specifically anti-Jewish, per say) should be cast out of the community involved as well? So just a number of Biblical verses, some saying cast out the unbelievers, some saying convert the unbelievers, some saying kill unbelievers, and others saying Christianity is #1 included with an '=' and a crossing out of a Star of David or Israel? The Jews would complain, surely, but so what? I wouldn't necessarily consider it a hate-inducing ad, just as I don't consider Tom Chick's exortations against the Muslims as hate-inducing. It's mean the Bible does not condone those who are unbelievers of Christ.

Furthermore how many anti-homosexual passages in the Bible are 'benign'. If you were to say the Bible does not condone homosexuality, how would you do it without those clauses?

ALSO, You would have to LOOK UP or KNOW the Biblical provisions to realize that some of them said homosexuals should be killed. How many people have that knowledge?! How many people simply look at it and see Biblical verses = pictures of two men holding hands with a slash over it? I bet a very small minority of people looking at the ad thinks it stood for killing homosexuals. It's just silly to say so.

It's Bible does not = homosexuality. That simple.

Learn a little about analogies, and you might realize comparing situations isn't the same as stating the groups are akin to one another...

I also know that whenever compares some group to the NAZIs they are trying to make the point that they are like the Nazis. There is a reason it is called Godwin's Law.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Should Peter Singer be allowed to advocate the killing of children and the disabled?

Peter Singer should be allowed to say what he likes - but no one should call him a philosopher, since he's not really very good.

A Singer Story:

My old HOD is a friend of Singer's and once visited him when he was still in Australia.

He arrived at the door wearing a leather jacket. Singer's daughter open the door and screamed. She then yelled, "Dad, there's a man in dead animal skins at the door!"

And don't forget the time he said that bestiality was just fine by him.

[Lincoln]

Thanks Agathon. I just wonder what the people here that advocate the silencing and punishing of those who cite Bible verses as they relate to sodomy think about silencing and punishing Peter Singer? Does he get a free pass for some reason??

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Thanks Agathon. I just wonder what the people here that advocate the silencing and punishing of those who cite Bible verses as they relate to sodomy think about silencing and punishing Peter Singer? Does he get a free pass for some reason??

My position is that it depends on the manner in which it occurs. No one should be allowed to stand up and condemn homosexuals to death in the middle of the quad. On the other hand, it's not fair to prevent people talking about it.

About 5 years ago I used to take a tutorial on applied ethics and homosexuality was one of the topics. It was a touchy subject (but nowhere near as bad as abortion) and it required some care from me to avoid things going off the deep end.

We ended up dropping it as a topic since everyone in the class seemed to agree it wasn't a moral issue. It's hard to get an argument going when no one agrees - I had to play the villain, which I didn't particularly like.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Thanks Agathon. I just wonder what the people here that advocate the silencing and punishing of those who cite Bible verses as they relate to sodomy think about silencing and punishing Peter Singer? Does he get a free pass for some reason??

I think the context and the times matter. I'm not sure what Mr. Singer said, but I would hope that there is no epidemic of infanticide in the US.

There have been problems here in Canada, as elsewhere, with violence against gays not that long ago. So, for the powers that be to be a bit more zealous in putting a stop to things that could be seen as encouraging such acts does not bother me much at all. Although, I will admit, it is not the strongest case of inciting to violence that I have ever seen.