YouTube censoring a video which only quotes the Quran

[Elok]

Originally posted by aneeshm
What if it rejects all authority?

"Hippie" is not a religion, sorry.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

BTW, there's not much sense in crying censorship here. YouTube is a company, not a government, and has every right to restrict what is said on its website for any reason whatsoever. It might not make sense, but there's nothing wrong with it.

Just because an entity has a legal right to do something doesn't mean there is "nothing wrong" with it doing so.

Precisely my point!

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Elok


"Hippie" is not a religion, sorry.

So now Buddhism and Advaita are "hippie"?

[Elok]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Just because an entity has a legal right to do something doesn't mean there is "nothing wrong" with it doing so.

True. But complaining about censorship implies some sort of injustice or violation of rights. The company is not obligated to allow any content at all on their website, or even to have a website. If they were leaning on this guy to keep him from posting his Quran video on other sites, that would be censorship. Here they're just trying to sit on a situation before it explodes. He's free to troll elsewhere.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You could do the same with the texts behind any religion or ideology. This is a silly exercise.

I disagree.
Not all religions have a political ideal.
Christianity has none (eventhough many christians do)
There are violent texts in the Bible, but there are no texts in the Bible that order christians to use violence or political power against unbeliever. It even says that one should turn the other cheek.

The Islam does have a political and violent message to it's believers. Muslims can decide to live up to it or not, or explain it in a different way, but that's a big difference with christianity.

Therefor things like "50 years ago christians did the same" aren't valid. Christians who used violence did that despite what the Bible says. Muslims who use violence do that because of what the Quran says. And a video like this shows that.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Precisely my point!

No, your point is that this particular action is wrong.

Please don't try to drag me into your little crusade against everything nastika.

[Elok]

Originally posted by aneeshm
So now Buddhism and Advaita are "hippie"?

Dunno about the latter (what is it?), but the former venerates Bodhisattvas, Lamas, etc. in addition to the Buddha himself. And there are a number of texts and oral traditions on which it is based.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Elok


True. But complaining about censorship implies some sort of injustice or violation of rights. The company is not obligated to allow any content at all on their website, or even to have a website. If they were leaning on this guy to keep him from posting his Quran video on other sites, that would be censorship. Here they're just trying to sit on a situation before it explodes. He's free to troll elsewhere.

When a company restricts speech we feel it should allow then we are allowed to highlight their actions and criticise them, no?

This blanket acceptance of whatever restrictions any company chooses to place on speech is almost nihilistic.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm


What if it rejects all authority?

It has to be based on something. Whether it's the words of the guru or a text or group of texts...

What are you on about?

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Some twisted train of thought which brings him to the scientific conclusion that all non-Vedic religions are bunk.

[Arrian]

They are. But then so are the Vedic ones...



-Arrian

[Elok]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


When a company restricts speech we feel it should allow then we are allowed to highlight their actions and criticise them, no?

Certainly. And if you complain long and loud enough, they may decide to let him continue his videos. Provided, of course, the guys who got the videos taken down don't whine even louder. If both sides whine equally, they may decide it's just not worth the hassle and restrict all videos not featuring explosions and/or soccer players getting hit in the nuts by the ball.

This blanket acceptance of whatever restrictions any company chooses to place on speech is almost nihilistic.

Nihilistic? We're talking about YouTube here, not the U.S. Senate floor. Let's keep some perspective.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Elok


Dunno about the latter (what is it?), but the former venerates Bodhisattvas, Lamas, etc. in addition to the Buddha himself. And there are a number of texts and oral traditions on which it is based.

The Buddha rejected all authority, including his own.

So did Adi Shankaracharya (in the introduction to his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, be puts the Vedic texts in the domain of avidya).

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


It has to be based on something. Whether it's the words of the guru or a text or group of texts...

What are you on about?

-Arrian

What if it's based on only one principle - the your own power of discrimination is the sole standard of judgement of all physical and metaphysical and spiritual truth, including the one it is based on?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Some twisted train of thought which brings him to the scientific conclusion that all non-Vedic religions are bunk.

I'd disagree.

"Vedic" is/are not a religion, and religions other than that tradition are not bunk.