PC and cancel culture, what are the pros and cons?

Dis86 said:
Because...as I've stated multiple times they view Muhammed as perfect and God as infallible and omnipotent. Therefore Muhammed wouldn't lie about what God told him and God wouldn't neglect to tell him something as fundamental as shagging kids ain't good.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with @Dis86 here.

In all these religions, a god gave his word/instruction manual to some people a couple thousand years ago (give or take).

Either the mind of this deity is constant, and unchanging, and thus his standards today are the same as his standards back then.

Or his instruction manual was only appropriate to the times those people were living in - in which case why do they follow it in 2020? Today's standards are vastly different, so if this deity is concerned with changing human ethics and social norms then what he said 2000 years ago is pretty irrelevant?

It's pretty much all or nothing. You either throw away those religious books and class them as a product of their times, or you think they apply just as much today as they did back then.

If they apply just as much today as they did back then, as most religious people believe, then you can't conclude that it was OK back then and not OK today.

Unless you're one of those people who says, "I'm an X" but doesn't really know the main tenets of your own faith :p
 
Dis86 said:
Because...as I've stated multiple times they view Muhammed as perfect and God as infallible and omnipotent. Therefore Muhammed wouldn't lie about what God told him and God wouldn't neglect to tell him something as fundamental as shagging kids ain't good.
Click to expand...

I'm still not getting this Muslim = paedophile angle you're pushing. All of the Muslims I know think paedophiles are scum of the earth.

Which is interesting because if we're getting into it, the Catholic Church has way more to answer for than Islam.
 
Theophany said:
I'm still not getting this Muslim = paedophile angle you're pushing. All of the Muslims I know think paedophiles are scum of the earth.

Which is interesting because if we're getting into it, the Catholic Church has way more to answer for than Islam.
Click to expand...

Clearly you're not...not sure how though.

Ita pretty simple. Muhammed was a paedophile. He abducted and had sex with a child.
Muslims believe Muhammed is perfect. Ergo they believe that what he did was acceptable.
If they do not believe it was, then he cannot be perfect and therefore one of the core factors of the belief is false.
 
Theophany said:
All of the Muslims I know think paedophiles are scum of the earth.
Click to expand...

Would they criticise Muhammed for marrying and presumably bonking a child? I would bet not.

"Ignore my public position it is not the same as my private position" - a rough quote from Hillary Clinton to wealthy donors.
 
Theophany said:
I'm still not getting this Muslim = paedophile angle you're pushing. All of the Muslims I know think paedophiles are scum of the earth.

Which is interesting because if we're getting into it, the Catholic Church has way more to answer for than Islam.
Click to expand...
But isn't he supposed to be the perfect example to muslims? I mean according to islam he was directly talking to a god, no? Receiving instruction from a god, no? And crucially, acting in accordance with that god's will, no?

Do you think this god has a moral code that is influenced or determined by what is socially acceptable in contemporary human society? So his law 1500 years ago is totally not his law in 2020? If so, what is his law in 2020? Is his law in 2020 just whatever is socially acceptable in 2020?

How do you rationalise conduct by this person that, by our standards, is wholly unacceptable? You either have to say "well their god's law has changed over the years" or you have to accept marrying 8 year olds being A-OK at any time.

Or you have to do some kind of mental gymnastics.
 
mmj_uk said:
Would they criticise Muhammed for marrying and presumably bonking a child? I would bet not.

"Ignore my public position it is not the same as my private position" - a rough quote from Hillary Clinton to wealthy donors.
Click to expand...
Would they criticise Jerry Lee Lewis for marrying and presumably bonking his 13 year old cousin?
You betcha. :p
 
I think the point is that no matter if its now or 1000 years ago, an 8 year old can not consent to marriage or a sexual relationship.

They would not be sufficiently developed either physically or mentally to do so.

Any grown man would be able to notice both of these points and would therefore be forcing themselves onto their victim.

Now with god being omnipotent and omniscient he would know that by allowing a figurehead of the new religion to complete these acts it would be legitimising them, in gods own name no less.
 
Hagar said:
Would they criticise Jerry Lee Lewis for marrying and presumably bonking his 13 year old cousin?
You betcha. :p
Click to expand...

If that's a "native British people do it too" post then my question would simply be how many millions of people in the UK idolise and worship Jerry Lee Lewis?

I've not read the Quran but from what I've read Muhammed wedded a child and killed lots of people which is quite a contrast to Jesus. I don't have anything against people having a religion but we have a problem today with a large proportion of terrorists being of a particular faith and committing heinous crimes whilst chanting "god is great" and many critics believe they are inspired by the writings of their prophet. I think it should be discussed rather than people getting cancelled over their legitimate concerns about it, even if only a fraction of Muslims become terrorists it's still a problem affecting our society.

As for cancel culture in general I think it's becoming worse than sending people to a physical prison and the worst part is it's being enforced by businesses and corporations on infractions which aren't even laws, people are conforming to whatever corporations and their media mouthpieces are pushing out of fear of being cancelled. We may as well as just abolish the nation state and call countries Google, Twitter etc so you know which corporations T&C's you're living under in day to day life. People losing their jobs and livelihoods for saying one thing that is deemed wrong by our corporate overlords and their permanently offended useful idiots is horrifying and a despotic attack on freedom of speech and shaping a culture of mass conformity.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
If that's a "native British people do it too" post then my question would simply be how many millions of people in the UK idolise and worship Jerry Lee Lewis?

I've not read the Quran but from what I've read Muhammed wedded a child and killed lots of people which is quite a contrast to Jesus. I don't have anything against people having a religion but we have a problem today with a large proportion of terrorists being of a particular faith and committing heinous crimes whilst chanting "god is great" and many critics believe they are inspired by the writings of their prophet. I think it should be discussed rather than people getting cancelled over their legitimate concerns about it, even if only a fraction of Muslims become terrorists it's still a problem affecting our society.

As for cancel culture in general I think it's becoming worse than sending people to a physical prison and the worst part is it's being enforced by businesses and corporations on infractions which aren't even laws, people are conforming to whatever corporations and their media mouthpieces are pushing out of fear of being cancelled. We may as well as just abolish the nation state and call countries Google, Twitter etc so you know which corporations T&C's you're living under in day to day life. People losing their jobs and livelihoods for saying one thing that is deemed wrong by our corporate overlords and their permanently offended useful idiots is horrifying and a despotic attack on freedom of speech and shaping a culture of mass conformity.
Click to expand...

No its a hypocrisy of opinion, one prophet OK, one southern US piano player not OK.

In general I agree with your positions above.
 
You only have to look at a law to prevent under age marriage (as soon a girl hits puberty ... apparently) in Pakistan getting thrown out to due being in unIslamic and blasphemous, after massive demonstrations against the bill being presented.

The best ones of PC are the PC brigade beating the drum about slavery and equal rights whilst enjoying holidays and stop overs or working in the middle East.

All Islamic countries, go figure.
 
FoxEye said:
But isn't he supposed to be the perfect example to muslims? I mean according to islam he was directly talking to a god, no? Receiving instruction from a god, no? And crucially, acting in accordance with that god's will, no?

Do you think this god has a moral code that is influenced or determined by what is socially acceptable in contemporary human society? So his law 1500 years ago is totally not his law in 2020? If so, what is his law in 2020? Is his law in 2020 just whatever is socially acceptable in 2020?

How do you rationalise conduct by this person that, by our standards, is wholly unacceptable? You either have to say "well their god's law has changed over the years" or you have to accept marrying 8 year olds being A-OK at any time.

Or you have to do some kind of mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...

I guess the thing is when I think of a Muslim, I think of a few of my friends who between them drink, smoke, gamble, swear, sell insurance products and the like. You can observe a religion and follow it's general moral code without believing everything the big book says is real.

You're working from a starting point that is not everybody's reality.
 
At that point though, I feel personally there is no point in being religious, and if I was religious I would find others treating it that way quite offensive.

Religion is supposed to be faith in something higher than the individual and living to a set of rules based on those beliefs and attitudes - picking and choosing isn't being religious, at that point you are a Muslim/Catholic/Buddhist/etc in name only. You are agnostic, but like to be part of a group. One does not simply believe in a God and then go on to treat his word as optional.

2000 year old institutions though? Yea, I'm just going to carry on ignoring people that want to waste their lives on that crap.
 
Theophany said:
I guess the thing is when I think of a Muslim, I think of a few of my friends who between them drink, smoke, gamble, swear, sell insurance products and the like. You can observe a religion and follow it's general moral code without believing everything the big book says is real.

You're working from a starting point that is not everybody's reality.
Click to expand...

Yeah...what's the point in adhering to a religion that has fairly strict and clear codes when you're not actually gonna adhere to the religion?
I mean there are some pretty major things there that you've listed.
 
Dis86 said:
Yeah...what's the point in adhering to a religion that has fairly strict and clear codes when you're not actually gonna adhere to the religion?
I mean there are some pretty major things there that you've listed.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as my place to ask the question or be the arbiter of who does and doesn't meet the purity standard for being religious. The less people who idolize a prophet and see something as trivial as drawing them as an offence punishable by death is a good thing imo.

People use religion as a moral compass. They grew up with it, read scripture, go to their places of worship and try to live good lives because of it. Can you honestly say they aren't Muslim because they gloss over some of the weirder parts that don't fit with what is socially acceptable in 2020? Personally I don't think so.
 
Good people are good people. It has nothing to do with religion, the same way that religion shouldn't be blamed for the bad things bad people do.

On one hand you can't say it helps people become good at the same time saying it can't influence them in bad ways.
 
Theophany said:
I don't see it as my place to ask the question or be the arbiter of who does and doesn't meet the purity standard for being religious. The less people who idolize a prophet and see something as trivial as drawing them as an offence punishable by death is a good thing imo.

People use religion as a moral compass. They grew up with it, read scripture, go to their places of worship and try to live good lives because of it. Can you honestly say they aren't Muslim because they gloss over some of the weirder parts that don't fit with what is socially acceptable in 2020? Personally I don't think so.
Click to expand...

The issue with Islam though is that the quran is the literal word of God. You cannot pick and choose which parts apply or are relevant. If you follow it, you follow all of it to the letter.

Its not like Christianity where the bible is fallible as its written by man.
 
Dis86 said:
The issue with Islam though is that the quran is the literal word of God. You cannot pick and choose which parts apply or are relevant. If you follow it, you follow all of it to the letter.

Its not like Christianity where the bible is fallible as its written by man.
Click to expand...

You mean they believe it was written by a god, I would argue god doesn't exist and it was all written by men.
 
Basic modern day morality and lawfulness needs to trump dodgy religious writings going back to the year dot. I have no problem at all with people of faith, in fact I envy their faith and the comfort it must bring, but their teachings need to be tempered by sensible interpretation of them in the modern world. I have never mocked, and would never mock, anyone for any faith they put in their religion, but abhor those that use it as an excuse for what is now seen as immorality or plain illegal activities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom