You can imagine my shock at finding a new Paul. I hope he is writing his letters to the different churches in Asia minor.
On more interesting things. I am reading the Interpreters by Wole Soyinka and this pushed the envelope on PC. Take for example this dialogue
She is revoltingly fat that’s all. Why, I can almost hear her buttocks squelch, like these oranges in Kola’s drawing. You are just crude. Bush. Egbo fastened his eyes on the subtle independence of the buttocks. Sagoe was looking too. They make me think of two satellites bouncing gently in space, just touching each other. …. You know a white woman that size would be wholly amorphous. Quite revolting. But black woman eh…
Here, here, and here are some of the instances i have expressed myself on the question of free speech. I should make it clear in case I had not done so that in talking of freedom of speech, I mean the government shall not hinder the free expression of thought. I would extend this to include institutions of learning. I have read of several claims of students in universities in America demanding safe spaces and universities responding by prohibiting some forms of speech. I am of the opinion this shouldn’t be the case. What we end up with eventually is either the Rushdie affair of the Polish affair, both unfortunate.
In the third link above, I expressed my disagreement with the hate speech act that created the national cohesion commission as both a waste of funds and a means to stifle disagreement or dissent.
In the last post, I agreed with Pink that the humanitarian (term borrowed from J Rauch) challenge to free speech is quite a hard challenge but insist that in the face of reprehensible, offensive speech, more speech is what is required not restrictions.
You or me have no right not to be offended or give offense. Anyone who makes his business to create offense by saying reprehensible things should be ignored.
In the same context, all those attempts by different states in the Uneducated States of America to legislate teaching of creationism in schools should not even be taken seriously. No body has asked their parliament to legislate teaching of algebra, so what is this nonsense about creationism that should be given so much airtime?
This short video represent my final thoughts on the matter and I am open to criticism
When I last wrote on this topic which was yesterday, I did ask if the state should limit what we can say or what should be the consequences of saying stupid things. People should say whatever they want to say and only good ideas should survive. The text about killing witches still exists but it has been overtaken by better speech. And I think only criticism will deal with ignorance.
This brings me to a very interesting case where this is tested. Jill has posted this and I will just quote her
“God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”
William was until last week a cop. Do you think the police department should have fired him for holding and expressing such opinion? Does suppressing such thinking address racism in the police force or work place generally? How is this different from the Rushdie affair or from the Charlie Hebdo affair? What is society to do with ideas/ speech that is unpleasant?
it would be better to destroy every other book ever written, and just save the first three verses of Genesis
William Jennings Bryan
If Jennings was granted his wish, what would become of Paul? Of the talking donkey? Of the fall of man? Of the Abrahamic land grab and all those fancy stories told in the bible? Does it mean that only the first three verses are indisputable and the rest being noise?
If there is a contradiction between a definitive [Koranic] text and conjectural science, then the scientific theory is refuted
A speaker at the First International Conference on Scientific Miracles of the Koran and Sunnah
think about this for a moment. you are doing research and then you check your results against the Koran and they contradict the text of the Koran. You don’t even have to publish your findings. They are refuted for all time.
All quotes are from J Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought
I think i was born with motivation in the pocket. Just the idea that i can better my best is enough inspiration to get my ass out and do something. the same applies to my other hobbies like reading. this is not to say i don’t get distracted, i do. i have found myself being an occasional couch potato, though never for long. but while i can give advise on weight loss, i can’t on motivation. maybe i should get a marketing department to help with this.
all this was just to tell you about my morning run. i must have mentioned that i had a goal of doing the half in 1:40 but quit that training plan a week ago after putting in 8 weeks of regular training. i guessed i need to run much slower for the time being, build a low aerobic base and spruce it up occasionally. we will see how that goes. for now i am in competition with a camel in drinking water. we will see who wins. the camel or myself
Many times we hear people are called doubting Thomases for demanding evidence or proof of something. Thomas, for those of you new here said to his fellow disciples when they said they had seen the Lord, that except he sees the hands and put his finger through, he is not buying the story. We are told Jesus rebuked him for making this demand. And believers since then take pride in not being Thomas. But I insist for knowledge to progress, we must be Thomas.
Our knowledge has only progressed to the extent that criticism has been alive allowing for testing of ideas, abandoning those that can’t hold and at the same time stating categorically that our knowledge is open to challenge. That we don’t have the final word.
So go out and become a Thomas, proudly and without shame.
Among the very interesting debates of our times is the one around free speech and whether there should be limitations on what we can say or write. There are countries with laws against blasphemy- laws I call a victimless law-, laws against libel and so on. You can be sued for causing a panic, like shouting fire in a movie theatre or bomb in a plane. Or some such thing. Or you can be de-platformed, fired or hounded out of public life for saying not nice things.
My question is are there topics that should be a no no or should we have unrestricted free speech? Is there any place where this is the case?
Should there be libel suits?
What should governments do about speech that hurt my feelings or our feelings as a group that was previously oppressed (you know with the victimhood Olympics that is on TV currently)?
long time ago, in the very distant past when birds could talk, snakes walk, asses talk, lions ate grass, and all animals lived together in friendly communes, turtles had a soft smooth shell.
One day news reached the commune of a party that was to be had high up in the sky, near the sun so to speak. Even back then, only birds could fly so when the turtle heard of this plot, he asked his bird friend if he could join the party. A committee of birds was selected to see how to make this possible. Among the options proposed was to have the largest bird haul the turtle to the party and back. The hawk said, hell no. The vulture said not on backyard, the eagle made no comments but there was no doubt the answer was no. A second plot was needed and real fast. It is here that it was decided they would donate feathers to the turtle and do a crash course in flying. This was done in no time and the whole party left for feast.
As was the custom in those days, whenever animals or people went to a feast, they used nicknames. So all the birds had their nicknames some flattering some not so much. The turtle for its nickname said it would be called all of us. And it is here that the rain started beating the turtle.
You see, when they got to the feast, every time food was served, the animals would ask for whom it was meant and the response, you guessed it right, was all of us- the turtle. And so the turtle ate while the rest of the birds watched in dismay. It went on like this till it was time to return and the birds held a quick meeting to exact their revenge. As soon as they left the venue, and had been told their goodbyes, they each and all plucked their feathers from the turtle who without this aid came a tumbling down landing on a rock with it shell cracking it in the process and since then all turtles have had hard shells.
If you have read up to this point, I will tell you the story of bats. where did they come from? When, where, why and how the first bats become airborne is another mystery buried by Deep Time.
or is it the moon that some of you have been encouraged by your imam or is it the profit that you should fast. That the lord likes it when you fast. Chapman Cohen wrote
ar more suggestive, however, than the association of religion with what we may call the normal social forces, is its connection with conditions that are now clearly recognised as abnormal. From the earliest times we find the use of drugs and stimulants, the practice of fasting and self-torture, with other methods of depressing or stimulating the action of the nervous system, accepted as well-recognised methods of inducing a sense of religious illumination, or the feeling that one is in direct communion with a supernatural order of existence.
Religion and Sex by Chapman Cohen
but i think it is Zera Yacob who said it best
God does not order absurdities such as ‘‘Eat this, do not eat this; today eat, tomorrow do not eat, do not eat meat today, eat it tomorrow. . . neither did God say to the Mohammedians: ‘eat during the night, but do not eat during the day.’ ’’
An online journal celebrating the joys of living bare with pride! This site usually publishes every Monday and Friday. I may be irreverent but I am no way irrelevant! My preferred personal pronouns are he, him, his.