Mëtal Bikër said:
Chris in London said:
What absolute drivel, I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that every single one of us makes our own judgments about how far we allow the threat of crime to go before we modify our own behaviour. The fact that someone chooses not to put themselves at risk (or greater risk) of a violent attack does not make them a coward.
I love your last sentence, by the way. "We're tolerant, and anyone who isn't can fuck right off."
I think you're reading things the way you want to read them, so I'll try again.
It is a form of cowardice to appease the bully rather than challenge the views of the bully himself.
Nobody is talking about individuals who do not wish to take an 'active' role in combating terrorism as being cowards, but the belief that the issue regarding 'offence' rests at the feet of how western society endorses its freedom of expression against those who feel that there should be some things which are exempt.
What they don't realise is that some things ARE scrutinised as being against the values of what freedom of expression is supposed to give and that when that is breached the law steps in and takes the necessary action required. Criticising religion being one of them, but discriminating against someone for holding their beliefs is not. Even though you can still do it, the law will take a dim view and punish accordingly if they feel an offence has been committed, as outlined to the standards of acceptability in accordance to societies laws which were decided by the collective majority.
One final note, you've pretty much hit what western society is, despite your attempt to be condescending.
This is how our society is, if you can't handle that, find one that appeals to you.
Freedom of choice
Freedom of speech
Freedom of expression - the core basis of our democratic society, ain't it marvellous.
You still seem to be struggling with the point I made in my first post, which you appear to have decided to disagree with even though your subsequent posts indicate that you didn't necessarily understand it. I will try again.
A common response made in western society by both individuals, and by state and law enforcement agencies, to increasing crime levels is to undertake measures that infringe upon other areas of our private and personal lives. The example I gave in my first post is that you lock the door when you go out at night. As a society we encourage our members to take this individual responsibility, and as individuals we act in a way that reduces the threat of crime to society as a whole: because if the police suggest that we lock our doors at night, and we all do, burglars have a more difficult task than if everyone leaves them unlocked all the time.
But it is important to appreciate that when we do this, we act in a way which erodes our own personal freedom. It should be nobody's business but my own whether I lock my door. I should have the right, and should be free to exercise the right, to leave my door not only unlocked but wide open all night if I so choose.
So it is as valid and principled a stance to say 'down with those who encourage us to fit burglar alarms, and lock upper floor windows, and fasten bolts' as it is to say 'down with those who cower in the face of islamic fundamentalism and who would limit our right to make fun of Islam's central character'. The first set of activities flies in the face of the fundamental tenet of western society that ownership of personal property is sacrosanct, and that everybody is entitled to enjoy quiet possession of their homes and their contents within the law, without them being ransacked by those who have no respect for values of personal property. The second flies in the face of the fundamental tenet of western society that freedom of expression is sacrosanct and that everybody is entitled to express their views in whatever way and on whatever subject, within the law, they choose to without being exposed to the risk that they will be attacked by those who have no respect for values of freedom of expression.
However, even though it is a principle of almost all western societies that you can do whatever you want provided it isn't unlawful, we are nonetheless encouraged to exercise those freedoms in a circumscribed way in order to avoid the risk of crime. Here are some examples.
'If you are a young female, don't go out on your own in poorly lit areas'. Why on earth shouldn't they? Young females have every right to go wherever they like whenever they like.
'Don't leave valuables on display in your car'. Why on earth not? I have an absolute right to do what I want with my own property in my own car. Why should I pander to those who cannot understand that the contents of my car are not theirs to pilfer just because the fancy takes them?
How western society endorses its right to respect for personal safety and property and whether advice along the above lines is no more and no less pandering to the criminals who threaten our liberties as western society endorsing its right to free speech by asking those exercising that freedom to exercise that freedom in a responsible way. Both involve an encroachment upon our general liberties, and it is wrong to characterise as cowardice a response which, in other contexts, as the above examples demonstrate, is treated generally as nothing more than applied common sense.
We all get your point - a freedom which cannot be exercised in an irresponsible way is no freedom at all. But there is nothing cowardly in considering either as individuals or as a society whether a degree of circumspection is appropriate. That is simply pragmatism.
