ReichZealand (Blasphemy)

[Doublett22]

I have played a game with ReichZealand and as far as I could tell then, he was a regular person. But I was skimming through the forum today and I now know what kind of person he really is. In the Flame War forum titled "Iranian fuckwits" follow through the posts until you get to the second page and there you will see the most despicable, blasphemous, profane, sacrilegious, irreverent, and inhumane post ever, (I say all of this even while taking into consideration that this was written in the Flame Wars forum).

**Graphic Image**
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... c&start=15

To whoever reads this, I don’t care who you are or where you come from, or what your religion is, but what this person posted defies all the norms on which the very essence of a civil society is built upon. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. As one person put it, "Mods, first case of banning in my opinion". To end this, the Flame War is there to “Trash your opponent” and NOT a whole population, I have never in my life seen such irresponsible and reckless behavior, and I ask of CC to take the much less fitting measure of banning ReichZealand and most importantly removing his post.

Thankyou,

[Zealand]

Toughen the f*ck up.

If you don't like it, go cry into your morning coffee.

If the mods feel it's offensive, they can delete the post.

[alex_white101]

or u could and end all the trouble

[Wisse]

Toughen the f*ck up.

If you don't like it, go cry into your morning coffee.

If the mods feel it's offensive, they can delete the post.

there are also kids under the 14 playing this...

[Zealand]

Hmmm very well, I would delete the thread if I could. I agree it was a little over the top.

[chewyman]

Meh, it's harsh and it shouldn't have been said. But it's been said so get over it.

In the words of Chopper Reid: "harden the f*ck up"

[b.k. barunt]

Toughen up? And this from someone who hurls insults from his safe little spot on the internet. I have no love for islam, as it is an oppressive and violent religion, but what you did was cowardly. If you want to give that strong of an insult, "toughen up" and give it face to face. To give it here proves only that you are a cowardly cheesewanker, and it pollutes our forum.

[Doublett22]

Reich this is not about toughening up, i dont even understand what came to your mind when you posted that pic. Do you even excpect ppl to act normal when they see that pic you posted. Now if you had a muslim person on CC (and you do have to realise that there are muslims here, not that you care i think) and they passed throught that pic what do you think they would think or even say. But from what i do know about them i know for one that they would not go down to the level you did and post a blasphemous picture of Jesus. And the second picture you posted was not even mockery, it was a level of profanity and blasphemy that i have never seen. Even if i wanted to describe that second picture you posted i wouldnt even know where to start. So please dont act like what you did was something normal and ok and that all it is, is a matter of "toughening" up...because that is the farthest thing from the truth.

"Ideas are Bullet Proof" VForVendetta

[Doublett22]

One other thing...when you joined conquerclub you had to sign off to the following before getting your account:

Warning: Having multiple accounts is considered cheating. We routinely scan for multiple accounts and offending members will be banned from Conquer Club.

If you cant remember it just go to the home page and its waiting for you right there. Now what you did was far worse than "offending".

So if you want me to toughen up then why dont you try grafting a few neurons.

[sirbrezalot]

Is it the cartoon you are so upset about? It is the flame wars, anything goes. That's freedom.

[b.k. barunt]

You have no idea what freedom is, if you think this has anything to do with it.

[Doublett22]

Whats worse than not having "freedom of speech" is having that very privalage and failing to understand its true meaning followed by its value and more importantly the responsibility that it comes with.

[Doublett22]

And no, not everything goes in the Flame Wars. As i said before the flame wars is there to "trash your opponent" and not a population, and as far as i could see there was no opponent, so please try to get your facts right before posting misleading and irresponible messages here sirbrezalot.

"Ideas Are BulletProof" VForVendetta

[Doublett22]

Hmmm very well, I would delete the thread if I could. I agree it was a little over the top.

Im glad you agree its over the top, but i think the word "alittle" is the not the correct one to use here. But im just curious as to why you even started that whole subject and why you ended up posting that picture?

btw...i went back and checked and you didnt delete your posts...so i hope this is just not some "talk".

[alex_white101]

im from a muslim country, i am not a muslim, however most of my friends are (not very religous mostly just parents are......) and most of these people would be extremely offended by the pictures you sent.

HOWEVER i am not ashamed to say i had a little chuckle when i saw them. you see the views on religions vary significantly from country to country. for example, jewish people are very very rarely granted permission to enter this country for the simple reason, they are jewish.

equally the law is goverened by muslims. non muslims are seen as second class, if you follow another religion you are seen as even worse.

in my experience, having lived the first 10 years of my life in england, the last 7 here, i have found muslims to be far more prejudiced. they govern there countries with absolutely no respect for other religions. they offer huge advantages to those that follow there religion, whereas western countries are always striving for equality.

so this all leads me to being able to see why cartoons such as these are produced, and why generally they are aimed at muslims rather than other religions. muslims are (from my experience) more deserving, im not saying they should recieve this racist attacks, but they are still more deserving of them than others.......

anyways thats just my 2 cents.

[NowhereMan]

Whereas I agree with the whole "freedom of speech" point, there is also the fact that little kids do play on here as well as the fact that the post was WAY over the top.. If you wan to rant and rave about acts other peoples or countries have done then post an intelligent concise arguement or grievence and let the rest of us roll with it. Perhaps someone from that particular country will even read and reply to it somehow and maybe explain the reasoning behind a particular act that you are upset about. But to post things like that on a multi-cultural as well as multi-age site was irresponsible and childish at best. The freedom of speech you touted so loudly was originally created as a way for the people of this country to express their opinions of the ruling class without fear of punishment or retribution. Not so that someone can come out and shout obscenities from the mountain top for all to hear. I wonder if Reich even truly understands the height of bad taste he hit here since even publicly posting an image of Muhammed is considered as blasphemous as.... hmmm... not to offend anyone's senses here but as an example only... urinating on a crucifix at the Vatican. Anyway, I hope Reich reads this and maybe understands a little bit exactly how overboard he went with his post. I'm all for freedom of speech, when used properly.

[Doublett22]

I couldnt have said it better NowhereMan, finally a person who can understand exactly where i am coming from. Well done Nowhere man, if you consider running for congress/senate/presidant someday just let me know.... ill be a staunch supporter!!!

[podge]

I am surprised that nobody has raised the the point that the image in question is pornographic. Since when has CC allowed images of erect ejaculating penis's on it's forums. Admittedly it is only a cartoon but as others have said there are children on here boys and girls who should not be subjected to this indecency. If I were to post a picture of my erect penis, how long would it be before it was removed, not very long I think. So would somebody please explain the difference to me.

(fear not I will not be posting any pictures)

[alex_white101]

yeah post one of yourself and see

actually, we could then play ''spot the penis''

[podge]

You probly wouldn't be able to see mine.

[Doublett22]

For me it wasnt about the penis per say or the "pornography", it was what the penis was doing, and on who the action was being excecuted. So you can post all the penis' you want but dont post them along side any religious figures let alone having a penis ejaculate on a religious figure. Its such a disgustful and profane act.

[Soloman]

call it what you may to some it is blasphemous to others it is humerous and yet to others it is more of the senseless depravity of religion, I am a spirirtual person taht finds that religion is divisive in its nature I am not a follower of islam or budha nor am I a christian but I do believe in Christ and his works(figure that 1) the very debate about it gives it life and power I say if it is offensive do not read it if you find it blasphemous take a look at the mulitude of other things that could be considered so in every day life around you and call them for what they are and live fullly by the tenets that you are claiming is offending you in real life

[alster]

In the Flame War forum titled "Iranian fuckwits" follow through the posts until you get to the second page and there you will see the most despicable, blasphemous, profane, sacrilegious, irreverent, and inhumane post ever

I must begin by saying that the headline was priceless. Blasphemy within parenthesis like that. Unbelievable. Of course one had to look into the thread. When seeing it, I figured someone had said something bad about CC…

Now. Just a basic thing. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion etc. are freedoms protected by the government (as agreed upon in the social contract) in the public sphere. I.e. on your own property, you are perfectly free to ask people not to commit acts that in your subjective view is considered “blasphemous”. For example, if you don’t want a statue of Jesus made out of chocolate, feel free to eat it or ask the guy who gave it to you to take it away. Likewise, lack may wake up one day and thinking, “You know, today I’m gonna ban all discussions regarding the crossword map, I really like that map, it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling playing it and I don’t want those douches to continue bashing it. Yes. Today I will announce a no-crossword-bashing policy.” And, he could do that. It’s his private property and the rest of us are just guests.

CC isn’t public. There are borderline cases of course (like malls etc.), but a closed website isn’t really a borderline case. Maybe political and religious discussions should be off the table completely. It works in Hattrick. But it means work for the mods having to remove such posts and make judgments. Me, I’m here to play CC. I don’t care about those weird asses trying to spread Intelligent Design propaganda in here. On the other hand, it doesn’t bother me. Just because I find the idea weird, doesn’t mean I think that such ideas shouldn’t be discussed in the social forum. After all, I don’t have to read the threads in there, do I?

[alster]

Now. Let’s assume that this, after all, is a public space. Since people have been talking about limits of free speech etc.

Let me correct a few notions that have floated around.

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

Responsibility?

Let me quote the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is no exception there with respect to irresponsible, childish, immoral, insensitive speech etc. Speech is speech. There are no strings attached. As Madison put it, these are “simple, acknowledged principles''. I.e. no arbitrary distinctions are made.

It is necessary to protect speech and expressions (even errors, indecent, immoral etc.) since the broadest possible freedom is necessary in order to ascertain truths. If you have 100 bad ideas expressed, the conflict of ideas in the marketplace will take care of it. Maybe 95 will be discussed and dismissed (which is good, because then we ascertain that our old ideas still are true) and maybe 5 of them have a point (which is even greater since we then add some truth to our common knowledge).

To arbitrary start imposing limits on the freedoms of speech and expression is the path to slavery and bondage.

Popular ideas don’t need protection. It’s the unpopular ideas that need to be protected.

One should not offended religious or ethnic groups. One should be sensitive.

Well. One may be sensitive if one chose to. But you don’t have to. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are absolute, inalienable individual rights in liberal democracies.

Those rights trump any kind of collective gatherings.

There is a right to speech/expression. There is no right not to be offended in the public sphere. To quote Toby Keith, “Freedom don’t come free”. It sure ain’t. The price we have to pay for our own freedoms is that we may find ideas and expressions floated in the public sphere to be offensive or immoral. However, paying that price is a bargain compared to not having those freedoms at all.

What is worse than not having "freedom of speech" is having that very privilege and failing to understand its true meaning followed by its value and more importantly the responsibility that it comes with.

This is ideas floated by spoiled people taking our freedoms and liberty for granted.

Freedom of speech/expression is indeed a privilege. It’s a privilege many men before us have died for in order to get and pass on to us.

However, our responsibility today lies in preserving them, not making them more narrow. We should take pride in the fact that in our Western, liberal democracies, people can state the most outrageous things without having to fear punishment. That is our responsibility, nothing else.

[alster]

But to post things like that on a multi-cultural as well as multi-age site was irresponsible and childish at best. The freedom of speech you touted so loudly was originally created as a way for the people of this country to express their opinions of the ruling class without fear of punishment or retribution. Not so that someone can come out and shout obscenities from the mountain top for all to hear. I wonder if Reich even truly understands the height of bad taste he hit here since even publicly posting an image of Muhammed is considered as blasphemous as… mmm... not to offend anyone's senses here but as an example only... urinating on a crucifix at the Vatican.

Irresponsible?

With respect to the origins of the freedom of speech. Yes. It was drafted with political freedoms in mind. However, the text is broader than that. And as the S.C. have eventually concluded, the First Amendment not only to bar most prior restraints of speech/expression but also any kind of subsequent punishment (except for a narrow range of speeches/expressions) in all fields of expression (not only political).

Also. You also have a right to bear arms in order to be able to launch a revolution in case of the government becoming a tyrannical one, taking your freedoms away. For example, infringing on the individuals’ freedom of speech. That is indeed the land of the free. You have the right to state the most outrageous opinions. As long as that is the case, all is well.


I also like to point out a factual error. Public postings of an image of Mohammed is not per se considered as blasphemous among Muslims. That is a myth spread recently. Mohammed has been depicted in the Muslim world for a long time. There are also theological differences involved, most notably between Shia and Sunni Muslims. In Iran its perfectly alright to draw a Mohammed painting. In Sunni theology there became an issue whether to depict nature at all. In short, the argument was that human cannot depict nature in the same way as God. It would be an imperfect picture, and by trying one committed a blasphemous act. The “ban” to depict Mohammed didn’t start to arise until sometime during the 16th or 17th Century.

Now. Urinating on the Vatican. Well, the Vatican is a private property. So no, you are not free to pee there as you wish. However, that has nothing to do with freedom of speech/expression. Apples and pears.