^That's a slippery slope. I understand there are limits to freedom of speech (e.g. in my country hate speech is not protected under freedom of speech and it's actually illegal), but criticism is most definitely a form of free speech. It is also part of civil discourse. And it cannot be (or should not be) regulated by sanctions dictating how it should be exercise.

People tend to attach an all or nothing quality to the concept of "criticism" like it somehow equates the word "insult." These aren't the same thing.

^This is just a general statement, petrv. I'm not trying to accuse you thinking in this way. I'm just trying to clarify my idea.

Oooh, f_or^matting bar!

Some folks are so damned sensitive that they will take any criticism of their beliefs or values as a personal insult. These folks really cannot be used as a basis for normalcy, so let us omit them from this discussion and talk about more rational people.

If someone was to try to come up to me and tell me I needed to acknowledge JoeBob the Great as my lord and savior, my first response would be to ask them to leave me be. This is the polite part.
If they continue, then they are starting to cross that line between informational and being pushy. My response at that point would be to TELL them to leave me be. This is the turning point.
If they still continue, all gloves are off. At this point, they have no only been disrespectful of my wishes, but continue to harass me in spite of my desire to not hear about it. I will be honest, if someone was to continue after this point they'd get a good punch to the forehead (and I hit pretty hard). They would have demonstrated, at this point, that they will not respond to words, so physical actions needed to be taken. Once they back off (either in fear or any other reason), I'd leave them be.
And, for the record it wouldn't matter if it was JoeBob, Allah, Jesus, Thor, or any other religious figure, the results would be the same.

Now, let's say that someone was criticizing me for my religion. Calling me spawn of Satan or an Infidel or something. Right there, that is an attack. A verbal attack, to be sure, but an attack upon my beliefs. THIS should not be tolerated, because this is assault.

Now, if I was speaking with a person of a different belief and I was to question, let's say, Lent. As long as I wasn't trying to say something along the lines of, "Lent is stupid," the conversation should be allowed, as long as I am not condemning the religion or its practices. I can disagree with it, without being disrespectful.

XOK

Comment deleted

I've really never understood the concept of respect, when used outside the context of obeying superiors.  Respecting one's opinion seems to often be defined as not challenging it.

@petrv

>Maybe I wasn´t exact, as English is not my native, but it was general note, not personal to you. Apologizing for misunderstanding then.

I understand you very clearly and you English is quite good.  I just tried to clarify what I meant because sometimes I speak in a very direct manner that can be misunderstood as rude.  So, please, no need for apologies.  And I agree with your statement.  One can criticize without being overly aggressive. Although I have learned that it is very hard for people not to see your criticism as confrontational even if you are not trying to.

Comment deleted

Criticism should be allowed on the terms that individuals are willing to accept the consequences of said things, injury, death, etc.... as being their fault.

Criticism should be allowed on the terms that individuals are willing to accept the consequences of said things, injury, death, etc.... as being their fault.

By: Clive on 3 April 2017, 12:34 p.m.

[quote]God? Public opinion? We ourselves? There is many possibilities and on  top of this every situation must be reviewed in situation context. Not  easy. But I´m still optimistic.[/quote]

God? OK we should use God as the sole arbitrator of whether something is respectful or not. If he rules against a comment he should intervene and say so.

LOL! I read this like you are being sarcastic. That's why I find it so amusing. :)

Now, if I was speaking with a person of a different belief and I was to question, let's say, Lent. As long as I wasn't trying to say something along the lines of, "Lent is stupid," the conversation should be allowed, as long as I am not condemning the religion or its practices. I can disagree with it, without being disrespectful.

👆 That

HistoryCulture

Criticism should be allowed on the terms that individuals are willing to accept the consequences of said things, injury, death, etc.... as being their fault.

"...death..."?! Do you mean some one might kill someone for criticizing them? Now that seems quite extreme and quite unreasonable. I can't think of any circumstance in which ones criticism should result in their death or anyone's death. Injury seems pretty extreme as well but I understand humans are fallible and emotions do get out of hand sometimes, but death?! now that's a whole different level. Yes, you should face the consequences of your  words, actions, and behaviors. This is a primary responsibility of being civilized citizens. It is also, I think a human imperative to preserve life in all cases that are reasonable, logical, and achievable. I don't think killing is should ever be condoned. Understood under very extreme circumstances but never an acceptable form of retaliation, especially when criticized. 

• Adam Spears
• Citizen
• Asgardia

I honestly think we should be beyond this. i have no problem with someone that is religious. someones stance on religion has really no effect on my life im more interested in advancing my knowledge of the universe and as long as they dont try to stop me from that im fine.   

Dude. You really need to learn how to recognize a troll when you see one.

1. They say things in places to gather the maximum amount of attention, and criticism.
2. They remain willfully ignorant of any factual evidence you bring up to the contrary.
3. If they feel they no longer have your attention, they usually resort to insults or threats.
4. They never, EVER go away if you ask them to do so. Ever.

OFY

I have to disagree with the no criticizm, taking criticizm is one of the most important aspect of improving ourselves. No matter is it religion or other stuff. If we don't take away the right of criticizm religion, not only we take away the right of free speech. It might lead to banning criticizm of other stuff, such as policies and others. I understand people do not want others to critize their believes, but this is necessary to let people critize something they don't feels right.

the question is wrong, it's not "who decide which criticism is good?" , it is "what decide...". We are a technocracy and we can't separate beneficts from issues? Come on, if the criticizm points at real issues it should be considered, if it is empiric (ex. guy1 is an idiot) with a circular logic, it's trash. We have a serious problem if we can't recognize such things.