Arwn - "Hmm let's see now...how do I answer this without giving offense?"
Interlocutor - "Isn't that, in itself an answer?"
A - "You know, I'm slightly offended that you can be so easily satisfied with that facile a response to that large an issue, an issue that is getting in the way of consensus which is..."
I - "Okay, alright, what's the long, (I'm probably going to regret that word), version."
A - "Well, since you asked, First..."
I - "Merciful Heavens."
A - "Complex questions require..."
I - "I give."
A - "First. We have to deal with the issue of the rather judgemental 'too easily'. It would be fair to ask, how much is just enough offense? And who decides the limits? And can we be sure that the limits mandated are not crossing anyone's differently defined limits? As you can see, not one of those lends itself to facility of response. Embedded in them is a workable definition of 'offense'. One man, woman's offense may well be another's ritual. For example, there are folks, to include myself, who find the sound of electronically enhanced, megawatt speakered, protestations of piety, as is practiced by more than one religion, to be intrusive and not a little offensive. However to say so would instantly hurt the feelings of the speakers and listeners of those modes of faith. And hurt feelings seem to be justification enough for violence and hurt bodies. Then there's...
I - "Okay, point made, but, even long answers have conclusions. Could we skip to that now? I've got a bus to catch."
A - "What all of that suggests to me is that the question is not one of graduated hurt feelings as much as it is about what one does about those feelings. It seems to me that hate speech ought to be as protected as its corollary the sermonized moralities that pass for religious instruction, with, the important codicil that the speaker is then responsible for the actions and attitudes that are a result 0f that speech. Liability laws come to mind. It should be noted the issue is not limited to India. It seems that anywhere, and any when, religion enters into the social milieu, feelings get pinned to shirt sleeves and thus are susceptible to the rough and tumble jostle of the crowded path ways of Belief and Faith, (n.b. please, upper case).
I - "Check please."
Interlocutor - "Isn't that, in itself an answer?"
A - "You know, I'm slightly offended that you can be so easily satisfied with that facile a response to that large an issue, an issue that is getting in the way of consensus which is..."
I - "Okay, alright, what's the long, (I'm probably going to regret that word), version."
A - "Well, since you asked, First..."
I - "Merciful Heavens."
A - "Complex questions require..."
I - "I give."
A - "First. We have to deal with the issue of the rather judgemental 'too easily'. It would be fair to ask, how much is just enough offense? And who decides the limits? And can we be sure that the limits mandated are not crossing anyone's differently defined limits? As you can see, not one of those lends itself to facility of response. Embedded in them is a workable definition of 'offense'. One man, woman's offense may well be another's ritual. For example, there are folks, to include myself, who find the sound of electronically enhanced, megawatt speakered, protestations of piety, as is practiced by more than one religion, to be intrusive and not a little offensive. However to say so would instantly hurt the feelings of the speakers and listeners of those modes of faith. And hurt feelings seem to be justification enough for violence and hurt bodies. Then there's...
I - "Okay, point made, but, even long answers have conclusions. Could we skip to that now? I've got a bus to catch."
A - "What all of that suggests to me is that the question is not one of graduated hurt feelings as much as it is about what one does about those feelings. It seems to me that hate speech ought to be as protected as its corollary the sermonized moralities that pass for religious instruction, with, the important codicil that the speaker is then responsible for the actions and attitudes that are a result 0f that speech. Liability laws come to mind. It should be noted the issue is not limited to India. It seems that anywhere, and any when, religion enters into the social milieu, feelings get pinned to shirt sleeves and thus are susceptible to the rough and tumble jostle of the crowded path ways of Belief and Faith, (n.b. please, upper case).
I - "Check please."
