Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

pta.gov.pk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 268 posts

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#211

Post by robertlagrant »

babypuncher wrote: post #159
jeoqn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies that “modern” is unequivocally better than anything else.

One modern alternative is "no religion", which is better than any religion that enforces this kind of crap. This is the position any modern governing entity should take. I don't have a problem with religion in principle, only when it is used as justification to mistreat others, as is happening here. At that point any spiritual benefits it offers adherents are outweighed by the societal harm it causes. There are good…

It's not automatically good. One of the most atheist governments was Soviet Russia, with the attendant horrifying death toll on its population.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#212

Post by valarauko »

tankenmate wrote: post #161
blackhaz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

But it's not really even (or just) that; Muslims (in general obviously) have their own view on what Islam is and is not, and this may not jibe with Muslims from other parts of the world. A prime example is Ahmadiyyas; they consider themselves to be Muslims but in particular some of the harder line Muslims (for example some Wahhabists) would consider them to be heretical. And hence some would argue that they are breac…

tbf Ahmadiyyas are a particular exceptional case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find even moderate mainline Muslims accepting of them as coreligionists, since they (seemingly) violate one of the basic tenets of Islam, i.e., the Seal of the Prophets. The fact that Ahmadiyyas do accept the Seal of the Prophets but assign a sub-prophet role is the devil in the details here.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#213

Post by anthk »

rootusrootus wrote: post #51
whizzter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US Laws are why people aren't posting classic European art because one nipple and you're gone.

What laws, exactly? US Wikipedia has many images far more graphic than a nipple. We have television with full frontal nudity (both genders). Maybe you're thinking of broadcast television, which does have relatively strong restrictions before 10pm (IIRC, could be off on the exact time of day).

In Spain nudity on classical art woudln't be censored on TV. It looks plainly aseptic, not even erotic.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#214

Post by serverholic »

mrguyorama wrote: post #208
serverholic wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that's a common far-left cop-out. I don't follow many right wing sources, I closely observe how people talk and act, offline and online, and think for myself. In-fact I follow mostly left-wing media and I consider myself a true leftist because I think everyone should be treated equally, and power dynamics aren't as simple as man = has all power, women = has no power. But that's exactly the narrative that the left…

>Something like 30% of men haven't had sex in the past year >women generally find 80% of men unattractive on dating sites. For the first time in history, women actually have the societal, as well as legal right to not find a man. They are finally able to be choosy and say no when they don't want to do anything. They are no longer coerced by laws or societal norms to settle for a man, and can freely chose to only find…

[flagged]

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#215

Post by valarauko »

jacooper wrote: post #97
nimbius wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while it may be tempting to condense the concern to the most virulent objections of an extreme, it bears remembrance that Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam. the Holy Quran and Sunnah are effectively the books by which this nation is governed, and as such any charge of blasphemy is taken with a seriousness bordering on the academic. this blasphemy charge could stem from any of the…

> it bears remembrance that Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam. No? Saudi Arabia exists

Well, no. Saudi Arabia is the portion of the Ottoman Empire that Ibn Saud grabbed in the early 20th century from other rival warlords. Islam and Sharia were definately guiding principles in administration, but it was no more Islamic than its neighbors.

Pakistan is different since its defining trait was to be carved out as a homeland for the Muslims of South Asia, rather than anything inherent in the land itself - its citizenry was outlined long before its actual land borders.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#216

Post by mistermann »

ceejayoz wrote: post #25
auctoritas wrote: post #15

Similar things are happening in the West given US and Euro govts leaning on Social Media companies to censor dissenting/blasphemous views. Just think - what are you not allowed to say? What will get you banned or blacklisted?

Can you define "similar", please? The FBI sending Twitter emails about TOS violations they noticed and being executed for being an atheist are "similar" only if you really torture the definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#217

Post by babypuncher »

robertlagrant wrote: post #211
babypuncher wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One modern alternative is "no religion", which is better than any religion that enforces this kind of crap. This is the position any modern governing entity should take. I don't have a problem with religion in principle, only when it is used as justification to mistreat others, as is happening here. At that point any spiritual benefits it offers adherents are outweighed by the societal harm it causes. There are good…

It's not automatically good. One of the most atheist governments was Soviet Russia, with the attendant horrifying death toll on its population.

When I say "no religion" I don't mean "state mandated atheism".

I also don't think organized faith of any kind would have done anything to solve the problems with the Soviet Union. Especially when they were one despotic atheist state among countless despotic theocracies.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#218

Post by mistermann »

jliptzin wrote: post #167
mistermann wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony in comments like this never ceases to amaze me.

It is amazing to me that we are okay with going along with all kinds of peculiar things that religious people do, even things that inconvenience non-believers (shabbat elevators, kosher/halal laws, closing liquor stores on Sunday (God's day), people walking around with ash on their foreheads, ignoring basic medical advice because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, censoring/banning textbooks, etc, but if someo…

Clairvoyance (in this case: mind reading and crystal ball gazing) on the other hand: perfectly rational.

Surely these "peculiar things that Normies do" are completely harmless, in all manifestations...but let's never mind thinking about that - since it's normal, paying attention to such things is .

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#219

Post by acdha »

BeetleB wrote: post #201
acdha wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first paragraph of that Wikipedia page says this: > At the very commencement of his accession, he found himself forced into exile from Pakistan in response to pressure from the Government of Pakistan. Is that inaccurate?

Link? His Wikipedia page does not have this text, and it was last edited days ago. Never mind: You are talking about Mirza. I'm talking about the Nobel Laureate. Two different people.

Right, that explains it - too much going on in this thread.

Re: Pakistani gov degrades Wikipedia connections due to blasphemy

#220

Post by hulitu »

dctoedt wrote: post #205
psyfi wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it. In the same sense they supposedly would remove whatever violates hate speech laws or copyright laws in some other countries that the ones they operate in.

> Because the law of a country (a very populated country) prohibits it s/law/rulers/g

> s/law/rulers/g

You don't need to replace them. They are equivalent.

Post reply on HN