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

Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post

mumbaimirror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–126 of 126 posts

Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post

#121

Post by Volpe »

fingerprinter wrote: post #81
Volpe wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right because all religious people are poorly educated war loving and irrational. Seriously... Do you forget what was responsible for spreading education so rapidly around the world (give you a hint, it wasn't atheists). There are a number of religions that are founded in rationality, and large components of others that are pure rationality. Just because you don't believe in (a) G/god doesn't mean you aren't r…

Irrational for sure. Everyone's an athiest when they're born. The natural position is non-belief. Religion is a faith based belief system for something that cannot be proven. Hence, belief in religion is by definition irrational. Now, if you are saying 'religion' to mean 'societal construct' or something like that, well, that is a different ballgame. Though I don't think you mean that, so the above applies. Bottom li…

A number of buddhist sects/schools hold no belief in any god... It is a religion, they are not irrational. It is a major religion.

> And as for educated. Perhaps there isn't a conclusive study on the subject, but it is safe to say that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious, particularly fundamental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

Correlation or causation? I don't really have time to read through all the studies, but St Thomas Aquinas is a good counter example of that premise, very analytical, very religious...

Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post

#122

Post by Volpe »

adityab wrote: post #95
Volpe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? It is a distinctly "western" thought[1] (as is "Human Rights"[2]). I actually didn't know whether it had been imported into India, given india's rather "mixed" (east/west) history. The concept of 'natural human rights' is also a western concept, so no, I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western)…

No, it is not. Wikipedia lists "western" examples because western canon is very well documented, and this documentation is reliable and extensive enough to quote from. My readings of Indian history have led me to accept that the freedom of thought and speech have existed, formally and legally, for at least a thousand years - particularly, read up on the times of Asoka's rule.

Does that pre-date the (ancient) greeks? Plato and Aristotle had a lot to say about 'freedom'. When I say 'Western' I mean them, given our whole way of thinking (philosophy) and problem solving (scientific method) was defined by them.

From my brief look, Hinduism and the Ancient greeks started talking about Freedom (and freedom of speech) at around the same time (~400BCE).

Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post

#123

Post by Volpe »

brownbat wrote: post #115
Volpe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? It is a distinctly "western" thought[1] (as is "Human Rights"[2]). I actually didn't know whether it had been imported into India, given india's rather "mixed" (east/west) history. The concept of 'natural human rights' is also a western concept, so no, I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western)…

> I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western) way of thinking is the 'right' way, and everyone else is 'wrong'. Yes, there are arguments in the Western canon, but when Milton argues for freedom of expression in the Areopagitica, or Mill in On Liberty, they don't argue that you should support free speech because you're a Westerner. They don't make any special appeals to anyone's cultural situation. The…

I didn't saying anything of the sort. But you dismantled that straw man rather deftly! Well Done!

I was referring in particular to "Human Rights". There are a number of different ways to approach building a productive society. Human Rights are one approach, there are others. Both are rational.

Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post

#124

Post by Volpe »

jagira wrote: post #102
Volpe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Freedom of Expression" is not an American/French/Western concept. Shouldn't it be a natural human right? It is a distinctly "western" thought[1] (as is "Human Rights"[2]). I actually didn't know whether it had been imported into India, given india's rather "mixed" (east/west) history. The concept of 'natural human rights' is also a western concept, so no, I don't think we should continue to talk like our (western)…

Freedom of speech is a generic concept. Also, long before Europe became civilized, Indian society (Hinduism) had freedom of speech [1]. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akeA0EvLEbs

Not Long before the ancient greeks though... Perhaps they were related? (i.e Alexander the Great)

Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post

#125

Post by fakeer »

bhntr3 wrote: post #118
fakeer wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> different religions have different laws that apply to them That's incorrect and somewhat misleading. It's rather such as - certain parts of (minor subset) some civil laws or family laws come under respective personal laws based upon religion/tribe &c. Like Hindu Marriage Act, Hindi Code Bills, various succession acts &c. Remaining (most) part is a uniform civil code. However, it can be noted that in case of crimin…

If it's incorrect it's certainly misleading. But it's not incorrect. It may be misleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_India There are clearly different laws that apply to different religious groups when it comes to polygamy and other, as you say, family or civil laws. I wasn't trying to say that the entire legal system in India is bifurcated (multifurcated? =P) along religious lines. I was just pointing…

Correct facts can be used to mislead. Why I said misleading was not primarily because I thought or maybe assumed (as I am no legal expert myself) but because the way you made a sweeping statement which might have been either done knowingly or merely in the flow of writing that comment you included the line. Incorrect because it was actually incorrect and when I wrote the comment I didn't have Set Theory in mind.

I just wanted to clarify the scenarios where laws are intertwined with religion, tribes or caste. Regarding the last term caste I have not been able to find any instance but have read in articles that there are such provisions.

I would like to add that your mention of Polygamy in India needs few lines - it's not enforced in India until and unless you are someone famous where people take interest out of the celebrity nature and hence state intervenes or the case/issue has blown up. It's present even in religions other than Islam. It's 'sort of' legal in most of the tribes based on tradition (this term often comes up in all sorts of legal cases in this country and is given importance) and it's common in rural areas.

Re: Mumbai girl arrested for Facebook post

#126

Post by beagle3 »

gjm11 wrote: post #120
beagle3 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the general consensus about these observations is that what's happening is that less stable and secure societies tend to make people more religious I am not aware of this consensus, but it is entirely unrelated to my claim: The supposed benefits of religion are nil, because comparable countries that essentially eschew religion fare at least as well, and usually way better than those that do not. I did not m…

It is related to your claim, because it provides an alternative explanation. Observation: Various measures of societal health are correlated with lack of religion. Explanation #1: Religion is bad for society. Explanation #2: Bad society is good for religion. Both explanations are at least somewhat plausible (religion is bad for society because believing falsehoods is morally corrosive, or because religions are full o…

Thanks for a long and detailed response. Really appreciated.

But I want to reiterate, that I only ever claimed "sum (religion benefits) <= 0", which I believe is equivalent to your statement that "religion isn't vital" (or rather, "religion isn't helpful"). At no way did I imply any other cause and effect relation other than the one implicit in this statement.

Post reply on HN