glad
August 5th, 2015
Only two signed copies of Kenan Malik’s “The Quest for a Moral Compass” left now. If you want one, hurry along to the J&M Patreon page.
Latest book…
Random oldie…
March 5, 2014-
- NICE T-SHIRT (Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Currently unavailable.
Nice, although I suspect in the 1st panel Mo should be saying “Freedom of Speech”, not just “Freedom Speech”.
Fixed now.
No blink?
Second panel. Change “which” to “that”. Grammar police…
In the same way that I favor freedom “from” religion, I’m also in favor of freedom “from” speech, the coming debate from the top 10 republican candidates for the U.S. presidential election is a prime example. If ignorance is indeed bliss, these must be some of the happiest people on earth.
@FrankDiscussions – Why?
“that” in necessary complement is US use; “which” is fine in the UK (used to live and work there…)
Yes, in America we use “that” to say which and “which” to say that. I think it’s in the Declaration of Independence.
This is why I find linguistics fun. I think it was Churchill who said the UK and USA were two nations separated by a common language.
Yeah…I love that third panel. Let them think it over a bit. Say what!
“Science flies you to the moon; religion flies you into buildings”–V. Stenger
Freedom of speech? Tee hee.
Means you talk, listen only, for me
Freedom lovers spout their belief
Allowed to promote violence and grief
Protected by freedom from blasphemy.
Robert Andrews, Mr. Stenger was wrong. Twelve thousand years and more of millions of religions had never given anyone the ability to fly, nor to move on the ground faster than a running horse. (Indeed, even horses are the product of generations of slow Science. )
Less than three centuries of Science did.
Religion may give one the desire to fly into buildings but it gives one no extra abilities whatsoever.
This seems to be Jesus and Mo both realizing that their religions are full of bad ideas which would die if we have complete freedom of speech. Doesn’t seem likely to me. Am I missing something?
DH, consider it an idealised version of how that would play out.
machigai, the Author has heard you 🙂 . Watch panel 3 closely for a bit, and you’ll see both J & M blink.
This cartoon reminds me of something Doctor Toon wrote (in the comments section under http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2015/07/25):
I respect the right of every person the believe whatever it is that they believe
I respect the right of every person to express their beliefs
The thing is, after some people express their beliefs I can no longer respect them
Oops–that should have been
I respect the right of every person to believe whatever it is that they believe
Thanks for the blinks.
@ 2 cents worth – I prefer to try to respect the person, but not necessarily their beliefs. Eg there are – I think – some “nice” Young Earth Creationists. Their religious beliefs may be absolute hokum, but they can be otherwise amongst the nicest people you ever may meet(friendly, helpful, etc.).
heh
To Stephen Mynett:
Churchill might well have said it; after all he did say many memorable things. However, Oscar Wilde (as usual) might have priority.
The Canterville Ghost, 1887 (Churchill was 12 or 13 at the time.).
Indeed, in many respects, she was quite English, and was an excellent example of the fact that we have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language.
Please correct if wrong.
I have had a quick look and so far GB Shaw is favourite, although would not say that to be fact. Certainly Churchill took the idea from somewhere else and reworked it slightly.
Because this really isn’t fair, is it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXpFlTR-UEY
Of course there are ‘a few restrictions’. I love sharing my favorite theories, they are dearly convenient to me. Allowing discussion of their obvious flaws is, quite simply, – Blasphemy!
I think John67 makes a really good point. In fact I think it makes an excellent diagnostic for distinguishing between zealots (whether religious or ideological — they’re all the same underneath) and reasonable people, to wit:
Reasonable people think that if you disagree with them it means you have bad judgement. Zealots think that if you disagree with them it means you are a bad person.
what Mo omits =
‘maybe there should be a few restrictions – to start with’
jb – I think I need to steal that aphorism
Well put, jb!
Thanks for the support, jb! The aphorism does make a good screening test – but at the expense of its terseness, I’m inclined to modify the first part: “Reasonable people think that if you disagree with them it means you have bad judgement, or are misinformed, or uninformed. Further, reasonable people are willing to change their own judgement when faced with compelling evidence.” The zealots part sounds about right to me. But your wording is pithy, mine isn’t. FWIW.
good point JB – but what happens if you are a zealot about reasonableness
white+squirrel
then would you not be reasonable about zealousness?