Not some, almost all. That’s what a consensus is. It’s based on Hadiths that are centuries old. It isn’t a new belief, it isn’t a minority belief, on pure weight of numbers it’s not just offending “somebody” it’s offending a whole religion.
They’ve backtracked. There is literally a vote on the commons record stating which Tory MP’s voted against animal rights in the Brexit bill.
If you're going off weight of numbers then less than 50% of the global population would be offended. Meaning its more inoffensive than offensive.
That’s assuming that that the remaining 50% don’t find it offensive. Jews for instance have very similar beliefs on images of god. Images of Buddha can be very offensive to certain Buddhist demographics even though it’s widely used by Buddhist themselves in temples. A lot of other religions have sympathy to Islam on the subject. Some people who have no belief whatsoever just think that it’s unnecessary to go out your way to offend belief systems and people who follow that belief. I suspect of you really wanted to do a head count of people who are offended I suspect that the opposite of what you assume is true is true.
So are you saying that Muslims don’t have the right to be offended?
Yet they voted for the Northern Ireland protocol. Which coincidentally they’re also backtracking on.
Don't you ever get tired being you? I get tired after exchanging around 3 messages with you.
Grendulls back with his sexualised fantasies.
Argue the point not the person.
You have no point. Your animal welfare brexit hyperbole was nonsense. We were already ahead of most the EU, now we'll go yet further ahead.
Some people on here clearly think that they’re not offensive full stop. The only actual point I’ve made is that that they’re offensive to Islam as a general consensus so therefore they are offensive. Some have tried to downplay that to some as if it’s a minority of Muslims when it’s clearly a consensus. Someone has then tried to say that only a lesser percentage of the world is offended so it can’t be a fact when in actual fact Christianity is a minority when it comes religions that aren’t offended by imagery, even then certain sects of Christianity are also offended by imagery. There is actually a word for it, aniconism.
Of course offence is given. If I choose to call you a c**t (I wouldn’t by the way) I’d be doing that with the intent of offending. It’s like Grendull with his homo erotic fantasist put downs. He’s not doing that as a compliment, he’s doing it in an attempt to offend me (presumably because he’s homophobic so thinks it’s a useful tool to offend someone). Luckily I’m not homophobic so I’m not offended. He’s giving it but I’m not taking it (no pun intended).
But I can choose to ignore you calling me a c**t and get over it or I could come to your place of work and demand you get fired for calling me a c**t. Which is what these people are doing. I of course wouldn't do that, I think people that attempt to have other people fired are lower than a snakes belly.
Which is fair enough. Doesn’t mean that people don’t have the right to be offended or that the intent was to offend in the first place.
So you’re inventing imaginary situations and imaginary responses to those imaginary situations. Clever stuff. What’s it proving exactly except you detachment from reality?
Scary thing is all you'd have to do is take that picture of Mickey Mouse and write Muhammed above it with an arrow pointing at Mickey and you'd have the lynch mob turn up at your work place. With the full backing of certain forum members too.
