|
On December 15 2010 04:56 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 04:34 wadadde wrote:On December 13 2010 18:23 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
No. Bending to the will of a bunch of bloodthirsty savages only encourages them and shows them that their violent methods and oppression is effective. Oowww, statements like these are obviously the result of an enlightened culture. "Violent methods" and "oppression". This rings a bell. It's probably the irony bell. Obviously the only somewhat respectable form of censorship is self-censorship. Even then it's only truly admirable in very few cases. One good example is not speaking one's mind to a spouse on sensitive subjects - totally acceptable. Another might be not trying to evoke a violent response. I've heard that empathy can be a good thing in human-to-human communication. How silly. Drawing religious figures is trying to evoke a violent response? They may be trying to evoke a response alright, but to assume it's somehow the instigator's fault that the response is violent is outright ridiculous. If I draw a silly picture of Elvis, I might get some hate mail but I'm not expecting to be beheaded by any Elvis fanclubs. The fact that the response is expected to be violent is more telling of Muslims than anything else. I've also heard that not being violent extremists with no tolerance for others is a very good thing in human-to-human communication. The onus is on radical Muslims to stop acting like it's the 16th century, not on cartoonists to expect that ink pictures will lead to death threats.
Good job, buddy. You won your dipshit strawman argument. Learn to fucking read. Then, learn to expand your horizon.
What your basically asserting is that taking into account what others value (for whatever -even possibly misguided - reasons) is under every circumstance the right thing to do. Or did I put words in your mouth?
Clearly a nuanced statement that doesn't slavishly adhere to some moronic notion that insults are somehow the highest form of communication is utterly lost on you. Hope you're proud of yourself! Now go back to burning some books or something.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 15 2010 08:33 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 04:56 Krigwin wrote:On December 15 2010 04:34 wadadde wrote:On December 13 2010 18:23 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
No. Bending to the will of a bunch of bloodthirsty savages only encourages them and shows them that their violent methods and oppression is effective. Oowww, statements like these are obviously the result of an enlightened culture. "Violent methods" and "oppression". This rings a bell. It's probably the irony bell. Obviously the only somewhat respectable form of censorship is self-censorship. Even then it's only truly admirable in very few cases. One good example is not speaking one's mind to a spouse on sensitive subjects - totally acceptable. Another might be not trying to evoke a violent response. I've heard that empathy can be a good thing in human-to-human communication. How silly. Drawing religious figures is trying to evoke a violent response? They may be trying to evoke a response alright, but to assume it's somehow the instigator's fault that the response is violent is outright ridiculous. If I draw a silly picture of Elvis, I might get some hate mail but I'm not expecting to be beheaded by any Elvis fanclubs. The fact that the response is expected to be violent is more telling of Muslims than anything else. I've also heard that not being violent extremists with no tolerance for others is a very good thing in human-to-human communication. The onus is on radical Muslims to stop acting like it's the 16th century, not on cartoonists to expect that ink pictures will lead to death threats. Good job, buddy. You won your dipshit strawman argument. Learn to fucking read. Then, learn to expand your horizon. What your basically asserting is that taking into account what others value (for whatever -even possibly misguided - reasons) is under every circumstance the right thing to do. Or did I put words in your mouth? Clearly a nuanced statement that doesn't slavishly adhere to some moronic notion that insults are somehow the highest form of communication is utterly lost on you. Hope you're proud of yourself! Now go back to burning some books or something.
I have no idea what you're even trying to say in this post. But any point you may have been trying to make (perhaps you confused me with another poster...?) is utterly defeated by your nonsensical ramblings and retarded personal attacks.
That's a pretty cool story though, bro.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 15 2010 08:33 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 04:56 Krigwin wrote:On December 15 2010 04:34 wadadde wrote:On December 13 2010 18:23 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
No. Bending to the will of a bunch of bloodthirsty savages only encourages them and shows them that their violent methods and oppression is effective. Oowww, statements like these are obviously the result of an enlightened culture. "Violent methods" and "oppression". This rings a bell. It's probably the irony bell. Obviously the only somewhat respectable form of censorship is self-censorship. Even then it's only truly admirable in very few cases. One good example is not speaking one's mind to a spouse on sensitive subjects - totally acceptable. Another might be not trying to evoke a violent response. I've heard that empathy can be a good thing in human-to-human communication. How silly. Drawing religious figures is trying to evoke a violent response? They may be trying to evoke a response alright, but to assume it's somehow the instigator's fault that the response is violent is outright ridiculous. If I draw a silly picture of Elvis, I might get some hate mail but I'm not expecting to be beheaded by any Elvis fanclubs. The fact that the response is expected to be violent is more telling of Muslims than anything else. I've also heard that not being violent extremists with no tolerance for others is a very good thing in human-to-human communication. The onus is on radical Muslims to stop acting like it's the 16th century, not on cartoonists to expect that ink pictures will lead to death threats. Good job, buddy. You won your dipshit strawman argument. Learn to fucking read. Then, learn to expand your horizon. What your basically asserting is that taking into account what others value (for whatever -even possibly misguided - reasons) is under every circumstance the right thing to do. Or did I put words in your mouth? Clearly a nuanced statement that doesn't slavishly adhere to some moronic notion that insults are somehow the highest form of communication is utterly lost on you. Hope you're proud of yourself! Now go back to burning some books or something.
I don't want to evoke any violent responses (please don't behead me sir!), but what are you trying to say? I don't see any relevance.
Anyway, I already made all the points I wanted to make in my last two posts in this thread (that nobody responded to... sigh). Prohibitions on muhammad cartoons or any other form of free philosophical thought is the kind of thing that will send us back to the stone age. Faster than suicide bombers, faster than fundamentalism.
Self censorship has already lead to the cancellation of the depiction of muhammad in south park last season, which actually made me sick. Those pansies were too scared of delusional religious terrorists. It sucks.
|
i believe everything must be taken in moderation. even freedom, if you are willing to kill/threat for your freedom what makes you better then the extrimist? when you say those extrimist have no tolerance for other people, but where is your tolerance when you support or allow things that will surely anger somebody.
what is the use of criticizing a Man that have died so many many years ago, how can he defend himself from ridicule and accusations? whats the use except maybe for mockery or angering people. if you want to criticize muslim why not draw a man with a crescent moon or draw a guy with muslim clothing, why go for the Prophet that will surely anger the majority of muslims?
freedom of speech of this manner is only use by bigots to express their hatred and then cower themselves behind it, to me its feel like they are abusing freedom not practicing it.
|
I believe this entire matter can be summed up by a quote from Benjamin Franklin. I'm not sure of the context, but standing alone it holds an imporant philosophy:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
User was warned for this post
|
On December 15 2010 10:44 Sealteam wrote:
I believe this entire matter can be summed up by a quote from Benjamin Franklin. I'm not sure of the context, but standing alone it holds an imporant philosophy:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
what does Essential mean to you? really guys, yeah its really a cool catchphrase but give it some thougth first
|
It is religious extremists who make all these threats and do all of the bombings, etc. but there are religious extremists in every religion and have killed thousands of people in the past. When someone's religion is the main thing they live by, and someone insults it, they get offended, because that is what an insult is, to offend someone. These people, who do not know any better, who are taught that retaliation is the only thing to do, are the people who cause all the trouble. In the developed countries, where people know better than to just kill someone for something that offends them, people don't do this, almost all terrorists are immigrants from middle eastern countries and are only sent to other countries for one purpose. And someone might say "It's not just people from Muslim countries doing it!!" and that's true, but there are retarded people everywhere, and even if they grow up with values, such as not killing infidels, they still go out and do it.
And yes, most people do get pissed off when someone makes fun of Mohamed my friend used to get really angry when we even talked about how absurd it is to be killing people cause they drew pictures of him, but after hours of south park, he's desensitized to it and can have a laugh about Mohamed 
|
On December 15 2010 10:44 Sealteam wrote:
I believe this entire matter can be summed up by a quote from Benjamin Franklin. I'm not sure of the context, but standing alone it holds an imporant philosophy:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
TL as a whole uses that quote way too much, yet I have never seen anyone actually produce a definition of essential that isn't related to the US constitution, nor have I seen anyone actually defend the statement in any other means than evoking some sort of religious adherence to this guy's quotes. Not meaning to pick on you, but please provide a little more context, or substance to your post. By the way, in this instance, I completely agree with you, yet I've found myself disagreeing with the quote before. It doesn't apply universally.
|
On December 13 2010 22:18 dinmsab wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 22:10 gslavik wrote:
How does anyone know what Muhammad looked like?
Islam sees Jesus as a prophet. How come Muslims are not up in arms over caricatures intended to poke fun at Jesus?
Why is Jesus always depicted as having fair skin and long straight hair, even though he was born in western Asia? Nobody who is a descendant of the local people can possibly have fair skin.
Sincerely,
BearJewSlava.584 You miss the point here, any depictions made of Muhammad is extremely offensive to any Muslim. Freedom of speech is nice and all, but making those drawings just for lol's sake is just straight up real life trolling. What people fail to understand is that you're not just making a bunch of arab terrorists angry, your making a lot of mainstream muslims upset too. So yeah, why make people upset for no good reason.
I don't think I am missing the point. My point is: How do you know that something is a depiction of Muhammad? How do you know that something is a depiction of Jesus? How do you know that something is a depiction of _anyone_ when we do not have an accurate record (picture/painting) of what the person looked like.
We know what George Washington looked like, because we have a painting of him done by a skillful artist. We know what Albert Einstein looked like, because we have photographs of him. We have no clue what Cleopatra looked like because we do not have an accurate depiction of her.
When the Danish cartoon came out. It wasn't to piss someone off, it was to demonstrate the thought of the cartoonist. South Park does it all the time to famous people. Not only that, but what about all the jokes about gingers not having souls and Canadians having only one road, flapping heads and square wheels on cars?
Caricatures are expressions. "A picture is worth a thousand words," as the saying goes.
Sincerely,
BearJewSlava.584
|
On December 15 2010 21:30 gslavik wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 22:18 dinmsab wrote:On December 13 2010 22:10 gslavik wrote:
How does anyone know what Muhammad looked like?
Islam sees Jesus as a prophet. How come Muslims are not up in arms over caricatures intended to poke fun at Jesus?
Why is Jesus always depicted as having fair skin and long straight hair, even though he was born in western Asia? Nobody who is a descendant of the local people can possibly have fair skin.
Sincerely,
BearJewSlava.584 You miss the point here, any depictions made of Muhammad is extremely offensive to any Muslim. Freedom of speech is nice and all, but making those drawings just for lol's sake is just straight up real life trolling. What people fail to understand is that you're not just making a bunch of arab terrorists angry, your making a lot of mainstream muslims upset too. So yeah, why make people upset for no good reason. I don't think I am missing the point. My point is: How do you know that something is a depiction of Muhammad? How do you know that something is a depiction of Jesus? How do you know that something is a depiction of _anyone_ when we do not have an accurate record (picture/painting) of what the person looked like. We know what George Washington looked like, because we have a painting of him done by a skillful artist. We know what Albert Einstein looked like, because we have photographs of him. We have no clue what Cleopatra looked like because we do not have an accurate depiction of her. When the Danish cartoon came out. It wasn't to piss someone off, it was to demonstrate the thought of the cartoonist. South Park does it all the time to famous people. Not only that, but what about all the jokes about gingers not having souls and Canadians having only one road, flapping heads and square wheels on cars? Caricatures are expressions. "A picture is worth a thousand words," as the saying goes. Sincerely, BearJewSlava.584
Well no, the caricatures in the Danish newspaper were made to piss people off. The paper ran commissions for a bunch of cartoons depicting Mohammed. One of them was a boy named Mohammed standing at a chalk board writing "the editors of this newspaper are reactionary instigators" or something like that
But Muslims shouldn't get special protection to avoid being offended
|
There's a commandment against graven images too, but Michelangelo still painted that beardy guy touching Adam's finger and it was all cool.
Muslim dudes need to chill.
|
On December 13 2010 18:23 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
No. Bending to the will of a bunch of bloodthirsty savages only encourages them and shows them that their violent methods and oppression is effective.
He's got a point you know. dont negoatiate with terrorists.
|
if they dont like the cartoons, they dont have to look at them.
|
I think people need to realise that these bomber (blow myself types) are an extreme minority of the muslim community. Just as there are IRA bombers, this doesnt mean Catholics should at all be demonised. U gotta get perspective on the issue. These bombers are not part of the muslim community and mosques tells people not to do this.
Secondly, images of Muhammed are prohibited. The Quran essentially state that imagery for idolatry are not allowed. Unfortunately, these bomber types feel that other people (the cartoonist guy) are doing this just to really badly offend them and take the piss. Usually if someone really badly took the piss out of me I would myself,or if he was bigger than me get my big mates to beat him up. These bomber types are not too clever and think that by blowing themselves up they will show the offender a message.
|
Happened today:
I don't want to elaborate on the subject any further myself, mostly because of my lack of knowledge about the tensions between Sunni and Shias, but I thought it was pretty relevant to this thread.
(Edit: Since the excerpt can be misleading, it's not the USA part that I find particularly interesting, Iran blames the USA for basically anything anyway, so unless it gets confirmed by other sources I won't believe their claim.)
|
In Portugal i turn on my TV on portuguese channels or any other nationality and it's hard to miss a joke on christ ou christians.. There are jokes on christ everysingle day!
But you can't touch mr. allmighty mohammad! or else people start blowing up everywhere..
i hate religion! And not just islam, i hate them all! i hate my familiy religion(catholic) and i hate every single one of them.. Religion only brings hate and prejudice.. and nowadays it brings lots of death also..
Come on guys we all know there was no adam and eve.. there was no moises or abraham and Mr. Muhammad was a normal man with politic ambitions.. that's why he did what he did.. and that's why his sons fought over his empire and still fight to this day.. because we has a race fear the unknown but 2000 years later we should accept that we are alone until we find something.. it won't be gods it will be another race more powerfull or less powerfull than ours but no gods..
|
On December 13 2010 19:33 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:30 Sanjuro wrote:
if you know something will enrage someone, and then you do that something, why are you suprised or try to defend yourself with freedom of speech crap.
Its just a matter of action getting a reaction. if you cant deal with the reaction then dont do it.
Because you are protected by the right to free speech. It's a legitimate defense. You don't get the right to hurt someone because you don't like what they said: the person is still legally protected.
well, technically they are also protected by free of speech. Their way of "communicating" their thoughts is a little bit radical but hey, they are speaking their minds dont you think? they want you to stop fucking with their god.
On the one hand i LOVE freedom of speech but the same as with copyright infringement stuff it is being abused. Some people are using freedom of speech as a shield for their stupid actions and that by itself gives the extremist all the right to fuck them up... do I agree with their methods? Hell no... should you complain about their behavior? NO you have no right to complain when you are at fault as they have no right to complain because we are free to do whatever we want.
If you want to say something radical as "all islamists are animals" (as the picture depicts) then you should also be prepared to be treated like an animal yourself, and do you know what humans do with animals? they torture them and kill them for no reason.
I will simply enjoy this show until the end, one day i might as well get blown up by some retarded fanatic but i will die laughing that i did not participate in your silly "who is right?" game.
|
On December 13 2010 19:33 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:30 Sanjuro wrote:
if you know something will enrage someone, and then you do that something, why are you suprised or try to defend yourself with freedom of speech crap.
Its just a matter of action getting a reaction. if you cant deal with the reaction then dont do it.
Because you are protected by the right to free speech. It's a legitimate defense. You don't get the right to hurt someone because you don't like what they said: the person is still legally protected.
Freedom of Speech only protects you from government retaliation, not from other peoples reactions to what you say....those are covered by other laws. Assault and Battery and the like have nothing to do with free speech, those are blankets for any event.
It is an important distinction when making this arguement. It's not really a free speech argument, it's more along the lines of you shouldn't send 10000 death threats for a cartoon because you know, that's insane and way over the top.
|
On December 16 2010 05:43 RaptorX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 19:33 cz wrote:On December 13 2010 19:30 Sanjuro wrote:
if you know something will enrage someone, and then you do that something, why are you suprised or try to defend yourself with freedom of speech crap.
Its just a matter of action getting a reaction. if you cant deal with the reaction then dont do it.
Because you are protected by the right to free speech. It's a legitimate defense. You don't get the right to hurt someone because you don't like what they said: the person is still legally protected. well, technically they are also protected by free of speech. Their way of "communicating" their thoughts is a little bit radical but hey, they are speaking their minds dont you think? they want you to stop fucking with their god. On the one hand i LOVE freedom of speech but the same as with copyright infringement stuff it is being abused. Some people are using freedom of speech as a shield for their stupid actions and that by itself gives the extremist all the right to fuck them up... do I agree with their methods? Hell no... should you complain about their behavior? NO you have no right to complain when you are at fault as they have no right to complain because we are free to do whatever we want. If you want to say something radical as "all islamists are animals" (as the picture depicts) then you should also be prepared to be treated like an animal yourself, and do you know what humans do with animals? they torture them and kill them for no reason. I will simply enjoy this show until the end, one day i might as well get blown up by some retarded fanatic but i will die laughing that i did not participate in your silly "who is right?" game.
So you really just said that drawing a cartoon that pisses someone off gives that person the right to kill you. Unbelievable...
|
I don't think there's a place in the world for religious extremism of ANY kind. I can't remember who said this (it was on a TV show about offensive jokes, not a famous quote-bot from history) but "you have a right to freedom of speech; you do not have a right to not be offended."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
