|
On December 16 2010 13:11 ckw wrote:
I don't even see how this can be argued either way, you censor it and they threaten more about new bullsh**, you don't censor it and supposedly they kill people? I'm getting so fed up with these retards, what makes them think killing INNOCENT PEOPLE because of the act of that government or one man. Simply stupid, does America go and purposely kill a bunch of women and children just because they have the same religion as or live in the same area as these sleez bags?
These people who commit the suicide bombings are usually just weak minded beings that get brain washed by superiors. I hope these guys feel like retards when they wake up in hell. No God and no religion has ever said that it is okay to kill people for no reason.
Not for religion, but for politics they have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
|
I think everyone should just stfu and be happy with each other.
|
I think it's hate speech. What does one gain from insulting something revered by someone else? Nothing. Just ego problem you're trying to fill and hateful. There are laws against hate in many countries like in Germany you cant have nazi symbols and stuff and this has worked to create more harmony. Likewise laws against defiling others cultures and religion would go a long way. Even in USA freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't say hateful or sexist things at work to people and stuff.
|
On January 12 2011 01:31 tdt wrote:
I think it's hate speech. What does one gain from insulting something revered by someone else? Nothing. Just ego problem you're trying to fill and hateful. There are laws against hate in many countries like in Germany you cant have nazi symbols and stuff and this has worked to create more harmony. Likewise laws against defiling others cultures and religion would go a long way. Even in USA freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't say hateful or sexist things at work to people and stuff.
I think what most people miss is the intention behind the comics. They are not meant to insult people but to criticize extreme excrescence of a supposedly peaceful religion. In the eyes of the caricaturists, it was worth criticzizing when religious authorities call for the murder of others when their holy book clearly states that murder is a sin and that allah forbids it.
You are also correct that there are laws limiting freedom of speech but in the case of the comics these laws were clearly not violated. The problem is that to extremists these laws are not relevant and they do ot feel bound by them. So the question is whether you want to bow down to these people or not. Also, my guess is that the majority of the muslims pretty much did not care about the comics.
|
United States77 Posts
I remember seeing a picture of people in Iran burning the American flag during the Terry Jones Koran-burning controversy, with absolutely no sense of irony. Made me chuckle a bit, actually.
What it all boils down to is that you can't have freedom of speech and anti-blasphemy laws in the same system; they're just oil and water.
|
On January 12 2011 01:48 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 01:31 tdt wrote:
I think it's hate speech. What does one gain from insulting something revered by someone else? Nothing. Just ego problem you're trying to fill and hateful. There are laws against hate in many countries like in Germany you cant have nazi symbols and stuff and this has worked to create more harmony. Likewise laws against defiling others cultures and religion would go a long way. Even in USA freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't say hateful or sexist things at work to people and stuff. I think what most people miss is the intention behind the comics. They are not meant to insult people but to criticize extreme excrescence of a supposedly peaceful religion. In the eyes of the caricaturists, it was worth criticzizing when religious authorities call for the murder of others when their holy book clearly states that murder is a sin and that allah forbids it. You are also correct that there are laws limiting freedom of speech but in the case of the comics these laws were clearly not violated. The problem is that to extremists these laws are not relevant and they do ot feel bound by them. So the question is whether you want to bow down to these people or not. Also, my guess is that the majority of the muslims pretty much did not care about the comics.
How is it bowing down to agree with laws which promote peace between men? Then there is the whole democratic argument to be made. When large numbers of people whole believe X are in your mist, don't they get a vote? Or are your systems mores and tenants so superior they don't get a vote? A very undemocratic system.
|
On January 12 2011 02:19 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 01:48 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 12 2011 01:31 tdt wrote:
I think it's hate speech. What does one gain from insulting something revered by someone else? Nothing. Just ego problem you're trying to fill and hateful. There are laws against hate in many countries like in Germany you cant have nazi symbols and stuff and this has worked to create more harmony. Likewise laws against defiling others cultures and religion would go a long way. Even in USA freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't say hateful or sexist things at work to people and stuff. I think what most people miss is the intention behind the comics. They are not meant to insult people but to criticize extreme excrescence of a supposedly peaceful religion. In the eyes of the caricaturists, it was worth criticzizing when religious authorities call for the murder of others when their holy book clearly states that murder is a sin and that allah forbids it. You are also correct that there are laws limiting freedom of speech but in the case of the comics these laws were clearly not violated. The problem is that to extremists these laws are not relevant and they do ot feel bound by them. So the question is whether you want to bow down to these people or not. Also, my guess is that the majority of the muslims pretty much did not care about the comics. How is it bowing down to agree with laws which promote peace between men? Then there is the whole democratic argument to be made. When large numbers of people whole believe X are in your mist, don't they get a vote? Or are your systems mores and tenants so superior they don't get a vote? A very undemocratic system.
If we had a vote, right now, in Sweden, about this suggested prohibitions, it would not even come close to passing. The fact that theres a country called Iran where people think different is irrelevant. If you think the majority of people should decide, crosscountry, China would be prioritized, and quite frankly, thats just stupid.
If you want it to be illegal to draw pictures of Muhammad you will have do so by Swedens democratic process. Theres already people doing it actually, they just arent winning.
Its painful how people argue against democracy without even realizing it.
|
On January 12 2011 01:31 tdt wrote:
I think it's hate speech. What does one gain from insulting something revered by someone else? Nothing. Just ego problem you're trying to fill and hateful. There are laws against hate in many countries like in Germany you cant have nazi symbols and stuff and this has worked to create more harmony. Likewise laws against defiling others cultures and religion would go a long way. Even in USA freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't say hateful or sexist things at work to people and stuff.
I wrote a long response, but it's simply not worth it to respond to this. You clearly don't understand the meaning of free speech.
As for drawing muslim, I would consider it inappropriate, however, I would defend someone's right to do so.
A lot of people are also drawing comparisons to christianity, but there is a fundamental difference.
Mohamed was a conquerer. To solve the problems of society he forced his idealogy on a lot of different people and the #1 thing was justice for God. In fact, the entire koran revolves around this idea of being God's hands for justice in the world.
Jesus was a carpenter. To solve the problems of society he did nothing. His purpose was not to bring God justice since God can take care of Himself, his goal was to show mercy. The woman who was caught in adultry was brought to christ and they asked him to show justice upon her, but instead he takes compassion and writes something in the sand (who knows what) which causes those who seek justice to walk away. Instead of justice, Jesus offered mercy, and then redemption by telling the woman to "go and sin no more".
When someone makes art out of someone peeing on a statue of christ, christians might get upset, but they don't go blow up embassies.
The entire islamic moral philosophy cannot last in an age of information. The only way it will last is if the country has a revolution against modernization such as Iran, but that too cannot last as there either and probably won't last another 30-40 years. There are plenty of muslims here in the US who can practice their religion without violence, but they are considered liberal by the majority of islam, but so were protestants when they broke off from the catholic church.
Out of respect, I will not draw a picture of mohamed nor support someone who does such an action, however, out of my desire for liberty above all else, I will not encroach upon someone who does.
|
On January 12 2011 02:19 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 01:48 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 12 2011 01:31 tdt wrote:
I think it's hate speech. What does one gain from insulting something revered by someone else? Nothing. Just ego problem you're trying to fill and hateful. There are laws against hate in many countries like in Germany you cant have nazi symbols and stuff and this has worked to create more harmony. Likewise laws against defiling others cultures and religion would go a long way. Even in USA freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't say hateful or sexist things at work to people and stuff. I think what most people miss is the intention behind the comics. They are not meant to insult people but to criticize extreme excrescence of a supposedly peaceful religion. In the eyes of the caricaturists, it was worth criticzizing when religious authorities call for the murder of others when their holy book clearly states that murder is a sin and that allah forbids it. You are also correct that there are laws limiting freedom of speech but in the case of the comics these laws were clearly not violated. The problem is that to extremists these laws are not relevant and they do ot feel bound by them. So the question is whether you want to bow down to these people or not. Also, my guess is that the majority of the muslims pretty much did not care about the comics. How is it bowing down to agree with laws which promote peace between men? Then there is the whole democratic argument to be made. When large numbers of people whole believe X are in your mist, don't they get a vote? Or are your systems mores and tenants so superior they don't get a vote? A very undemocratic system.
You're trying to make your cowardice look like enlightened moderation.
These people are just looking for pretexts to get pissed off, and the more freedom you will give up the more they will try to take, but even more importantly, other communities will also copy their approach.
You should break off from the idealistic approach of "everyone should get along" and enter the world of the real where people of the same ethnicity/religion/philosophy leave around each other and don't necessarily like very much other people, this is true for everyone but particulary the muslims.
|
On January 12 2011 03:19 TeWy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 02:19 tdt wrote:On January 12 2011 01:48 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 12 2011 01:31 tdt wrote:
I think it's hate speech. What does one gain from insulting something revered by someone else? Nothing. Just ego problem you're trying to fill and hateful. There are laws against hate in many countries like in Germany you cant have nazi symbols and stuff and this has worked to create more harmony. Likewise laws against defiling others cultures and religion would go a long way. Even in USA freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't say hateful or sexist things at work to people and stuff. I think what most people miss is the intention behind the comics. They are not meant to insult people but to criticize extreme excrescence of a supposedly peaceful religion. In the eyes of the caricaturists, it was worth criticzizing when religious authorities call for the murder of others when their holy book clearly states that murder is a sin and that allah forbids it. You are also correct that there are laws limiting freedom of speech but in the case of the comics these laws were clearly not violated. The problem is that to extremists these laws are not relevant and they do ot feel bound by them. So the question is whether you want to bow down to these people or not. Also, my guess is that the majority of the muslims pretty much did not care about the comics. How is it bowing down to agree with laws which promote peace between men? Then there is the whole democratic argument to be made. When large numbers of people whole believe X are in your mist, don't they get a vote? Or are your systems mores and tenants so superior they don't get a vote? A very undemocratic system. You're trying to make your cowardice look like enlightened moderation. These people are just looking for pretexts to get pissed off, and the more freedom you will give up the more they will try to take, but even more importantly, other communities will also copy their approach. You should break off from the idealistic approach of "everyone should get along" and enter the world of the real where people of the same ethnicity/religion/philosophy leave around each other and don't necessarily like very much other people, this is true for everyone but particulary the muslims.
Typical racist French guy. Your government is corrupt. Fix it before you rag on other groups of people....
|
On January 12 2011 03:05 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 01:31 tdt wrote:
I think it's hate speech. What does one gain from insulting something revered by someone else? Nothing. Just ego problem you're trying to fill and hateful. There are laws against hate in many countries like in Germany you cant have nazi symbols and stuff and this has worked to create more harmony. Likewise laws against defiling others cultures and religion would go a long way. Even in USA freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't say hateful or sexist things at work to people and stuff. I wrote a long response, but it's simply not worth it to respond to this. You clearly don't understand the meaning of free speech. As for drawing muslim, I would consider it inappropriate, however, I would defend someone's right to do so. A lot of people are also drawing comparisons to christianity, but there is a fundamental difference. Mohamed was a conquerer. To solve the problems of society he forced his idealogy on a lot of different people and the #1 thing was justice for God. In fact, the entire koran revolves around this idea of being God's hands for justice in the world. Jesus was a carpenter. To solve the problems of society he did nothing. His purpose was not to bring God justice since God can take care of Himself, his goal was to show mercy. The woman who was caught in adultry was brought to christ and they asked him to show justice upon her, but instead he takes compassion and writes something in the sand (who knows what) which causes those who seek justice to walk away. Instead of justice, Jesus offered mercy, and then redemption by telling the woman to "go and sin no more". When someone makes art out of someone peeing on a statue of christ, christians might get upset, but they don't go blow up embassies. The entire islamic moral philosophy cannot last in an age of information. The only way it will last is if the country has a revolution against modernization such as Iran, but that too cannot last as there either and probably won't last another 30-40 years. There are plenty of muslims here in the US who can practice their religion without violence, but they are considered liberal by the majority of islam, but so were protestants when they broke off from the catholic church. Out of respect, I will not draw a picture of mohamed nor support someone who does such an action, however, out of my desire for liberty above all else, I will not encroach upon someone who does.
I think I have a decent understanding living in the country with wide latitude on freedom of speech and even here we ban lots of hurtful things.
Fraud for one. There are all types of fraud e.g. fraud of omission. We ban that speech because it's financially harmful.
Slander/libel.
Sexual harassment. Like telling your secretary she must screw you to keep her job. This is also against the law as well because it's harmful to the girl financially and emotionality.
Religious Harassment is illegal. I remember a case where judge made employer take Bible verse off the checks he was issuing.
Bottom line is plenty of hurtful things are barred. I see no problem extending this to religious people who are hurt, marginalized and dehumanized by these insensitive drawings.
|
On January 12 2011 03:37 tdt wrote:
Bottom line is plenty of hurtful things are barred. I see no problem extending this to religious people who are hurt, marginalized and dehumanized by these insensitive drawings.
I am hurt, marginalized, and dehumanized by the very existence of Islam. Should we ban Islam entirely?
|
Plus Nergal from Behemoth is banned from Poland for burning the Bible. I fail to see why no one has called this act by the Polish government extremist. Of course, blowing up shit is wrong, but Muslims have every right to be upset about this.
|
On January 12 2011 03:42 Antiproduct wrote:
Of course, blowing up shit is wrong, but Muslims have every right to be upset about this.
Of course they have the right to be pissed about it. Doesn't change that it should still be allowed though, you do not have a right to never have to get offended by anything, because that would be retarded.
On January 12 2011 03:42 Antiproduct wrote:
Plus Nergal from Behemoth is banned from Poland for burning the Bible. I fail to see why no one has called this act by the Polish government extremist
This is naturally very wrong, but it's not really odd that people aren't talking about it as much, since he wasn't killed, and his burning of the Bible did not cause massive riots (as far as I'm aware of).
|
On January 12 2011 03:52 Cpadolf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:42 Antiproduct wrote:
Of course, blowing up shit is wrong, but Muslims have every right to be upset about this. Of course they have the right to be pissed about it. Doesn't change that it should still be allowed though, you do not have a right to never have to get offended by anything, because that would be retarded. Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:42 Antiproduct wrote:
Plus Nergal from Behemoth is banned from Poland for burning the Bible. I fail to see why no one has called this act by the Polish government extremist This is naturally very wrong, but it's not really odd that people aren't talking about it as much, since he wasn't killed, and his burning of the Bible did not cause massive riots (as far as I'm aware of).
Fair enough. Good point made there.
|
Canada13388 Posts
It shouldn't be blocked since people should be free to say what hey want but at the same time we should respect religions and their beliefs. Though of course if the religion's belief is to kill everyone thats something that can and shouldbe controlled. Basically as long as the religion's beliefs and practices are objectively benign then why shouldn't we respect the religion and its practitioners beliefs and wishes. To be honest the religion says that muhammed cannot be depicted in art and in what way does not depicting muhammed affect or harm anyone?
I think we should respect this practice and not depict Muhammed as a personal practice on even an individual level since its respectful to the Islamic community and the religion as well. The problem isn't in being afraid its in simply showing respect for a practice that doesn't actually impact anyone in any way. Does the drawing Muhammed cause harm? No it doesn't but not drawing also doesn't cause any harm but it has the benefit of respecting a cultural and religious practice. There are ways to draw and animate a political cartoon without using Muhammed and still get a point across so why not be sensitive and respectful of the beliefs and practices of others?
I hope my seemingly reasonable position isn't completely lost in this forum since I think its a good way to explain my position that people shouldn't draw Muhammed and it has nothing really to do with freedom of speech at the core of it and a law would only put in writing this simple value and respect driven core.
|
In my country, insulting Islam will result in government ninja's coming to your house and you will be prepared to live in jail for the rest of your life, you just have to learn how to tolerate Muslim people and let them do what they want unless they cause physical harm to you, if you want to make fun of their religion keep it to yourself.
|
On January 12 2011 03:39 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:37 tdt wrote:
Bottom line is plenty of hurtful things are barred. I see no problem extending this to religious people who are hurt, marginalized and dehumanized by these insensitive drawings. I am hurt, marginalized, and dehumanized by the very existence of Islam. Should we ban Islam entirely?
How? Because they want you to stop generalizing about them or don't want you to draw their prophet as a dog or with a bomb on his head? Ridiculous. Harm not found.
|
On January 12 2011 04:06 BarneyEX wrote:
In my country, insulting Islam will result in government ninja's coming to your house and you will be prepared to live in jail for the rest of your life, you just have to learn how to tolerate Muslim people and let them do what they want unless they cause physical harm to you, if you want to make fun of their religion keep it to yourself.
I'm sorry that you have to live in a place like that, this is not how the new world works, nor will it ever be without a fight.
|
On January 12 2011 04:23 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:39 Krigwin wrote:On January 12 2011 03:37 tdt wrote:
Bottom line is plenty of hurtful things are barred. I see no problem extending this to religious people who are hurt, marginalized and dehumanized by these insensitive drawings. I am hurt, marginalized, and dehumanized by the very existence of Islam. Should we ban Islam entirely? How? Because they want you to stop generalizing about them or don't want you to draw their prophet as a dog or with a bomb on his head? Ridiculous. Harm not found.
You're the guy who was all for censoring hurtful things. Do you have any idea how offensive and hurtful the Koran (or the Bible for that matter) is to a lot of people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
