New Prohibitions on Muhammad Cartoons? - Page 6

On December 13 2010 21:50 Sanjuro wrote:


yes thats what i meant, why put yourself in that position, you are not helping by saying you need to deal with it, couse when extrimist deal with it they morph into banelings.

They should not ban it, but people should understand it's extremely offensive. These are people who are batshit insane, so why troll them? Just let them live peacefully in afghanistan ffs.

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

On December 13 2010 22:18 dinmsab wrote:


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.

On December 13 2010 22:12 ThE_ShiZ wrote:


I'll tell you this, they do NOT live peacefully in Afghanistan and they never did. they are clusterf**k of scattered desert tribes, not so much a nation.

And even if that were the case, they're coming into foreign territory to make rules and impose law. If they were so concerned about living peacefully in Afghanistan they wouldn't be flying into Western countries every time someone draws a friggin' picture.

On December 13 2010 22:08 Nyovne wrote:

No you probably do not. You probably enjoy the respect others have for your life and goods. In exchange for that you gave up your freedom to steal, pillage, murder and rape etc and attributed that part of your personal "sovereignty" to the state to enforce.

As such you give up personal liberties and freedom for a piece of security for yourself and your posessions if such things exist.

Do not be too hasty with agreeing to things before having them thought all the way through and came to the conclusion that you are already doing something and most likely enjoying it . Read some of John Locke or some other philosofer on this topic if you find it interesting.

On December 13 2010 22:18 dinmsab wrote:


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.

On December 13 2010 22:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:


Awwwww, your feelings we're hurt? Ok, lets throw all our liberal values away and arrest the guy that hurt your feelings. Lets let the government go outside the constitutional bounds of its authority because you got a little butt-hurt about someone making fun of you. Lets completely undermine our belief structure because you can't handle a god damn cartoon that condemns yours. DEAL WITH IT. EVERYONE GETS MADE FUN OF, THATS LIFE.

On December 13 2010 22:18 dinmsab wrote:


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 think the guy above me made a pretty much valid point on how you could post pictures of dead people on newspapers but you simply just don't because it's deemed offensive. Is it illegal? nope, but you just don't do such thing so people won't be upset. That's sensitivity there, pretty far from breaching our beloved freedom of speech. I didn't say a ban must be made on such things, i'm just saying people just need to be more sensitive on the issue.

On December 13 2010 22:30 dinmsab wrote:


I think the guy above me made a pretty much valid point on how you could post pictures of dead people on newspapers but you simply just don't because it's deemed offensive. Is it illegal? nope, but you just don't do such thing so people won't be upset. That's sensitivity there, pretty far from breaching our beloved freedom of speech. I didn't say a ban must be made on such things, i'm just saying people just need to be more sensitive on the issue.

On December 13 2010 22:35 ThE_ShiZ wrote:


I can post a picture of dead people and I won't be threatened with murder. That's the big difference. Whether one should be respectful or not is one thing, but if I did choose to make an offensive remark I should know that I'm protected from physical harm.

On December 13 2010 22:32 MiraMax wrote:


But there is a good reason! Okay, it's certainly not: Because we can do whatever we want! (yes, I am looking at you Marradron). The ability to criticize figures of authority is a corner stone of freedom of speech and therefore essential for the functioning of modern societies. This also includes forms of parody, satire and caricature.
I understand that religious beliefs are very important to a lot of people, but we need to set priorities whenever they are in conflict with other accepted (and long fought for) ideals. If a moderate muslim can understand that a women who betrays her husband should not be stoned to death, then I see no reason why the same person cannot understand that a caricature of a religious figure is an acceptable form of social/political comment. Could you give a specific argument why it should not be acceptable?

On December 13 2010 22:22 sekritzzz wrote:
So say I post an offensive picture of dead 9/11 victims, would that be freedom of speech? I mean, it is my right to post pictures of dead people, no? I would of done it in reply to the Muhammad (peace be upon him) picture posted previously but I actually do have respect for the dead. Most people don't even know how high in regard Muslims have Muhammad, Jesus, Moses or any of the other prophets (peace be upon them all). Most muslims would give up their life in place of one of them but the level of selflessness is far beyond a lot of peoples scopes.

The problem isn't even freedom of speech since most people are hypocrites when it comes to freedom of speech. When it was the Mosque close to 9/11 people called it insensitive, when its Muhammad pics its freedom of speech, when its the holocaust its insensitive, when its wikileaks its freedom of speech. All the same crap, different opinions. Whenever the opinion swings in your favour you pull the freedom of speech card. When its offensive to you or people you know its insensitive. Well one day it'll all be solved and I look forward to it.

You are threatened by murder by a bunch of crazy ass terrorists who call themselves Muslims. There is a difference there. As far as the civilized world goes, no sane Muslim would want a cartoonist dead for such reasons.