"Minutes before the detonations, Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyra received an email also addressed to police that promised retribution for Sweden sending a 500-strong military contingent to Afghanistan, and for the country's failure to condemn cartoons of the prophet Muhammad drawn by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks."
In this case, a primary reasons that the suicide bomber blew himself up was because of a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks (Vilks has been assaulted by individuals who claimed to be defending the honor of Muhammad and Islam and has also been threatened with death several times. He also has a price on his head. His blog: Vilks BLOG). The other reason was because of swedish troops, via NATO, in Afghanistan. Can it be doubted that depicting Muhammad in a cartoon would be enough to justify other suicide bombers? And if so, should Sweden clamp down on any more depictions of Muhammad in the interest of public safety?
The general attitude on TL seems to be: "Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are justified limitations. At the same time, prohibitions on freedom of speech can go too far."
So where do Muhammad depictions fall? Over the line or acceptable? Have attitudes toward this issue (which was discussed in detail in Muhammad cartoons thread) changed as a result of the recent bombing?
Where are you going to draw the line if you're willing to give up your Freedom of Speech for the sake of safety? Muslims, like every minority group, will just demand more and more special rights. Are the Swedish going to acquiesce to every demand from the Muslim community so extremists won't feel so angry towards westerners and commit acts of terrorism? At some point, westerners will be sick of giving minority groups special rights and then some crazy extremist will commit terrorism again. Then westerners will be angry and invade Iran for revenge and then some extremist will commit terrorism again. The problem is that these extremists exist in the first place. If the Muslim community want to gain acceptance from the international community, they'll have to pacify these extremists and teach them not to hate westerners. Or else United States will eventually invade all of the Middle East just to take care of the terrorism problem.
The principle of many countries is to never negotiate with terrorists. The reason for that policy is to discourage terrorist groups to attempt acts in the first place. For the same reason, no country should enact any policy in response to terrorist attacks. Doing so would encourage future terrorist acts.
No change at all. Freedom of experession and freedom of speech MUST be maintained at all cost. They are the single most important value of enlightened societies.
Islamic extremists are really getting on my nerves. They need to understand that their Religion is not special. Their culture is not special, and Allah is not special. Western nations do not care about Sharia Law. Western Nations believe in gender equality, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of speech etc.
If its a problem for extremists then they shouldn't go to a Western nation in the first place.
Why can people not stand up to their right to express freedom of speech. Of course the images drawn by Mr. Vilks is degrading to Islamic people and he should be rightfully punished but he is not at all deserving of the death threats and whatnot he is getting.
One of the drawings by Lars Vilks.
If any government puts the opinions and expressions of any radicals over the freedom of speech of their own people, it is clear that government is not fit to take care of its people. Any country faced with threats of this nature should stand up against it and not cower before the demands radicals like the extremists
On December 13 2010 18:36 Lightswarm wrote: Why can people not stand up to their right to express freedom of speech. Of course the images drawn by Mr. Vilks is degrading to Islamic people and he should be rightfully punished but he is not at all deserving of the death threats and whatnot he is getting.
One of the drawings by Lars Vilks.
If any government puts the opinions and expressions of any radicals over the freedom of speech of their own people, it is clear that government is not fit to take care of its people. Any country faced with threats of this nature should stand up against it and not cower before the demands radicals like the extremists
How should he punished? So what if it's insulting to Islam.
Freedom of speech should never, ever be restricted just because someone is butthurt, let alone non-indigenous migrants who refuse to adapt to their host CULTURE. I don't bloody care anymore. When you step to the lows some of these people have stepped to, they have lost all moral high ground they might have had in the first place.
Why would you even imagine restricting free speech due to "safety" concerns? That's the dumbest thing possible, that's WHY terrorists blow shit up to begin with, giving incentives to terrorists is NOT smart, specially when they're butthurt about a few drawing. Boo hoo, cry me a river.
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.
aye.. this kind of maniacs should not be encouraged to find new things to view as blasphemy.. i say draw more of them.. treat muhammed with the same respect that jesus gets eh? that poor fellow have been pretty much everything except publicly raped with a piece of heavy mining equipment.. and no christian fundamentalist wacko have blown up anything yet.. as far as the world know.. or we could sink to their level.. every time they hint towards any other religion as bad/wrong.. we could send a tactical nuke down a cave.. we would find them in the end right?
On December 13 2010 18:26 T.O.P. wrote: Where are you going to draw the line if you're willing to give up your Freedom of Speech for the illusion of safety?
I'll refrain from correcting your thorough historical and geopolitical misconceptions, but I fixed this for you.
Somehow I don't believe the story though, YEARS after the commotion died down, more than half a year after DMD... a guy fails at planting bombs somewhere in Sweden trying to accomplish what exactly? I don't think so. Now I've witnessed stupidity before, but this is just a little too nonsensical.
On December 13 2010 18:52 dybydx wrote: um... guys, i dont think we should be posting those images here. you know, for the same reason that NSFW images are banned.
i cant see how viewing that picture could be dangerous for work...
if a picture came up with Hitler hanging on a cross with his family jewels hooked up to a car battery.. everyone would laugh and not care... well.. depending on how detailed the picture is ofc
The thing is that all these Terrorists use the Freedom of Speech the same way we do it so why should WE because they threaten us give up on this right?
I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
Seems to be a double-edged issue. On one hand, restricting depictions of Muhammad arguably protects people. On the other, it sets a dangerous precedent of appeasement for terrorists. What happens when they demand Sharia law?
You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world? By saying "Many countries have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" do you mean that all the Islam religion and Muslims are terrorists just because of the doing of some retarded suicide bomber who thought he is something but really he isn't and he deserved to die? if you are then you've got serious problems, every single country and religion has some fucked up people! you cant judge everyone by the doing of one person. I'm not going to argue about this here because I'm easily out numbered... but seriously! grow the fuck up!.
On December 13 2010 18:52 dybydx wrote: um... guys, i dont think we should be posting those images here. you know, for the same reason that NSFW images are banned.
That makes no sense. NSFW images can be pornographic, and would get you in trouble at work. That image won't get you in trouble for anything.
Just wait, once you start self censoring images of muhammad, they will then ask (just kidding, they will kill more people and threaten others) for more. Don't bitch when you lose all freedom.
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world? By saying "Many countries have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" do you mean that all the Islam religion and Muslims are terrorists just because of the doing of some retarded suicide bomber who thought he is something but really he isn't and he deserved to die? if you are then you've got serious problems, every single country and religion has some fucked up people! you cant judge everyone by the doing of one person. I'm not going to argue about this here because I'm easily out numbered... but seriously! grow the fuck up!.
You are incredibly ignorant if you believe there are no insulting pictures of any other religion other than islam, or that most people give death threats to the people who make them.
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world?
Do you mean something like if an artist took a small crucifix and submerged it in human urine? What happened? Well, a few people got upset. But nothing too serious. Can you imagine what would happen if something similar was done with an image of Muhammad?
@ PaPoolee Pls look out what you say. To be honest, I think that every religion is completly non sense. So I you wanna offend jesus (what the muslims do a lot, they censor him and hide informations about him but np) I really do not care. And I think the most other people would agree if I say, that also the most christians would not give a shit about it. Ofc there are some idiots in every country and religion that would feel offended, but that is not a big deal. Religions are pretty personal things and you should learn to accept the oppinion of others. But this is a rare thing for people of your kind huh?
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world? By saying "Many countries have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" do you mean that all the Islam religion and Muslims are terrorists just because of the doing of some retarded suicide bomber who thought he is something but really he isn't and he deserved to die? if you are then you've got serious problems, every single country and religion has some fucked up people! you cant judge everyone by the doing of one person. I'm not going to argue about this here because I'm easily out numbered... but seriously! grow the fuck up!.
now lets see.. go watch the quite popular movies.. life of brian.. and meaning of life.. certainly no mocking of any religions there right?
christianity has been ravaged so hard by jokes and mockery that its starting to get hard to even define a line between fun and normal
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
Ofc not, freedom of speech all the way BUT, Vilks is an attention seeking bitch that needs to get slapped around . Just 'cause you CAN say something, doesnt mean you SHOULD say it.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
you didnt read it yourself so better dont start this discussion.
And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists.
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world?
Do you mean something like if an artist took a small crucifix and submerged it in human urine? What happened? Well, a few people got upset. But nothing too serious. Can you imagine what would happen if something similar was done with an image of Muhammad?
People who do such things like assault someone who drew a picture are just RETARDED and you should understand that i do NOT support them at all... but legal action has to be taken against people with such ignorance to insult other peoples religions! here's a quote from the Qur'an: Verse 6 of Surat Al-Kafirun (The non-believers) "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." I hope you understood it, and i hope you understood that people who use force or illegal ways to deal with such things are STUPID and RETARDED and fucked up in their brain, people should be taken legal actions not illegal actions!.
On December 13 2010 19:05 BeWat3r wrote: @ PaPoolee Pls look out what you say. To be honest, I think that every religion is completly non sense. So I you wanna offend jesus (what the muslims do a lot, they censor him and hide informations about him but np) I really do not care. And I think the most other people would agree if I say, that also the most christians would not give a shit about it. Ofc there are some idiots in every country and religion that would feel offended, but that is not a big deal. Religions are pretty personal things and you should learn to accept the oppinion of others. But this is a rare thing for people of your kind huh?
Why would i ever want to offend Jesus? what has Jesus ever done to me? are you stupid?. Muslims censor Jesus as a sign of respect because they do not wish to draw false photographs of him etc, not to hide information about him dumb ass! if most Christians don't care about their religion then its their problem! but Muslims do care and anyone who cares about their religion would feel offended if someone insults it! people who feel offended are not stupid, you are what do you mean "people of your kind"? We are all humans! maybe if you stopped being an ignorant racist jerk and done some research you would understand! but like I said I'm easily out numbered here so yeah...
The way people use Freedom of speech is funny. Would it be ok for me to make fun of the holocaust? I'm not harming anybody. Sure its insensitive, stupid and only there to piss off people but isn't that what this guy is doing?
Its freedom of speech when you like it to be, its insensitive and cruel when you like it to be.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
you didnt read it yourself so better dont start this discussion.
And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists.
Thank you, I have read the Qur'an and people like the suicide bombers just try to hide themselves under the sheet of Muslims and Islam but like you said, they have nothing in common with the Qur'an and the Islam religion! because any religion that provokes people to suicide is silly, and you should know that the Qur'an mentions that suicide is a one way ticket to hell .
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
On December 13 2010 19:25 sekritzzz wrote: The way people use Freedom of speech is funny. Would it be ok for me to make fun of the holocaust? I'm not harming anybody. Sure its insensitive, stupid and only there to piss off people but isn't that what this guy is doing?
Its freedom of speech when you like it to be, its insensitive and cruel when you like it to be.
Freedom of speech is a legal concept. Whether or not it is morally okay, insensitive or what not has no effect on whether the speech falls under the protection of the right to free speech. Or at least it should be (depends on where you live).
Whether something falls under or should fall under free speech and whether that speech is 'okay' is two different questions.
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.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
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.
Religion is no excuse to terrorise people, I honestly think the world would be better off without christianity and islam. And Papoole, Sweden has a right to criticise, satire and free speech, just because it is your religion doesn't mean that it is free from criticism. If a religion said the moon is the protoss god or something equally stupid they must expect criticism. Religion has for so long gone without criticism, because of "IT IS MY FAITH !, HOW DARE YOU!".
Stupid drawings of jesus, lol. Chill out dudes.
Edit: Religion is stupid, but people are brought up to believe it and never question it. If islam and christianity were gone we would have an easier time just finding the racists.
Its really easy to say "of course we should stand up for ourselves, don't give in to fear" but it gets alot harder when you yourself am in the crossfire. But of course we should stand up for ourselves.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
shot in the dark! old testament? as in older than the new testament.. even though the new testament is pretty damn old? dont go jumping out of your shoes for nothing here bucko
Im sorry that i cant express everything I want in english as it is not my main language. By old parts I mean the old testament. And yeah the bible got censored and the same happend with the Quran. You shouldnt speak out so load if you have no idead :-) And you also seem to be pretty slow because if I am talking about the old party Im talking about old in the sense of time. There are parts that were written earlier or later, so the old parts must be the ones that got written earlier. And with kill all the infidels im talking about that there is nothing written down in the Quran that says that muslims are supposed to kill infidels
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
On December 13 2010 19:39 Osmoses wrote: Its really easy to say "of course we should stand up for ourselves, don't give in to fear" but it gets alot harder when you yourself am in the crossfire. But of course we should stand up for ourselves.
Sweden is not and has not been in the crosshairs compared to other countries.
I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
I don't defend any religion, I mock them all equally. Your beliefs are your beliefs, if i want to draw a picture of Muhammed or say that Jesus was obviously gay (not mocking him for being gay, mocking christians for their views on gay people when their leader was prolly one of the "abominations") and I think Jews are stupid for forcing babies to have part of their manhood removed, then I will. Your religion does not have any hold over me.
Simple fact is that if Christianity and Islam didn't exist, we would have just found other reasons to kill each other because unfortunately some people like guns and bombs, some of those people don't like people whom look different, and some of those people end up running the countries we live in. So long as that is true, there will be war and terrorists.
People there days often forget that terrorists exist who have no ties to religion at all, but instead political ideals. Most of the non religious terrorists are a little more civilized yes, the IRA for instance would always phone the police and warn them about the bombs, giving people a chance to not get hurt. It didn't make what they did any less wrong.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
I don't know what a "slipper" is but whatever it is doesn't change the point: Who gets to decide what a "real belief" is -- i.e., since I know that belief in Allah is irrational, does that mean that I can criticize you since your belief isn't a "real" one?
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid .
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
sure, but when you are some poor dude from afghanistan and can maybe barely read the arabic alphabet and then your imam tells you how Islam works would you really question that? I doubt it. Though I think that extremist groups like Taliban etc just use religion as a front but in the end they are all jsut interested in power and money. And we all know what lovely plant is growing really good in Afghanistan, so it's not surprising that the Taliban defend it with all they have.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
What you think is insulting is arbitrary and non-quantifiable. If people have the freedom of speech, then that includes all speech, no matter who it insults. Hell, I could argue that the only speech of any REAL import is the speech that's almost GUARANTEED to insult someone.
It offended the fuck out of the Catholic Church when Galileo told them they were wrong. But he needed to say it. It offended the Emperor when he was told he wasn't wearing any clothes, but SOMEONE had to say it.
You get the idea.
Clearly you can't shout "FIRE" in a movie theater, or "BOMB" in an airport, but that's not really about offending people anymore, that's about directly influencing someone's day and is really another topic all together.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
Ok THAT is just pretty wrong. Ok let me paint a picture for you: There are people that do believe that is ok to rape wimen and children because their god or what ever told them so. And we shouldnt mock them because they really believe crap like that? Are you kidding me? With your "argument" you are supporting every single radical and aggressive form of religion in this freaking world.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
Go fuck yourself, i believe in the great Chocolate Bunny and there's no way you're saying me that belief is stupid.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
What defines real beliefs?
People mock Scientology because they believe aliens came and started the human race, or something to that effect. Obviously to most of us, even those like me who are sure there must be aliens out there somewhere, this is ridiculous. People openly mock Scientology and no one cares.
The difference between the above and christianity is that Christ "lived" 2000 years ago. Just because a belief has been around for 2000 years doesn't make it any less stupid and it doesn't mean we can't question it or insult it. Christianity has been responsible for millions of deaths over the last 2000 years during crusades, inqisitions, witch hunts and a plethora of other atrocities and is no better than islam in this regard. The only difference is that the extremeists aren't quite so blood thirsty.
Galileo was persecuted for questioning the theory that bodies of different weights fell at different rates, the theory he was contradicting was Aristotle's and the theory was 2000 years old. At the time that took some balls, but it is also why people can now question long held beliefs and theories without fear of persecution.
I suppose what im saying is, you can believe in god. I can believe you are a moron and I have the right to express that belief
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
Ok THAT is just pretty wrong. Ok let me paint a picture for you: There are people that do believe that is ok to rape wimen and children because their god or what ever told them so. And we shouldnt mock them because they really believe crap like that? Are you kidding me? With your "argument" you are supporting every single radical and aggressive form of religion in this freaking world.
you are wrong. You mix up actual stuff that would get you into prison and stuff that's purely believe and does not hurt anyone.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
Have you ever asked your question why you believe? If you were born in say, the southern states of America then you would probably say the exact same thing and be a christian instead of a muslim. Muslims definitely get a bad rep because of 9/11, and the general conservativeness of muslim countries as opposed to european ones. One of my friends is a muslim and he's a great guy and I don't wish him anything ill.
But why are you a muslim? Because the Qur'an? How do you know it to be true, and why is it more true than the Bible? Really, the Bible and the Qur'an are ancient texts and are true because, wait for it... They say they are.
Today our understanding of the world is so much better than just a 1000 years ago, there are so many things we don't know but that doesn't mean that gods don't exist, it just makes believing in them that much more foolish. You might say, well how was the universe created? Well the answer is that we don't know, and neither do you. There is a fundamental difference in how religion and science works, science admits it's faults and relies upon empirical evidence and testing. Religion on the other hand, is right because it has been the authority for thousands of years because people just didn't know any better.
Most people adhere to one religion, what makes your religion more right than others?
At the heart lies a logical problem. We know in general terms how life came to be through billions of years but not how the universe was created. When you say God did it, you're just making it a bigger problem. The complexity of an omniscient and omnipotent God is highly improbable and requires some immense proof. Of course people will say it is faith, but it is a bad excuse when thousands of people have suffered because of the Christian Crusades, clinic bombings, beheadings and so on.
hmmm.. christians belive in an invisible man in the sky that has a special list of 10 things he never wants you to do.. and if you do any of these things you will be sent to hell to burn in everlasting torment... but he loves you
-loosly taken from george carlin-
and i deem it fairly likely that most people in this forum love eating the holy animal of india
religion of all sorts have so much bullshit and double standards in them that its easy to see that its man made not god sent... and there are plenty of people that believe.. and can handle that others mock it.. they can even laugh of it themselves... whatever oppinion you might have.. someone.. somewhere.. will mock it, so deal with it
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
Go fuck yourself, i believe in the great Chocolate Bunny and there's no way you're saying me that belief is stupid.
Haha, but seriously.
People are free to believe in whatever they want, but when your belief involves beating your wife and declaring "holy war" on people cause they don't share your opinions then it's not a acceptable way of life. C'mon, theres nothing right in killing people for drawing a dog with a "prophets" head on it. Muslims(radical ones) needs to grow a pair and not get pissed at such small things.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
What defines real beliefs?
People mock Scientology because they believe aliens came and started the human race, or something to that effect. Obviously to most of us, even those like me who are sure there must be aliens out there somewhere, this is ridiculous. People openly mock Scientology and no one cares.
Actually people mock Scientology because they engage in murder, thievery, and psychological torture, all so they can make a pretty penny, but whatever.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
Ok THAT is just pretty wrong. Ok let me paint a picture for you: There are people that do believe that is ok to rape wimen and children because their god or what ever told them so. And we shouldnt mock them because they really believe crap like that? Are you kidding me? With your "argument" you are supporting every single radical and aggressive form of religion in this freaking world.
you are wrong. You mix up actual stuff that would get you into prison and stuff that's purely believe and does not hurt anyone.
Ok so the muslims do believe ( the believe it is not written down) that wimen are less worth then man and that they own them. Same for some christians. They believe, that if a women has sex before marriage she gets some kind of polluted and should go to hell. In some countrys wimen get killed for that. They threaten their children with storys of hell and doom and that their penis will rott if the mastrubate. I mixed up some things of our god loving friends with some of our Allah loving friends. I know that but I think it shows, how freaking stupid your argument is. And the religion im talking about, does exist in a nice little land called amerika. They call themselves the "Children of the sun"
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
Have you ever asked your question why you believe? If you were born in say, the southern states of America then you would probably say the exact same thing and be a christian instead of a muslim. Muslims definitely get a bad rep because of 9/11, and the general conservativeness of muslim countries as opposed to european ones. One of my friends is a muslim and he's a great guy and I don't wish him anything ill.
But why are you a muslim? Because the Qur'an? How do you know it to be true, and why is it more true than the Bible? Really, the Bible and the Qur'an are ancient texts and are true because, wait for it... They say they are.
Today our understanding of the world is so much better than just a 1000 years ago, there are so many things we don't know but that doesn't mean that gods don't exist, it just makes believing in them that much more foolish. You might say, well how was the universe created? Well the answer is that we don't know, and neither do you. There is a fundamental difference in how religion and science works, science admits it's faults and relies upon empirical evidence and testing. Religion on the other hand, is right because it has been the authority for thousands of years because people just didn't know any better.
Most people adhere to one religion, what makes your religion more right than others?
At the heart lies a logical problem. We know in general terms how life came to be through billions of years but not how the universe was created. When you say God did it, you're just making it a bigger problem. The complexity of an omniscient and omnipotent God is highly improbable and requires some immense proof. Of course people will say it is faith, but it is a bad excuse when thousands of people have suffered because of the Christian Crusades, clinic bombings, beheadings and so on.
The concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent God is not EMPIRICALLY in keeping with the universe (what with the whole concept of God transcending empirical data and all...) but it is not illogical in anyway.
Apply determinism to God and make him a mechanist God, stop presupposing that freewill isn't the greatest potential good, and omnipotent is the only one you're really left with a question mark still hanging over it's head.
And really, REALLY, do you want to start bandying about probability when the spontaneous generation of the universe is the current scientific "explanation"?
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.
why must people respect your views (free of speech) when you cant respect other peoples view (dont draw that), yes you are protected legally but why bother youself with the repurcussions is my point,
and do you think they give a damn about your legal mambo jambo(your faith in the law) when you cant respect their legal mambo jambo (the law of their faith).
Question is: should religion be above cristicism (because caricature is a form of criticism)? I think it MUST not because, especially because most religions do not evolve alongside society. Hence, a lot of rules that were important or useful are completely void of purpose today. Ergo, if we are not allowed to question religion or religious acts how can we expect religion to adapt to societal changes and, more importantly, to provide answers for the questions that hundreds of years ago, no one even imagined to ask.
This reminds me of that picture of the Atheist Apocalypse...
Mocking religon, mocking your political leaders, mocking an idea. All part of free speech and essential.
Over the years, religon has lost its power in alot of the western world, did they like it being mocked in the beginning? Surely not, but it goes a long way to say how free of religious oppression you are when you can mock religon, making way for a more secular civilization.
Now here comes something from the old testament, you mock my god, I blow you up. Would it be a christian fanatic, we would feel horrible for victims but also abit: mentaly ill persons can do anything... it would not change laws or even come close to tampering with freedom of speech. Now extremist islam, just like any little countryside christian cult which worships jesus taking any heretic that strolls by their village and tying him up to be a sheep to butcher at the holy altar of jerusalem( in exile (tm)) can they not convert him first ofc. Sidetracked... They are not the majority of islam/muslims that consider this. They are a tiny minority trying to impose their dark age beliefs(yeah, extremist islam they are kinda having abit of a islamic dark age going atm since they missed ours, poor gallileo). And they should be mocked, if we alter our behaviour, if we say: Islam can't be touched because its a religon(religon does not mean you get instant respect for nothing, respecting religon because its religon is like respecting your drunk village idiot just because he is closer to the ancient spirits). Well, many people fought long and hard and at a whole we are far better off without the repressing fetters of religon to worry about to much, going back to wearing thoose chains because a small minority so can scare us is wrong, be it an extremist member of the witnesses, KKK or islam they should not be allowed to win by influencing laws and society to be silent rather then offend. There should be more religious caricatures painted, more jokes made and by god(^_^) atleast make them witty, else they are the same level of humour as 'How many *censored word because i dont want to offend nobody* can you fit in a volkswagen?' Being able to laugh at your belief is a sign of mental health as far as I'am concerned.
MOD EDIT: Please properly format your posts, thanks.
A being that is omniscient and omnipotent, how do you explain that? I am at least being honest and saying that I don't know where the universe comes from.
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.
why must people respect your views (free of speech) when you cant respect other peoples view (dont draw that), yes you are protected legally but why bother youself with the repurcussions is my point,
and do you think they give a damn about your legal mambo jambo(your faith in the law) when you cant respect their legal mambo jambo (the law of their faith).
if you want freedom of speech support wikileaks
Freedom of speech doesn't mean people are obligated to respect your views, it means you're free to express them without prosecution from the government. If they insult someone that person needs to deal with it. They could kill the person, but thats still considered murder, and they need to deal with the consequences, because being insulted doesn't give you the right to deprive someone of their right to life. You thinking that it does makes you a terrorist. Please, screw up like that other guy and only blow yourself up.
Wow the amount of ignorance in this thread is ridiculous. So much hate towards a religion that 1.6 billion people follow, the majority of which are not even Arab. Any argument suggesting that Muslims are a violent people or that Islam allows that kind of behaviour is just illogical.
Regarding free speech, in my opinion even free speech should have it limits. As soon as your "free speech" trespassing on someone else freedom it should not go unpunished. They should not put prohibitions on the cartoons because they are scared but rather because it is the right thing to do. It starts out as cartoons but eventually it will escalate to hate and division.
To all the people who don't understand why muslims would be upset over the pictures put yourself in their shoes. Lets simplify this, would you not be upset if I insulted your mom? Like really in your face insulted your mom. You would because that's the proper response. Now for most people they would just shrug it off and ignore me, but for a small number of people i'm sure they would want to hurt me. Same thing with Muslims it's completely understandable. Now just think about it with someone's religion it's a whole different level. People live to follow their religion so obviously they would take it offensively.
As for the comment about the Quran having older parts. First you say you read it then you say something completely ignorant. The Quran is not like the bible, their is no old testament and new testament. It was all brought down over the span of the prophets life.
On December 13 2010 20:17 Hadron. wrote: A being that is omniscient and omnipotent, how do you explain that? I am at least being honest and saying that I don't know where the universe comes from.
"The complexity of an omniscient and omnipotent God is highly improbable and requires some immense proof."
I'm not claiming to try and explain anything. I'm just saying that it's not nearly as complex and difficult to fit God into the universe as you'd imagine; if you're willing to take the time to look into why it's feasible. And really, it doesn't require any more proof than anything else.
And then of course you can always toss the Problem of Induction onto the heap and then we're all fucked. xD
...to this day, I'm still not sure where I stand on David Hume.
I guess really, I just dislike the intellectually dismissive tone that a lot of atheists give to Theists and people of religion in general. There are just as many intelligent people who believe in God as there are who disbelieve, and not all of us are antagonistic cunts who shout from our pulpits at the tops of our lungs that you're going to hell and that we should kill non-believers. There are rational reasons to believe in a God. And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there...
Edit: And as for the omnipotence, if he created the universe, and is the only one to fully understand it's machinations, then for all intensive purposes, he's omnipotent, or as close as you're going to get.
Omiscient=see determinism and make God the Watchmaker.
It is extremely important, as an honest athiest to actually be open to the idea of God. Because that is what being a good atheist is all about, actually thinking logically. It will probably take more evidence to bring me over, but if you are right then you can hopefully show it.
Omnipotence is extremely improbable, how would you suggest such a being came to existence? And what reason do you actually have that he exists?
Ridiculous. They came to a Western society and they must abide by Western strictures and norms. The systematic terror campaign against the cartoonists is disgusting.
People can and do say offensive and disagreeable things in an open and free society. Most of the time society doesn't stand for racketeering with the threat of death looming in the background.
Even accepting the fact that they were insulted and lets even throw in that the cartoons were absolutely arbitrary and designed just to offend muslims. Still doesn't justify any sort of death threats.
On December 13 2010 19:20 Blobskillz wrote: And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists.
I agree with this here. Images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are banned in Islam because he is to be remembered for his deeds, not his appearance. So, people should ignore the extremists altogether and refrain from making cartoons, paintings, drawings etc. of him out of respect for the vast majority of Muslims (myself included).
I would like to state, for the record, that yes I am a Muslim and yes the images offended me, but I am not crazy.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
I think people should care less about the subject. Every time a Muhammad cartoon is made the western countries react like we are getting an acoplyps. its only a cartoon and jes people will be offended by it but here we have free speech and should let it go.
lol i love it when cultures clash and people try to force their values on one another. I could care less about that shit. Western society can do whatever the fuck they want to do, and you can do whatever the fuck you want to do. -insert joker quote-
On December 13 2010 19:20 Blobskillz wrote: And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists.
I agree with this here. Images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are banned in Islam because he is to be remembered for his deeds, not his appearance. So, people should ignore the extremists altogether and refrain from making cartoons, paintings, drawings etc. of him out of respect for the vast majority of Muslims (myself included).
I would like to state, for the record, that yes I am a Muslim and yes the images offended me, but I am not crazy.
This leads to a difficult situation where muslims come to western countries, which value free speech and criticism of religion (no matter how silly the actual criticism might be) and muslims who don't accept criticism of their religion.
But why should I respect Islam? Why should it be free from criticism?
On December 13 2010 20:35 amarai wrote: Wow the amount of ignorance in this thread is ridiculous. So much hate towards a religion that 1.6 billion people follow, the majority of which are not even Arab. Any argument suggesting that Muslims are a violent people or that Islam allows that kind of behaviour is just illogical.
Regarding free speech, in my opinion even free speech should have it limits. As soon as your "free speech" trespassing on someone else freedom it should not go unpunished. They should not put prohibitions on the cartoons because they are scared but rather because it is the right thing to do. It starts out as cartoons but eventually it will escalate to hate and division.
To all the people who don't understand why muslims would be upset over the pictures put yourself in their shoes. Lets simplify this, would you not be upset if I insulted your mom? Like really in your face insulted your mom. You would because that's the proper response. Now for most people they would just shrug it off and ignore me, but for a small number of people i'm sure they would want to hurt me. Same thing with Muslims it's completely understandable. Now just think about it with someone's religion it's a whole different level. People live to follow their religion so obviously they would take it offensively.
As for the comment about the Quran having older parts. First you say you read it then you say something completely ignorant. The Quran is not like the bible, their is no old testament and new testament. It was all brought down over the span of the prophets life.
But who gets to decide what "the right thing to do" is?" In western culture, freedom of speech has historically meant that you can say what you want even if it does offend someone (with limits on fraud, imminent danger [fire in theater]).
So yes, you have a right to criticism my mother or anyone else I care about. And I have a right to criticize you. And you don't deserve to have $150,000 put on your head, like the Swedish artist.
The whole point of freedom of speech is that it protects the right to offend.
On December 13 2010 19:20 Blobskillz wrote: And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists.
I agree with this here. Images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are banned in Islam because he is to be remembered for his deeds, not his appearance. So, people should ignore the extremists altogether and refrain from making cartoons, paintings, drawings etc. of him out of respect for the vast majority of Muslims (myself included).
I would like to state, for the record, that yes I am a Muslim and yes the images offended me, but I am not crazy.
The people who draw the pictures dont have respect for muslims which is fine they are not morally or legally obligated to, i personally think all religions are morally wrong and teach disgusting horrible things to children and allow abuse to happen and to be covered up because of the nature of the infallibility of god and any mention of religions offends me greatly, but i cant do anything about someones beliefs and i will defend your right to have freedom of religion just like i will defend someone elses right to mock religions because they are at the end of the day a stupid cult founded on ignorance that has gotten out of hand
On December 13 2010 20:40 Hadron. wrote: It is extremely important, as an honest athiest to actually be open to the idea of God. Because that is what being a good atheist is all about, actually thinking logically. It will probably take more evidence to bring me over, but if you are right then you can hopefully show it.
Omnipotence is extremely improbable, how would you suggest such a being came to existence? And what reason do you actually have that he exists?
I'm not here to proselytize.
And see, there's an issue that alot of people take for granted. That is, empiricism, and logic can't always match up. Historically this is a resultant of the technological limitations, or scientific understandings of the time. Logically, the retro-grade motions that Ptolemy applied to the celestial bodies was a sound thing to do considering the knowledge available to him at the time, as well as the fact that it DID explain the movements (if inaccurately). However, empirically it was impossible to prove one way or the other until we had at our disposal a new way to study the heavens.
I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that "thinking logically" and the empiricism of the time don't have to match up. It's just a matter of choosing to believe what you can see right in front of you (the best way to determine something) or choosing to believe what you can logically determine is coming (has a potential for an equally high pay off without any limiting factors of empirical collection aside from your own mind and the soundness of your logical proof).
To answer your questions, and I forewarn you that all of my answer's can do no better than break even with you, I'll ask you whether gravity as a law of physics is functional at a sub-atomic level?
It's not. Similarly I think of the constraints of our existence as being limited by our immersion within that existence dictates that we would naturally be incapable of conceiving laws and universal phenomena at such a higher level (without the aid of technology of course). Take that, and apply it to God for the Omnipotence. What we perceive as "omnipotent" may scale to an entirely different dimension for a God.
As for his actual existence, because of what I just mentioned, combined with the predictable functionality of our universe I believe that it is reasonable to think that there was a design.
However, my view is just as empirically valid as yours since I do buy into the Big Bang and all that science has provided, and depending on your philosophical rebuttal, just as logically valid, and I can't "Prove" any of it no more than you can disprove. Of course we could get into a whole deal about how you can't prove a negative anyway, but, meh, that's neither here nor there.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
Of course freedom of speech is absolute, what kind of question is that?
But, for example, publishing a fake article about some guy to make that someone look bad should of course be a criminal offense.
But that's not really limits to freedom of speech. When it comes to these cartoons and what not, anyone suggesting it's wrong are simply wrong themselves
I'd rather not give up my freedoms just because of some stupid religious fundamentalists
There will always be terrorism no matter what, and there will always be angry fundamentalists who will find a reason to blow themselves up for one reason or another. You give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile. And then they'll take that mile and kill you anyway.
I propose a better solution for getting rid of a large amount of the hatred and prejudice in the world: ban the practicing of organized religion Or, at least certain ones
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
Those theorys are proven in the sense they explain and predict near everything in what they are supposed to ie they pass scientific rigour, supposedly there is holes in the evolution theory i dont know im not a biologist, but the big bang theory agrees with EVERYthing we have observed from satelites and telescopes in terms of background radiation, the formaition of the universe due the inflation period, the geometry of the universe as it now, the fact all galaxys are moving away from us, also the only belief in a theory you can have is that its the ultimate theory for whatever thing it explains, but the scientific stance on theorys is that there is more than likely a better theory for it which explains more, no intelligent person will say that they believe 100% the big bang theory is what happened but its so far stood up but there is always doubt
Religious books on the other hand are full of contradictions and out of date teachings, the fact gods word can go out of date for me any way proves they were not the words of some omni potent being but men writing what they deemed fit.
On December 13 2010 20:56 Kimaker wrote: However, my view is just as empirically valid as yours since I do buy into the Big Bang and all that science has provided, and depending on your philosophical rebuttal, just as logically valid, and I can't "Prove" any of it no more than you can disprove. Of course we could get into a whole deal about how you can't prove a negative anyway, but, meh, that's neither here nor there.
This is the problem, your view isn't empirically valid. I do not believe in God and I remain unconvinced (not a surprise I guess) but what I believe in has been proven, has logic and sense to it. Some of what I believe might be wrong but I believe in it because of the evidence. You know I can't prove a negative so the onus is upon you to actually prove God exists.
On December 13 2010 20:56 Kimaker wrote: As for his actual existence, because of what I just mentioned, combined with the predictable functionality of our universe I believe that it is reasonable to think that there was a design.
This is more important, why is it reasonable to think there was a design? We know how organisms slowly formed over billions of years and how our planet and life came to be. Why is it reasonable to think there was a design?
From my point of view it seems reasonable to not believe in God merely because at this time there is no good proof of his existence.
On December 13 2010 21:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'd rather not give up my freedoms just because of some stupid religious fundamentalists
There will always be terrorism no matter what, and there will always be angry fundamentalists who will find a reason to blow themselves up for one reason or another. You give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile. And then they'll take that mile and kill you anyway.
I propose a better solution for getting rid of a large amount of the hatred and prejudice in the world: ban the practicing of organized religion Or, at least certain ones
(Just... kidding... ?)
I dont think banning religion is right but i do think where it forces an effect on people in schooling etc should be gotten rid of, let people make their own minds on the issues when they are old enough to reason without biased factors forcing them, most smart people will reach the conclusion that religions arnt true from all the silly rules and contradictions in the books
"Minutes before the detonations, Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyra received an email also addressed to police that promised retribution for Sweden sending a 500-strong military contingent to Afghanistan, and for the country's failure to condemn cartoons of the prophet Muhammad drawn by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks."
In this case, a primary reasons that the suicide bomber blew himself up was because of a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks (Vilks has been assaulted by individuals who claimed to be defending the honor of Muhammad and Islam and has also been threatened with death several times. He also has a price on his head. His blog: Vilks BLOG). The other reason was because of swedish troops, via NATO, in Afghanistan. Can it be doubted that depicting Muhammad in a cartoon would be enough to justify other suicide bombers? And if so, should Sweden clamp down on any more depictions of Muhammad in the interest of public safety?
The general attitude on TL seems to be: "Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are justified limitations. At the same time, prohibitions on freedom of speech can go too far."
So where do Muhammad depictions fall? Over the line or acceptable? Have attitudes toward this issue (which was discussed in detail in Muhammad cartoons thread) changed as a result of the recent bombing?
On the surface of it all, this topic seems thread-worthy because it is a serious matter. But no matter how righteous you think it is to think that freedom of speech is not absolute or how righteous you think it is otherwise or even if you have good reasons for one of the two arguments, the fact of the matter is that these arguments amount to nothing.
Why?
Because if history has taught us anything, its that arguing with matters of existentialism will amount to nothing. The science vs religion is a classic example and this issue is no different. Its just gonna be a whole lot of insults. I hope TL keeps their integrity of "constructive threads" and just close this already.
"Minutes before the detonations, Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyra received an email also addressed to police that promised retribution for Sweden sending a 500-strong military contingent to Afghanistan, and for the country's failure to condemn cartoons of the prophet Muhammad drawn by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks."
In this case, a primary reasons that the suicide bomber blew himself up was because of a cartoon drawn by Lars Vilks (Vilks has been assaulted by individuals who claimed to be defending the honor of Muhammad and Islam and has also been threatened with death several times. He also has a price on his head. His blog: Vilks BLOG). The other reason was because of swedish troops, via NATO, in Afghanistan. Can it be doubted that depicting Muhammad in a cartoon would be enough to justify other suicide bombers? And if so, should Sweden clamp down on any more depictions of Muhammad in the interest of public safety?
The general attitude on TL seems to be: "Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are justified limitations. At the same time, prohibitions on freedom of speech can go too far."
So where do Muhammad depictions fall? Over the line or acceptable? Have attitudes toward this issue (which was discussed in detail in Muhammad cartoons thread) changed as a result of the recent bombing?
On the surface of it all, this topic seems thread-worthy because it is a serious matter. But no matter how righteous you think it is to think that freedom of speech is not absolute or how righteous you think it is otherwise or even if you have good reasons for one of the two arguments, the fact of the matter is that these arguments amount to nothing.
Why?
Because if history has taught us anything, its that arguing with matters of existentialism will amount to nothing. The science vs religion is a classic example and this issue is no different. Its just gonna be a whole lot of insults.
Well, perhaps you are right. But that conflict is no different than this conflict:
There is a group of people who, for one reason or another, make OPs about existential questions (like science v religion). There is another group of people who post comments on such threads about how pointless such threads are because they "amount to nothing". And yet, the threads continue because neither the existential question loving posters or the posting-existential-questions-is-pointless groups ever persuade one another.
On December 13 2010 21:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'd rather not give up my freedoms just because of some stupid religious fundamentalists
There will always be terrorism no matter what, and there will always be angry fundamentalists who will find a reason to blow themselves up for one reason or another. You give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile. And then they'll take that mile and kill you anyway.
I propose a better solution for getting rid of a large amount of the hatred and prejudice in the world: ban the practicing of organized religion Or, at least certain ones
(Just... kidding... ?)
I dont think banning religion is right but i do think where it forces an effect on people in schooling etc should be gotten rid of, let people make their own minds on the issues when they are old enough to reason without biased factors forcing them, most smart people will reach the conclusion that religions arnt true from all the silly rules and contradictions in the books
I agree with you
So does that mean parents shouldn't raise their children in a particularly-religious household, as that would create bias?
I'm all for teaching kids about ALL of the different religions around the world (heck, I took a world mythology class in college and I learned about many of them, because the subject interested me), but I think that if we want students to make an objective decision when they're older, then they should be raised under a relatively secularist roof. They certainly should learn scientific facts and such over any religious faiths their parents might have, for instance.
On December 13 2010 20:44 Aflixion wrote:Images of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are banned in Islam because he is to be remembered for his deeds, not his appearance. So, people should ignore the extremists altogether and refrain from making cartoons, paintings, drawings etc. of him out of respect for the vast majority of Muslims (myself included).
And every non-muslim is just supposed to know this? Actually I think majority of religions have ton of paintings, statues etc. depicting their holy whatevers. It seems reasonable to think having pictures is generally fine.
Personally I'm sick of religions find all religious people quite dumb. Clearly ~100% of them are intelligent and perfectly sensible when it comes to anything else in life. But what the hell makes them throw all reason out of the window on this one aspect of life, and decide "yes there clearly is an invisible super being, eternal life, butload of horny virgins, reincarnation and/or some shit. This is a fact because it is a fact"
I feel tempted to say yeah, sensor freedom of speech and ban all religions equally. But of course realistically that would not be a good thing. If I remember correctly, there was/is a group of people in Netherlands that basically wanted to legalize pedofilia. People like that are obviously sick as shit, but it's their right to promote whatever they want, freedom of speech is just that important.
Its funny how in this thread everyone is for supporting free speech and keeping the cartoons, but in the thread about the guy in england posting a comment on facebook saying he had had sex with a dead persons body, at least half of you were down to put him in jail. The reasons to not do that are the same as the reasons for keeping the cartoons.
No, banning the cartoons would be a horrible idea.
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.
why must people respect your views (free of speech) when you cant respect other peoples view (dont draw that), yes you are protected legally but why bother youself with the repurcussions is my point,
and do you think they give a damn about your legal mambo jambo(your faith in the law) when you cant respect their legal mambo jambo (the law of their faith).
if you want freedom of speech support wikileaks
Freedom of speech doesn't mean people are obligated to respect your views, it means you're free to express them without prosecution from the government. If they insult someone that person needs to deal with it. They could kill the person, but thats still considered murder, and they need to deal with the consequences, because being insulted doesn't give you the right to deprive someone of their right to life. You thinking that it does makes you a terrorist. Please, screw up like that other guy and only blow yourself up.
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.
my point of view is your religion/faith is for you and my religion/faith is for me, so i dont wave around the freedom flag and scream this is my right derp herp derp to criticize your religion. it just makes more problem instead of solving the problem,
and i play terran so i prefer a gauss rifle instead of blowing my self up
Muslims should be content with the belief (true of false) that the culprit will be dealt with accordingly in the afterlife. If they really truly believe in their religion, and that someone who makes a depiction of muhammad is a sinner, then the belief that that they will be punished in the afterlife should be enough. If they truly believe this, then they should have no reason to make death threats in the first place.
If death threats are a necessary course of action as mandated by the religion itself, then you have a real shitstorm on your hands, but you still shouldn't prohibit the drawings.
Until someone proves me that some invisible grandmaster with incredible powers exists, I believe that religion should be ignored when it comes to legislation. Freedom of faith and so on are granted, anyone should have the right to believe in whatever they want, but to even think of forcing rules upon society based on religious assumptions is illogical.
I usually enjoy playing devil's advocate when the vast majority of people are lined up on one side of a debate but a little piece of my soul would die if I did it in this thread.
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 21:56 Holgerius wrote: ''Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.''
I agree with that.
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.
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.
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.
why must people respect your views (free of speech) when you cant respect other peoples view (dont draw that), yes you are protected legally but why bother youself with the repurcussions is my point,
and do you think they give a damn about your legal mambo jambo(your faith in the law) when you cant respect their legal mambo jambo (the law of their faith).
if you want freedom of speech support wikileaks
Freedom of speech doesn't mean people are obligated to respect your views, it means you're free to express them without prosecution from the government. If they insult someone that person needs to deal with it. They could kill the person, but thats still considered murder, and they need to deal with the consequences, because being insulted doesn't give you the right to deprive someone of their right to life. You thinking that it does makes you a terrorist. Please, screw up like that other guy and only blow yourself up.
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.
Marines can run away from banelings. But someday they have to turn around and shoot.
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.
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 22:10 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.
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.
Because we have the right to. Muslims can't draw pictures of Muhammad. We can do whatever they want. For all I care they stone some muslim if he draws a picture of him. But I don't follow their belief and thus I don't need to obay their no pictures rule. Cartoons are a way to show silly situations. If that involves Muslims and Muhammad fine let them draw it.
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.
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.
Yeah, atleast they were killing each other in Afghanistan for a very long period of time without bothering the world. Sadly, the US military had to come in and liberate them so now we have a bunch of batshit insane terrorists calling themselves Muslims thinking of baneling rushing everyone on a day basis. Good job.
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.
On December 13 2010 21:56 Holgerius wrote: ''Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.''
I agree with that.
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.
I believe you have a very deep misunderstanding of the concept of a liberty.
The quote I believe you are referring to is one by Benjamin Franklin that goes as such: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Now if you know anything about the founding fathers, you know that they had a very strict definition of the term "essential liberty" as the rights very person is born with, and they defined these rights as best they could in the Bill of Right in the Constitution of the United States.
These essential liberties very obviously do not include "your freedom to steal, pillage, murder and rape etc".
In reference to the OP, we can say that Ben Franklin would have thought that if we gave up our right to Freedom of Speech for some amount of security from Islamic terrorist, we deserve neither our Freedom of Speech nor safety from suicide bombers.
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.
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 22:10 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.
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.
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 22:10 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.
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?
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.
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.
Besides, I don't need to be sensitive to people who blow up children, or anyone for that matter.
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.
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.
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.
Well then you're completely at odds with the discussion in the thread. Can you even find one person that said the cartoons weren't offensive? Wow. Try understanding a discussion before you open your mouth.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I nowhere said you should just spam pictures of him everywhere. I doubt there's anyone that would do that. I just agree with using the drawings to make a point. The bomb one was used to show the oppinion that the Muslim religian is dangerous, by using the common known factor that some extremist tent to blow themself up. It was just a current event opinion. This is what most newspaper cartoons show.
Relegion is not infailable. Just look at the cristian pedofile story's lately. We need to point out the faults and critisize religions. That's the only way we'll ever get rid of them.
On December 13 2010 18:11 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Should Sweden (and other countries) prohibit any more depictions of Muhammad in the interest of public safety?
If you read it till Muhammad and then stop, you might say "well no, but I understand the sentiment for why people would feel offendend" and then you read the last part and you just go "what-the-fuck?".
First of all, what kind of loopsided logic would we apply here if we did? Were would it stop? If you cant handle a guy drawing a cartoon with your prophet in it, I seriously question your believe and relationship to your religion. And if we have to prohibit any religious depiction for the sake of our own safety I question people of that religion to why they would even let extremist grow and why are they not able to prevent them from going down that path and educate their very own.
Because if you go "it is wrong, but hey, I'm offended aswell" I'm not satisfied. Because the crime, and yes it is still a crime in our country to blow shit up and as such our law will apply, is still done in the name of your religion (as twisted or wrong or unofficial as it may be). Distancing yourself from such "interpretation" of your religion will simply not cut it here. It is the Islams burden here first and foremost to educate their followers with all their power to respect all kind of cultures nomatter how much they question your believes and to see it as a chance to scrutinize your own believe. Which is positive and will lead to a much healthier relationship to your own religion.
Because whenever weapons get drawn in the name of religion. Something has gone horribly wrong. So my answer to the thread starters question is obviously no.
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 have got a point there, but sorry if I focus on this specific issue and lask you this: why should I, a non-Muslim individual who does not agree with this specific Islamic dogma, not act to show my disagreement? Why should I care about people getting offended by something that is a matter of opinion?
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.
The point is, we should be able to draw cartoon characters of Muhammad. The mainstream Muslims don't condone murder, but they still feel like they have a special privilege to be exempt from "insult." This altogether needs to be stopped.
What some people in this thread don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to not feel "upset". Personally, seeing ugg boots and canada goose jackets everywhere i go is upsetting at times but i dont have the right to tell people they cant wear them (or make death threats).
Edit: This thread is making me realise just how many swedish people there are on TL....
there are no justifiable limitations to freedom of speech
some people may lack the desire or ability to manage others' feelings or institutions' agendas due to whatever reason, but they need to have the right to express themselves as they see fit even if it hurts our feelings or it's classifiable as "immoral" or other such nonsense. we can shun them, ignore them, fire them even in some cases, but we should in no way restrict them by laws and regulations
otherwise, it becomes an uncontrollable avalanche of abuse and it only leads to ignorance, violence and so on and so forth, as seen everywhere around us today
"why upset people for no good reason"; well, besides the above, humor of all means of human expression needs to be uninhibited. people need to learn that until we can take ourselves a little more lightly we can never establish clear lines of communication and interaction amongst extremely different cultures, and, indeed, amongst each other at home, wherever we live.
why should i ever get upset if someone is mocking the things that i am most passionate about in life ? a man's poison is another man's nourishment after all, i may have an argument with the person and either try to explain the respective passions/things w/e, or just ignore him. i'm not gonna make it my personal goal to convince him my pov is correct, or try to forcefully shut him up. that's fascism, aggressive communism, absolute monarchy, is that what we want for our world, seriously
today's world lacks the ability to clearly delimit areas of relevance or be able to function in a framework of proper , let's call it, since it isn;t necessarily constructive, functional criticism - that applying to humor as well, ofcourse, since humor serves a few important functions in society, and across societies it should alleviate some of the inter-cultural tensions by means of a very relatable human process, irony and laughter - if grossly outdated political and religious systems didn't get in the way that is
you can't get further as a species if the only way you can think of to protect the beliefs and customs of your people is to go like "fuck you you don't understand us, and you must make illegal whatever we find insulting to our people". see, this kind of argument gets old as early as the schoolyard years between children, and that's what's happening all over the world between states - or rather governments.
Here is the thing. Islam is the religion whose believers reacted the harshest to so called funny drawings about the particular religion. In fact, islamic people are the ones that are told to grow up about the reactions, because we got the "freedom of speech". Until this point, everything seems right. Really.
But, after this point, nothing seems right. If yet another caricaturist shows up and makes drawings about Lars Vilks or pope or Jesus, he'll immediately find himself at ECHR* because the caricaturized person will think that he's insulted and ECHR will agree with him, which is the same thing that will happen to someone who talks about one of the people mentioned above in a TV channel. What about the freedom of speech? Where will it be?
Answer: It will hide in a safe house until another islamic person reacts to yet another so called funny drawing and that islamic person will strictly be told to grow up and learn about the freedom of speech.
if a kid in school draws your parents, or you girlfriend or someone you care about in a offensive way people will have different way of handling it, some will scream bloody murder and beat your face in, some will tell the teachers, some will just walk away in shame and hate him for it. but out of the billion of people living in this world there will always be a kid that pick up a gun and say Hell it's about time.
On December 13 2010 23:00 Sanjuro wrote: if a kid in school draws your parents, or you girlfriend or someone you care about in a offensive way people will have different way of handling it, some will scream bloody murder and beat your face in, some will tell the teachers, some will just walk away in shame and hate him for it. but out of the billion of people living in this world there will always be a kid that pick up a gun and say Hell it's about time.
well i hope you guys get my point
Yes we should thread these people like children and teach them to ignore those things. They need to be taucht not to overreact and not to take everything as serious. If it doesn't work you gotta punish them.
On December 13 2010 22:58 Metalwing wrote: But, after this point, nothing seems right. If yet another caricaturist shows up and makes drawings about Lars Vilks or pope or Jesus, he'll immediately find himself at ECHR* because the caricaturized person will think that he's insulted and ECHR will agree with him, which is the same thing that will happen to someone who talks about one of the people mentioned above in a TV channel. What about the freedom of speech? Where will it be?
I have seen people making fun of the Pope and Jesus in so many ways and so many times that you have no idea, and I am Italian (you know Italy, where the pope is and has a huge political influence). Never even heard of that ECHR thing though.
Out of all the misery that occurs in third-world countries, a muhammed cartoon is what really rally the people? People dying, people getting raped, oppressive governments and general misery, but an insult is way over the line. We can't accept that can we?
Rally and throw out your corrupt manipulative governments instead
On December 13 2010 22:22 sekritzzz wrote: 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.
I don't mean to offend you, but I strongly suspect that you only have this "feeling" because you don't really listen to the arguments. Sure, a lot of people play the "freedom of speech card" only when it serves their interest, and certainly one can often argue about whether a particular statement is/should be protected by freedom of speech. Nothing of this changes the fact that Muhammad is not only a religious figure, but also a political figure and his name and teachings are used to justify a vast amount of actions which have a strong social impact. He is therefore a "public" figure of authority - and, yes, he is also dead. But have you ever seen a caricature of Lenin, Stahlin, Marx, Engels, Roosevelt or any of the countless other political characters which are very often subject to parody even after their death? There is a reason why this is found acceptable under freedom of speech, while the liberty of showing pictures or drawings of random people who died in 9/11 might very well be considered inappropriate and not worth protecting. Can you guess why?
Someone mentioned earlier about religious upset and death threats, I'm a christian (not a very good one i mite add) but christians in general do all sorts of horrible shit in the name of the religion. Someone already referenced buddy christ from the movie dogma. When that film was released, the weinsteins got sacks of hate mail, and Kevin smith (the director) got 2 and half death threats despite being catholic (one started as a death threat and softened it's stance as the letter went on) The religion is never the issue, there are extremists in every religion. They are the issue, you can't demonise all muslims for what the extremists do. Do you think i'd want to be lumped in with the Phelps family because I happen to be christian too? It's a difficult situation and no one has a solution or likely ever will for dealing with extremists in religion. As long as there is religion people will do dumb shit in it's name.
Saying that, if there wasn't religion people would still find dumb shit to fight about, just seems to be human nature. (see the Aethism episodes of south park for some good satire)
I read in the Economist that Arab-bloc countries very often put forward resolutions at the UN to denounce "religious defamation". At least, that's what the English translation is in the UN documents; the arabic version of the same documents use the word "blasphemy".
Muslims aren't stupid, they know that their arguments won't get far if they use a religious basis (blasphemy against Allah or Muhammad doesn't mean much if you aren't Muslim yourself). So instead they use the international language of religious tolerance and human rights to suppress sin in parliament and in the courts.
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded
Great start
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions?
yes
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world?
yes
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: By saying "Many countries have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" do you mean that all the Islam religion and Muslims are terrorists just because of the doing of some retarded suicide bomber who thought he is something but really he isn't and he deserved to die?
no
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: if you are then you've got serious problems, every single country and religion has some fucked up people! you cant judge everyone by the doing of one person. I'm not going to argue about this here because I'm easily out numbered... but seriously! grow the fuck up!.]
Freedom of mockery is one of the cornerstones of free speech. Your religion violates basic civilised decency if it can't be mocked. Every edified establishment can and should be mocked. The only establishments which don't usually permit mockery are authoritarian- fascism and communism. Islam is in this group because of the large amount of undiplomatic, unsavoury, unworldly individuals that run the gamut of importance in this religion from lowest to highest postings who are extremely outspoken and refuse us the right to mock their completely unsubstantiated claims as to the true nature and origin of the universe and life.
Being respectful to religions in the political arena is one thing- diplomacy is king there. But in mockery the king is freedom.
On December 13 2010 22:58 Metalwing wrote: But, after this point, nothing seems right. If yet another caricaturist shows up and makes drawings about Lars Vilks or pope or Jesus, he'll immediately find himself at ECHR* because the caricaturized person will think that he's insulted and ECHR will agree with him, which is the same thing that will happen to someone who talks about one of the people mentioned above in a TV channel. What about the freedom of speech? Where will it be?
I have seen people making fun of the Pope and Jesus in so many ways and so many times that you have no idea, and I am Italian (you know Italy, where the pope is and has a huge political influence). Never even heard of that ECHR thing though.
Interesting. Really. But, in Turkey, when I hear a news about Turkish government and christians, that news always includes ECHR in some way. And it's mostly about freedom of belief or freedom of speech and generally christians in Turkey claim that their freedoms of speech and belief is somehow violated (believe me, they are just as free as muslims if not, and the government is so muslim).
But in a similar news, Greek government forbade a Turkish village to build a mosque. That case also ended up in ECHR and they didn't even give a shit and Greek government just walked over. Greek government doesn't give a fuck to muslim citizens' freedoms of belief and speech but nothing happens.
On December 13 2010 23:37 Metalwing wrote: Interesting. Really. But, in Turkey, when I hear a news about Turkish government and christians, that news always includes ECHR in some way. And it's mostly about freedom of belief or freedom of speech and generally christians in Turkey claim that their freedoms of speech and belief is somehow violated (believe me, they are just as free as muslims if not, and the government is so muslim).
But in a similar news, Greek government forbade a Turkish village to build a mosque. That case also ended up in ECHR and they didn't even give a shit and Greek government just walked over. Greek government doesn't give a fuck to muslim citizens' freedoms of belief and speech but nothing happens.
Aside from the Greece VS Turkey debate which I am not getting into since its completely off-topic, all I can do is reinforce the fact that I never even heard of the ECHR. Perhaps it's something fashionable in Turkey due to the internal political climate.
So you can hardly claim that "If yet another caricaturist shows up and makes drawings about Lars Vilks or pope or Jesus, he'll immediately find himself at ECHR".
Seeing it from a slightly different view, I'm having a hard time seeing how such a law would be limited or phrased. Where would the line be drawn and what would be the reason for such a law? If you try to formulate it, you'll soon see where I'm going.
Would it be "It is illegal to draw things that pisses Muslims off, because then they'll bomb us". You can't put that in the constitution, no one would stand for that kind of reasoning.
Would it be "It is illegal to draw Mohammed, the founder of Islam, because Muhammed said so 1400 years ago. Addendum: It is illegal to draw Lars Vilks, because he also said so. Addendum: It is illegal to draw anyone in Sverigedemokratarne because they said so. Addendum: Except for Jimmie Åkeson. He can be drawn between 10 and 16 monday to thursday." etc. No, that won't work.
Would it be "It is illegal to draw Mohammed, in keeping with the Holy Book of Islam and showing respect to Muslims. Addendum: It is illegal to draw Mohammed, in keeping with the Holy Book of Islam, because Muhammed said, outside of the Quran that he should not be drawn, and thus showing respect to Muslims. Addendum: It is illegal to draw Mohammed, in keeping with the Holy Book of Islam, because Muhammed said, outside of the Quran that he pictures should not be drawn because it leads to idolatry, and thus showing respect to Muslims. Addendum: It is illegal to draw Mohammed, in keeping with the Holy Book of Islam, because Muhammed said, outside of the Quran that he pictures should not be drawn because it leads to idolatry, and thus showing respect to Muslims in Sweden."
Would it be "It is illegal to draw religious figures". No, because Christians are quite fond of having Jesus' drawings everywhere.
Would it be "It is illegal to draw religious leaders that did not want to be drawn, like Muhammed. Addendum: And his immediate family. Addendum: And all the Caliphs Addendum: And all Ayatollahs Addendum: And bin Laden Addendum: It is illegal to draw Mulsims, in general" So, if you want to draw someone, you'd have to find out if they're Muslim first.
I think it should be a general law about not insulting people very badly. At least in Norway, it's prohobited to spread information that is way over the line and I'm guessing Sweden has a similar law. And drawing a historic figure is not over the line. Drawing him as a dog is just bad taste, not funny at all, and a pity that someone should do anything like that, but still hasn't crossed the line. Drawing him in a guillotine and encouraing the killing on every Muslim on Earth, spreading hate among the population is way over line and should be punished. I don't believe in an absolute law, but rather that one has to consider each and every instance of drawing to find out if it merits punishment or not.
In short: No, I do not believe a new law prohibiting Muhammed paintings should be implemented. I'd rather people used their noggins for a change.
... Can it be doubted that depicting Muhammad in a cartoon would be enough to justify other suicide bombers? And if so, should Sweden clamp down on any more depictions of Muhammad in the interest of public safety?
Well, I do not doubt that depicting Muhammad is enough of a reason for some extremists to order or perform a suicide bombing. However, forbidding such depictions in the interest of public safety is an absolute no-go for me.
The right to criticize not only by word, but also by drawing a satiric cartoon picture serves a useful function in a secular society by showing that there is nothing so holy or sacrosanct that it cannot be discussed with a smile.
If someone dislikes this, or is offended by it, that would be his right, and I totally understand if the offended person never buys a paper again that he felt had offensive content or asks others who hold the same religious beliefs to boycott it as well.
Anything further than that, however is not religious, but criminal. The freedom of religion does not include being allowed to kill for your religion. So for me this is more about fanatics needing to understand they are not holy warriors, but criminals if they break the law and commit serious crimes than about a question of free speech.
Also, other elements of our society also draw criminals, for example a bank will have to deal with the potential risk of a bank robbery, and innocent bystanders could just as well be killed in such an incident. But we do not consider banning banks for reasons of public safety, do we ? I think we should no more consider banning cartoons than we consider banning banks.
I am not a muslim, so why should I live by the rules of their religion ? I have never in my life drawn any picture of Mohammad, and I will not do so because it offends others in their religious beliefs. But that is my own decision and it does not mean I am willing to give up the right to do it.
I try to look at it differently, for me religion is not a fail-safe agaisnt anything or an excuse agaisnt anything either.
It is not "should it be allowed to draw Muhammed?"
It is "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
Was all the comic drawings about Clinton that circulated around the Lewinsky-time offensive to him? Yeah probably, but it should still not be against the law to make them.
In my opinion Muslims need to get off thier high horse, it is a shit world and you live in it like the rest of us, dont expect to be the only one one walking around without stains on your clothes. I see no point in making an exeption for you because you are upset about it, i have seen things that upset me aswell but i dont martyr myself because of it. I swallow the nice stinking coctail and move on.
On December 14 2010 00:48 DND_Enkil wrote: I try to look at it differently, for me religion is not a fail-safe agaisnt anything or an excuse agaisnt anything either.
It is not "should it be allowed to draw Muhammed?"
It is "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
Was all the comic drawings about Clinton that circulated around the Lewinsky-time offensive to him? Yeah probably, but it should still not be against the law to make them.
In my opinion Muslims need to get off thier high horse, it is a shit world and you live in it like the rest of us, dont expect to be the only one one walking around without stains on your clothes. I see no point in making an exeption for you because you are upset about it, i have seen things that upset me aswell but i dont martyr myself because of it. I swallow the nice stinking coctail and move on.
Funny that you say the following: "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
You know...In Islam, it's generally not a good thing to draw any of the prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham). In fact, I don't EVER recall seeing a muslim representation of Jesus or a cartoon parody of the prophets drawn by a muslim in a newspaper or anything of the like. I might be wrong but those things are usually condemned. So it's not as though the Muslims are ASKING for it.
Also, I really like how everyone here is all for freedom of speech and how they love hiding behind its silky veil after insulting others for no valid reason. What are you saying? That it's fine to baselessly insult Jesus and other prophets like Muhammed for the sake of "humour" and then run back and hide behind the freedom of speech cloak? Please...I find it very unclassy for ANYONE to randomly insult someone else's religion or belief. This type of thing should NOT be supported. Of course, the retards at the other end (aka the terrorists) are looking for an excuse as well but I say, instead of pissing them off, we kill them off...But that's another topic that I don't want to get into right now.
With that being said, all you freedom of speech people need to get off that pony of yours and smell the roses. EVERYTHING has its limits...Including freedom of speech.
Doesn't anybody watch South Park? I also don't understand why every cartoon really wants that picture of Muhammad. Seriously cartoons other than south park suck anyways. This is definitely the dumbest reoccuring issue in pop culture.
On December 14 2010 01:08 PlaKen wrote: Funny that you say the following: "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
You know...In Islam, it's generally not a good thing to draw any of the prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham). In fact, I don't EVER recall seeing a muslim representation of Jesus or a cartoon parody of the prophets drawn by a muslim in a newspaper or anything of the like. I might be wrong but those things are usually condemned. So it's not as though the Muslims are ASKING for it.
What? This doesn't make sense. Of course there is no "muslim representation of Jesus or a cartoon parody of the prophets drawn by a muslim in a newspaper" since they are against it. Are you trying to say that since they don't draw parodies of Jesus then other cultures, including people who dont believe in any sort of God, should not draw Muhammed?!
Also, I really like how everyone here is all for freedom of speech and how they love hiding behind its silky veil after insulting others for no valid reason. What are you saying? That it's fine to baselessly insult Jesus and other prophets like Muhammed for the sake of "humour" and then run back and hide behind the freedom of speech cloak? Please...I find it very unclassy for ANYONE to randomly insult someone else's religion or belief. This type of thing should NOT be supported. Of course, the retards at the other end (aka the terrorists) are looking for an excuse as well but I say, instead of pissing them off, we kill them off...But that's another topic that I don't want to get into right now.
A lot of things are unclassy yet perfectly legal. It IS about freedom. Also, maybe you fail to see the fact that those drawings are not made for the sake of "humor".
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 have got a point there, but sorry if I focus on this specific issue and lask you this: why should I, a non-Muslim individual who does not agree with this specific Islamic dogma, not act to show my disagreement? Why should I care about people getting offended by something that is a matter of opinion?
The thing is, I personally am not asking anyone to care its really up to you. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of complete freedom of speech which a lot of people preach from the West. They preach human right violations in China yet they have guantanamo bay right in their backdoor. They talk about Taliban monsters, yet they've killed over 2 million muslims, scratch that 2 million terrorists since 9/11 according to them. Its sad how repetitive history is. Just a few centuries ago, the aborigines/blacks/native American Indians were the savages and the Europeans felt the need to save them by making them civil by completely destroying them. As much as I'd like this West-Islam tension to cool down and go down a peaceful road, I honestly believe it isn't going to happen.
As sad as this sounds, I think this is just going to lead to something as big as the fight for black rights/jews during the holocaust, if not bigger before its ever resolved.
Freedom of speech does have its limits, but in this case, it's really about the separation of church and state. The government really shouldn't make laws based on religious practices.
Everything that is immoral should not be illegal. You shouldn't make offensive speech and illustrations just to offend people, but still we don't put people in jail for everything that is ethically wrong. Infidelity, talking behind people's backs, drinking more than what is responsible are a few other examples.
Also, because islam and islamic institutions are strong forces politically, they should not be immune to political satire. To disallow it would mean to kick a leg of public debate's legs away.
On the other hand, it could be treated the same way as flag burning, and in Norway there is a "sleeping" law forbidding it. We also have laws against harassment, but that is more aimed at protecting individuals than groups. People of public interest are also not protected from the media in the same way as a random person on the street.
[satire]Actually, perhaps they could make it even handed, ban the ANY speech involving muhammed, islam, muslims or the koran (burn all the Muhammed cartoons and korans in the same fire)
Jail both Vilks and every imam in Sweden. (who has mentioned Mohammed).... Put islam under the same rules as child pornagraphy. Bad for public safety to be talking about that.[/satire]
And as for flag burning... that needs to be encouraged more.
Seeing it from a slightly different view, I'm having a hard time seeing how such a law would be limited or phrased. Where would the line be drawn and what would be the reason for such a law? If you try to formulate it, you'll soon see where I'm going.
Would it be "It is illegal to draw things that pisses Muslims off, because then they'll bomb us". You can't put that in the constitution, no one would stand for that kind of reasoning.
Would it be "It is illegal to draw Mohammed, the founder of Islam, because Muhammed said so 1400 years ago. Addendum: It is illegal to draw Lars Vilks, because he also said so. Addendum: It is illegal to draw anyone in Sverigedemokratarne because they said so. Addendum: Except for Jimmie Åkeson. He can be drawn between 10 and 16 monday to thursday." etc. No, that won't work.
Would it be "It is illegal to draw Mohammed, in keeping with the Holy Book of Islam and showing respect to Muslims. Addendum: It is illegal to draw Mohammed, in keeping with the Holy Book of Islam, because Muhammed said, outside of the Quran that he should not be drawn, and thus showing respect to Muslims. Addendum: It is illegal to draw Mohammed, in keeping with the Holy Book of Islam, because Muhammed said, outside of the Quran that he pictures should not be drawn because it leads to idolatry, and thus showing respect to Muslims. Addendum: It is illegal to draw Mohammed, in keeping with the Holy Book of Islam, because Muhammed said, outside of the Quran that he pictures should not be drawn because it leads to idolatry, and thus showing respect to Muslims in Sweden."
Would it be "It is illegal to draw religious figures". No, because Christians are quite fond of having Jesus' drawings everywhere.
Would it be "It is illegal to draw religious leaders that did not want to be drawn, like Muhammed. Addendum: And his immediate family. Addendum: And all the Caliphs Addendum: And all Ayatollahs Addendum: And bin Laden Addendum: It is illegal to draw Mulsims, in general" So, if you want to draw someone, you'd have to find out if they're Muslim first.
I think it should be a general law about not insulting people very badly. At least in Norway, it's prohobited to spread information that is way over the line and I'm guessing Sweden has a similar law. And drawing a historic figure is not over the line. Drawing him as a dog is just bad taste, not funny at all, and a pity that someone should do anything like that, but still hasn't crossed the line. Drawing him in a guillotine and encouraing the killing on every Muslim on Earth, spreading hate among the population is way over line and should be punished. I don't believe in an absolute law, but rather that one has to consider each and every instance of drawing to find out if it merits punishment or not.
In short: No, I do not believe a new law prohibiting Muhammed paintings should be implemented. I'd rather people used their noggins for a change.
On December 14 2010 00:48 DND_Enkil wrote: I try to look at it differently, for me religion is not a fail-safe agaisnt anything or an excuse agaisnt anything either.
It is not "should it be allowed to draw Muhammed?"
It is "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
Was all the comic drawings about Clinton that circulated around the Lewinsky-time offensive to him? Yeah probably, but it should still not be against the law to make them.
In my opinion Muslims need to get off thier high horse, it is a shit world and you live in it like the rest of us, dont expect to be the only one one walking around without stains on your clothes. I see no point in making an exeption for you because you are upset about it, i have seen things that upset me aswell but i dont martyr myself because of it. I swallow the nice stinking coctail and move on.
Funny that you say the following: "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
You know...In Islam, it's generally not a good thing to draw any of the prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham). In fact, I don't EVER recall seeing a muslim representation of Jesus or a cartoon parody of the prophets drawn by a muslim in a newspaper or anything of the like. I might be wrong but those things are usually condemned. So it's not as though the Muslims are ASKING for it.
Also, I really like how everyone here is all for freedom of speech and how they love hiding behind its silky veil after insulting others for no valid reason. What are you saying? That it's fine to baselessly insult Jesus and other prophets like Muhammed for the sake of "humour" and then run back and hide behind the freedom of speech cloak? Please...I find it very unclassy for ANYONE to randomly insult someone else's religion or belief. This type of thing should NOT be supported. Of course, the retards at the other end (aka the terrorists) are looking for an excuse as well but I say, instead of pissing them off, we kill them off...But that's another topic that I don't want to get into right now.
With that being said, all you freedom of speech people need to get off that pony of yours and smell the roses. EVERYTHING has its limits...Including freedom of speech.
On December 13 2010 21:56 Holgerius wrote: ''Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.''
I agree with that.
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 23:07 KaiserJohan wrote: Out of all the misery that occurs in third-world countries, a muhammed cartoon is what really rally the people? People dying, people getting raped, oppressive governments and general misery, but an insult is way over the line. We can't accept that can we?
Rally and throw out your corrupt manipulative governments instead
sure man, look how that work out so well for the Iraq people
On December 14 2010 00:48 DND_Enkil wrote: I try to look at it differently, for me religion is not a fail-safe agaisnt anything or an excuse agaisnt anything either.
It is not "should it be allowed to draw Muhammed?"
It is "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
Was all the comic drawings about Clinton that circulated around the Lewinsky-time offensive to him? Yeah probably, but it should still not be against the law to make them.
In my opinion Muslims need to get off thier high horse, it is a shit world and you live in it like the rest of us, dont expect to be the only one one walking around without stains on your clothes. I see no point in making an exeption for you because you are upset about it, i have seen things that upset me aswell but i dont martyr myself because of it. I swallow the nice stinking coctail and move on.
PleAlso, I really like how everyone here is all for freedom of speech and how they love hiding behind its silky veil after insulting others for no valid reason. What are you saying? That it's fine to baselessly insult Jesus and other prophets like Muhammed for the sake of "humour" and then run back and hide behind the freedom of speech cloak?ase...I find it very unclassy for ANYONE to randomly insult someone else's religion or belief. This type of thing should NOT be supported. Of course, the retards at the other end (aka the terrorists) are looking for an excuse as well but I say, instead of pissing them off, we kill them off...But that's another topic that I don't want to get into right now.
I hope you are just completely uninformed with regard to the whole drama about the Muhammad caricatures. Yes, randomly insulting somebody should and IS NOT protected by freedom of speech, since this is in direct conflict with a person's dignity. Denmark actually has a law against ridiculing religious practices and beliefs. Did you know that? Did you at least try to understand the reasoning which explains why said caricatures do not violate this law?
im strictly against cencorship, especially if it only goes to serve ppl with medieval mindsets that are too easily offended
being able to say fuck jesus and muhammed was a camel fucking faggot is my right living in liberal europe, and no close-minded intolerant idiots should be able to take that away
i found it especially interesting how when this muhammed cartoon fiasco surfaced for the first time right-wing religious catholics were actually on the same side as the muslims, wanting new laws to ban ridicule of religious icons
for one, thats backdoor cencorship, and for two, if you live in an open society you better learn to deal with ppl making fun of something that you hold dear.
so in short: no limits to caricature no limits for free speech making fun of anything is not against the law
i think what angers these close-minded people the most is that they cannot offend a typical european back in the way they feel themselves offended. mohammed depicted in a comic? OUTRAGE! LETS BURN THEIR FLAGS AND TELL THEM JESUS WAS GAY. oh wait, no one cares
I think this is a slippery slope. From my understanding, they don't want *any* drawings done of their prophet *anywhere*... *ever*. That means that if it does become illegal, you can't even have your own doodlings in your own home without breaking the law.
For those of you saying there should be a limit on this, where do you draw the line? Is it how many people see the drawing? What the drawing depicts? The number of drawings? Who draws them?
Why, then, should it be limited to just this? What if its deemed that you can't draw rainbows because that was god's promise to the world that he would never flood it again and drawing a rainbow because you think it's pretty is now considered a blasphemous insult to an entire group of people? It seems like anything is fair game if it offends enough people.
When does it become prevention of artistic expression?
In the end, nobody has any right to force anyone else to respect their faith-based beliefs through force or law.
"Minutes before the detonations, Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyra received an email also addressed to police that promised retribution for Sweden sending a 500-strong military contingent to Afghanistan, and for the country's failure to condemn cartoons of the prophet Muhammad drawn by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks."
OK, OK, let's compare these two things.
A) Sweden sending a 500-strong military contingent to Afghanistan B) the country's failure to condemn cartoons of the prophet Muhammad drawn by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks
I know that maybe these two things are equivalent in some kind of bizarre religious doublethink. But I have the suspicion one may be the leading cause of anti-western sentiment and the other just a symptom of it.
I agree with what iMAniaC wrote, if we are supposed to prohabit the drawing of one fictional character because it offends someone then we migh need to prohabit the drawings of everything.
I wish the ones offended by the drawings would follow the phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and draw a couple of Vilks pictures instead of going crazy.
I think it comes down to this: the threat of violence cannot be a good reason to limit free speech. Freedom of expression means that one group can tell you that they don't like what you're doing. It doesn't mean that they can shut you up by threatening to kill you.
I found this picture in the Random pics that make you laugh thread: Anti-semitic pictures like the one on the left abound in the Muslim world. By the standards of those who would say that Sweden should not allow people to draw Mohammed, not only would only the left picture be tolerated, but the guy who drew this comic would be persecuted. Just think of the irony if people went after this artist for drawing Mohammed!
Here's an example of an anti-semitic comic in the style of the one parodied up there. It comes from an Egyptian newspaper. I'm putting it here as an illustration of my point, obviously I don't agree with it: + Show Spoiler +
On December 14 2010 01:08 PlaKen wrote: Funny that you say the following: "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
You know...In Islam, it's generally not a good thing to draw any of the prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham). In fact, I don't EVER recall seeing a muslim representation of Jesus or a cartoon parody of the prophets drawn by a muslim in a newspaper or anything of the like. I might be wrong but those things are usually condemned. So it's not as though the Muslims are ASKING for it.
Also, I really like how everyone here is all for freedom of speech and how they love hiding behind its silky veil after insulting others for no valid reason. What are you saying? That it's fine to baselessly insult Jesus and other prophets like Muhammed for the sake of "humour" and then run back and hide behind the freedom of speech cloak? Please...I find it very unclassy for ANYONE to randomly insult someone else's religion or belief. This type of thing should NOT be supported. Of course, the retards at the other end (aka the terrorists) are looking for an excuse as well but I say, instead of pissing them off, we kill them off...But that's another topic that I don't want to get into right now.
With that being said, all you freedom of speech people need to get off that pony of yours and smell the roses. EVERYTHING has its limits...Including freedom of speech.
Maybe it has limits factually, but it shouldn't. Else the one who is most easily offended dictates the rules. Say I am offended whenever somebody says the word "allah". Does that means people should stop using that word so I am not offended? I hardly think so.
Also, what most people here seems to miss is the crucial point. The comics are NOT meant to insult islam, they are meant to critizice some people's practice of it. For example, thequran like the bible and torah is basically peaceful, stating tzhat it is a sin to kill another human. On the other hand, people blow themselves and other up in the name of the very same religion that is AGAINST murder. Doesn't make sense, right? Is worth criticism I think and drawing a comic with muhammed wearing a bomb in his turban expresses that criticism.
There will always be people who are offended by shit. For example that Fox Nwes lady who was pissed off because some local town renamed their christmas parade and it no longer seems christian enough to her. But in my opinion that is her problem and we should not bend over backwards to try to suit every notjob. Most muslims probabaly just did not care about the comics but since they are not out burning flags, no one cares about their opinion. Sad, in my eyes.
Why is there even a debate on this? Silly drawings of religious figures may be in poor taste, but it shouldn't be against the law. Ridicule of religion is good - good for secular society since it reveals the flaws in religious doctrine, good for religious people since it helps religion to evolve with the times. You have the right to believe in whatever you want, you do not have the right to not be offended.
On December 13 2010 20:36 Kimaker wrote: There are rational reasons to believe in a God. And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there...
Pascal's Wager is an awful argument. In fact, it's not even an argument. See: + Show Spoiler +
The concept of a god that is beyond empiricism is cool and all, but such a belief serves no practical relevance and is by nature beyond evidence, so really you're only choosing to have such a belief for some kind of spiritual comfort. And while that concept may very well be rational, anything past that, meaning basically all religious doctrine, isn't. IE "I believe in a God" is fine, but "I believe in a God that cares about human behavior or diet or appearance" is intellectual dishonesty at best, ridiculous, cult-like behavior at worst.
I believe there are good reasons to believe in existence of God. Arguments for this is beyond the scope of this forum and off-topic. However, beliefs, whether they are religious or not, can be scrutinized and allowed to. If we make laws prohibiting scrutinizing religious figures ( Muhammad) because a group of people find it offensive, that same then can be applied to any groups (atheists, christians, vegans, republicans). I am a Christian and although I find it distasteful when people poke fun at Jesus or the Pope, other times I find it hilarious too. My belief will not changed or affected in anyway just because someone draw a cartoon about my religion...
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
There are a lot of things that are "wrong" that aren't illegal and shouldn't be. For example, if you're in a parking lot waiting for a car to back out so you can take the spot and then I zip in and take it before you, that's "wrong" but it's not illegal, nor should I be killed for it. Or if I want to say "people who listen to rap are all retarded" it would be "wrong" and insulting, but it's not illegal, nor should it be.
Making a cartoon that offends an entire group of people may be "wrong", but what's far more "wrong" is that some people feel it is their right to dictate what other people think or say, and even to kill to enforce that.
I don't believe in your god, it's that simple. Your quote from the Quran sums it up quite nicely in my view: keep your religion to yourself, and don't tell me what to do. If your religion says you can't draw pictures of Muhammad, then don't draw pictures of Muhammad, but if you try and tell me I also can't draw pictures of Muhammad either, well then it's not really keeping your religion to yourself anymore is it? It's now your religion telling me what to do. If that's what you really want to do, then be prepared for a war, because I'll fight to the death to be free from your religion imposing its restrictions on me, whatever they might be.
IMO what we need is more people making cartoons of Muhammad to show the Islamic people of the world that just because you want something doesn't mean you can have it. And if it takes a war to prove that, to defend our right to think and say what we want, then so be it.
I agree that free speech shouldn't be limited, if a particular belief can't handle free speech in that country it's too bad.
Though what I've never understood is how are you supposed to know if something is a depication of Muhammad? This was kind of brought up on "Draw Muhammad Day" in that anything could be Muhammad like a toaster as long as you labeled it as "Muhammad" it is now Muhammad. Seriously trying to draw Muhammad would just end up with a generic middle eastern man wouldn't it? Are there actual defining characteristics for his physical appearance?
I dislike the modern day interpretation of "freedom of speech". In fact, I dislike the modern day interpretation of freedom in general.
It seems that more and more people, especially the more recent generations, seem to take it for granted and consider it a licence to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they can get away with it. Incidentally, these are the generations that have (in most western countries) never had to deal with a real, substantial lack of freedom.
Freedom is only a beneficial social concept while it is balanced out by the (assumed) willingness of every individual to contribute to the society he/she lives in and improve it for everybody that is a part of that society. In order for freedom to work out as a general concept, the society relies on you being a nice guy. The less sense people have of that, the more freedom is exploited rather than appreciated and respected for what it is.
So in regards to OP, no, the government shouldn't prohibit the comics. But also the comics shouldn't ever have been made in the first place. The people who made them originally should've decided to be nice guys instead and realized that just shitting over something somebody cares about doesn't prove any higher point, isn't some glorious rebellious work of art, isn't contributing to the society, and most definitely doesn't illustrate what freedom should be about.
To be quite honest, if people don't have a sense of what they should and shouldn't do, no laws can forcefully regulate it.
There is absolutely no reason anyone should ever be prohibited from doing anything they like.
As a christian I get "bothered" by images defaming Jesus, but it doesn't offend me. Why? Because God is God and he is able to defend Himself. The role of a Christian isn't to "Protect" Jesus's name or image. It's to spread the message of the gospel of Christ.
Christians however, should not do the defaming of others religion either. There is a passage very relevant in the new testament. They were asking Paul if they should still be following the jewish rules dealing with things like food, etc. However, they failed to realize that Christ represented a new contract with man which is freedom. The passage goes on to say that everything is permissible. (meaning everything), however not everything is beneficial. This is basically a new set of ethics for christians. Christians are not bound by the law espoused in leviticus or exodus, however, they are bound to the commitment they made to God. The example Paul used is eating foods that had been sacrificed to idols. Previously doing so would be a huge penalty according to the old law, however, it is no longer sin with Christ. But Paul says that if you are in the company of those who are not Christians and they see you eating the food sacrificed to idols, it will be like you sinned to them as they will see you as an example. In a similar way, although drawing pictures of mohammed might not be a sin, it is a sin if you offend or hurt someone else's views. It is impossible to be completely devoid of offending people, but the goal again isn't to be perfect.
Islam on the other hand is a very militaristic religion. They must defend God in every aspect and all attacks on God should be punished. This in effect is saying that either 1. God cannot defend Himself. or 2. The muslim religion is very agressive and hostile.
You pee on a statue of Jesus. Christians pray for you. You draw a picture of Mohammed. Muslims try to kill you.
As far as law goes, the best approach to government is to pretend that religions don't exist. Governments shouldn't tolerate anything that is specifically pro-religious or anti-religious as far as anything they are involved in. As for private citizens, they can say whatever the heck they want. Freedom of speech is very important.
Just don't go looking for trouble, look at what people are ready to do because there religion got insulted. This really does not help the views of westerners towards Muslims if things like this keep on happening.
Why they think they need special treatment is beyond me. If any deeply religious person gets offended at such a portrayal or a relevant figure I question their beliefs. They must not be very confident in said beliefs if a stupid ass cartoon offends them that much. And come to think of it I don't think it offends them anyways. Just another scapegoat for them to justify their stupid actions.
The thing that cracks me up is that people leave everything else in the world to make fun of and just concentrate on making fun of other people's prophets xD. Seriously guys, there are lots of other stuff you can go make fun of these days, go crazy! But in the ideal world, I wouldn't want people to make fun of figures that are really important to a group of people. I mean in all honesty, Prophet Mohammed was a great PERSON. If you don't recognize him as a prophet, then at least respect his personality which was even respected by the people who opposed him at his time. I don't enjoy people making fun of these great people that tried to send a pure message like Jesus, Mohammed and Moses (The three biggest religions). Just because of how much good they contributed to the world. Just like I would not like people making fun of other great figures such as Ghandi. Well sure people joke about things all the time. What I am saying is using and depicting these people in very offensive way is not the right thing to do. If you are a sensible person at least. If only we respected everyone equally we wouldn't have been in this mess of a world we are in right now. But oh well, its too fun to give up right? *sigh*
Btw its not even about drawing Prophet Mohammed anymore now. Its all about, " Hey you , you dont like what I am drawing huh, and you are telling to stop? HA FUCK U!" People are just firing this up for the sake of firing this up. I bet if no one cared about the painting, that guy would have probably forgot about it and the whole world too. But the response that came back from everyone was honestly retarded. "Oh he made a picture of the prophet in a bad way huh, FUCK U, I BOMB U". If Prophet Mohammed was alive and this happened, he would have dealt with this in more calm and relaxing manner. He is not going to come to you and and start hitting you, no he wont.
On December 14 2010 06:24 DragoonPK wrote: Btw its not even about drawing Prophet Mohammed anymore now. Its all about, " Hey you , you dont like what I am drawing huh, and you are telling to stop? HA FUCK U!" People are just firing this up for the sake of firing this up. I bet if no one cared about the painting, that guy would have probably forgot about it and the whole world too. But the response that came back from everyone was honestly retarded. "Oh he made a picture of the prophet in a bad way huh, FUCK U, I BOMB U". If Prophet Mohammed was alive and this happened, he would have dealt with this in more calm and relaxing manner. He is not going to come to you and and start hitting you, no he wont.
He was also a military leader/judge... he might not have started hitting someone if it would just make them mad, but he might have hit them/or instructed them to be hit in certain circumstances.
(as would Moses... Jesus probably wouldn't, his mission wasn't governmental, but there was the incident at the temple)
I hate the line of thinking that freedoms should be absolute, and no amount of security is worth giving up the smallest amount of freedom. Of course you can draw a line, which is vague and in a gray area, but I'm sick of hearing the "slippery slope" line when sometimes you just have to deal with the goddamn slippery slope and not fall down it. If you somehow knew that by giving up your freedom of speech for 1 week would save the lives of 100,000 people that would otherwise be tortured and shot, would you do it? And then if the government forced you to acquiesce your freedom of speech for that one week, would you protest and break the freedom of speech and let the 100,000 die? I hope not. I'd give it up.
Just about that hardline thinking in general; no, I don't think they should listen whatsoever to this Mohommed bullshit.
Should grabbing a house and shooting a wasp's nest be illegal? No, dumbass who does it deserves his wasps / darwin award. Should grabbing a house and shooting a wasp's nest out front of an elementary school while children are all around be illegal? Yes.
If people want to do stupid things like invite the wraith of angry angry wasps, go ahead, but if you risk hurting innocent people, you should be punished accordingly.
On December 14 2010 06:20 DragoonPK wrote: The thing that cracks me up is that people leave everything else in the world to make fun of and just concentrate on making fun of other people's prophets xD. Seriously guys, there are lots of other stuff you can go make fun of these days, go crazy! But in the ideal world, I wouldn't want people to make fun of figures that are really important to a group of people. I mean in all honesty, Prophet Mohammed was a great PERSON. If you don't recognize him as a prophet, then at least respect his personality which was even respected by the people who opposed him at his time. I don't enjoy people making fun of these great people that tried to send a pure message like Jesus, Mohammed and Moses (The three biggest religions). Just because of how much good they contributed to the world. Just like I would not like people making fun of other great figures such as Ghandi. Well sure people joke about things all the time. What I am saying is using and depicting these people in very offensive way is not the right thing to do. If you are a sensible person at least. If only we respected everyone equally we wouldn't have been in this mess of a world we are in right now. But oh well, its too fun to give up right? *sigh*
Sure, because no one in the western world makes fun of anything else except religious figures, that's right...
Do you have any clue how rife the western world is with satire and mockery of all kinds? The question isn't what DO people make fun of, the question is what DON'T they make fun of, and the answer is NOTHING. And yet, some Muslims are WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER because their beloved icon gets treated the same way as EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.
He may be sacred to a lot of people, but he's not to me, and that's what this whole issue comes down to. If someone believes that's an offense worth killing me over, then that's very useful information for me to know.
On December 14 2010 06:24 DragoonPK wrote: Btw its not even about drawing Prophet Mohammed anymore now. Its all about, " Hey you , you dont like what I am drawing huh, and you are telling to stop? HA FUCK U!" People are just firing this up for the sake of firing this up. I bet if no one cared about the painting, that guy would have probably forgot about it and the whole world too. But the response that came back from everyone was honestly retarded. "Oh he made a picture of the prophet in a bad way huh, FUCK U, I BOMB U". If Prophet Mohammed was alive and this happened, he would have dealt with this in more calm and relaxing manner. He is not going to come to you and and start hitting you, no he wont.
He was also a military leader/judge... he might not have started hitting someone if it would just make them mad, but he might have hit them/or instructed them to be hit in certain circumstances.
(as would Moses... Jesus probably wouldn't, his mission wasn't governmental, but there was the incident at the temple)
A story: There was once a Jewish man living near Prophet Mohammed's house. The guy hated the prophet to death, he kept throwing animal remains infront of his house, throwing stones at him etc. (Basically stuff to bother the prophet as much as possible. One day this man got sick. So the prophet went to visit the guy. The guy asked, why the hell did you come visit me I try to make your life a misery everyday. The prophet replied by saying, " I didn't see you bothering me the past couple of days so I came to see if something wrong happened to you".
All in all this is just one case of how the prophet usually reacts to things against him. He was never an angry mindless killing machine some people accuses him and his religion of being.
Draw them, the man who drew the danish one didnt even intent them for being muhammed, just muslims.
the crisis the drawings "caused" was just the icing on the cake, the provocations the muslim world in the middle east had gone through, made it a ticking bomb, and the drawings were just the trigger to it.
If people want to do stupid things like invite the wraith of angry angry wasps, go ahead, but if you risk hurting innocent people, you should be punished accordingly.
Or if the "wasps" are against abortion and start bombing clinics? Some innocent bystanders might get hurt. Should we punish them for doing this potentially dangerous thing?
So if the "wasps" decide that it's not fine for me to eat meat and they start bombing mcdonalds? Should we shut down all Mcdonalds?
If the church of scientology decides that they'll blow up people who draw pandas because pandas are sacred, should we punish those who draw pandas and are therefore public dangers?
On December 14 2010 06:20 DragoonPK wrote: The thing that cracks me up is that people leave everything else in the world to make fun of and just concentrate on making fun of other people's prophets xD. Seriously guys, there are lots of other stuff you can go make fun of these days, go crazy! But in the ideal world, I wouldn't want people to make fun of figures that are really important to a group of people. I mean in all honesty, Prophet Mohammed was a great PERSON. If you don't recognize him as a prophet, then at least respect his personality which was even respected by the people who opposed him at his time. I don't enjoy people making fun of these great people that tried to send a pure message like Jesus, Mohammed and Moses (The three biggest religions). Just because of how much good they contributed to the world. Just like I would not like people making fun of other great figures such as Ghandi. Well sure people joke about things all the time. What I am saying is using and depicting these people in very offensive way is not the right thing to do. If you are a sensible person at least. If only we respected everyone equally we wouldn't have been in this mess of a world we are in right now. But oh well, its too fun to give up right? *sigh*
Sure, because no one in the western world makes fun of anything else except religious figures, that's right...
Do you have any clue how rife the western world is with satire and mockery of all kinds? The question isn't what DO people make fun of, the question is what DON'T they make fun of, and the answer is NOTHING. And yet, some Muslims are WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER because their beloved icon gets treated the same way as EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.
He may be sacred to a lot of people, but he's not to me, and that's what this whole issue comes down to. If someone believes that's an offense worth killing me over, then that's very useful information for me to know.
Hey dude. Chill, I wasn't saying that people should go crazy like they did. Thats totally wrong and retarded. What I am hoping for which is proper respect to each other, will never happen I guess. People always find new things to make fun of .
I can't feel sorry for Lars Vilks - he's just out to provoke and acts surprised when he gets a response. It's like strolling through Harlem in a KKK robe - sure you can do that but don't whining when you get your ass kicked.
On December 14 2010 06:41 Xinliben wrote: I just think of it like this.
Should grabbing a house and shooting a wasp's nest be illegal? No, dumbass who does it deserves his wasps / darwin award. Should grabbing a house and shooting a wasp's nest out front of an elementary school while children are all around be illegal? Yes.
If people want to do stupid things like invite the wraith of angry angry wasps, go ahead, but if you risk hurting innocent people, you should be punished accordingly.
Do remember verbal and physical assault are on different level. Even If someone swear and say awful things at you, but if you're the one who threw the first punch, you'll be in trouble.
I'm not saying the above is right, but things has different magnitude.
On December 14 2010 06:51 Longshank wrote: I can't feel sorry for Lars Vilks - he's just out to provoke and acts surprised when he gets a response. It's like strolling through Harlem in a KKK robe - sure you can do that but don't whining when you get your ass kicked.
Yeah provoking people should result in death threats, that's how it works in a progressive civilization.
Or it's proof that there's something seriously wrong with some idiots.
Lars vilks is an idiot and an asshole, and it's my right to voice my opinion on him ^_^. If you go beyond that you can fuck off, pipebombs or not i don't give a crap.
I took part in draw Muhammed day. Violence and threats will not stop freedom of speech and expression. The reason the drawing of Muhammed is forbidden is to prevent him being portrayed through any other means than the writing of the Qur'an in order to prevent people from using his image for any other purpose than expressed by his own writings. He wanted people to worship god, not him. I'm sure he would be turning in his grave if he saw Muslims threatening violence over cartoons, and the resulting division between people of different ideologies.
On December 14 2010 06:41 Xinliben wrote: I just think of it like this.
Should grabbing a house and shooting a wasp's nest be illegal? No, dumbass who does it deserves his wasps / darwin award. Should grabbing a house and shooting a wasp's nest out front of an elementary school while children are all around be illegal? Yes.
If people want to do stupid things like invite the wraith of angry angry wasps, go ahead, but if you risk hurting innocent people, you should be punished accordingly.
Should it be illegal for blacks visit a white establishment? No, If the KKK lynches them, that's the blacks problem
But what if the KKK starts lynching blacks that "know their place" because their neighbors got uppity? Or worse if the KKK starts attacking "decent white folks" that go to that establishment that allows blacks? Or even if the KKK starts attacking random people in this town because it allows whites+non-whites to visit the same establishment? Well for the safety of all concerned we should make it illegal for blacks and whites to mix.
Not to mention those Orientals.. we don't want any trouble, just ship them out somewhere.
Shooting the wasp's nest near an elementary school should not be banned if the entire country consists of elementary schools. Indeed it should probably be awarded... you get rid of a few wasps.
Now, if the situation were something like Nazi Germany demanding that Denmark hand over their Jews it Might be understandable, because Denmark could and was easily squashed by the Nazis, threatening their existence.
But in terms of threats to existence, the Muslim world... well I guss it could threaten Sweden, if the entire rest of the Western world ignored the situation... Quite frankly the "existence threat" goes the opposite way, the Western world is capable of eliminating the muslim world fairly easily (although with diplomatic consequences) but not the other way around.
It's not just the radicals that think/demand that no images of Muhammad be shown. It's intolerant as hell to demand that anyone else be required to follow the strictures of their religion in our Western societies.
If we publish pics of Muhammad in the same vein we see those of Jesus and Buddha et al, Muslim critics ought to just have to live with it.
If we can see a crucifix in a jar of urine we can treat Muhammad the same way.
The general attitude on TL seems to be: "Freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are justified limitations. At the same time, prohibitions on freedom of speech can go too far."
On December 14 2010 06:41 Xinliben wrote: I just think of it like this.
Should grabbing a house and shooting a wasp's nest be illegal? No, dumbass who does it deserves his wasps / darwin award. Should grabbing a house and shooting a wasp's nest out front of an elementary school while children are all around be illegal? Yes.
If people want to do stupid things like invite the wraith of angry angry wasps, go ahead, but if you risk hurting innocent people, you should be punished accordingly.
Do remember verbal and physical assault are on different level. Even If someone swear and say awful things at you, but if you're the one who threw the first punch, you'll be in trouble.
Not if you're at the point of harassing someone, or so the cop told me when I asked. If you're harassing someone you they effectively instigated it!
I'm all for safety at the expense of minor freedoms, but this would be going too far. Reason being, these people are committing acts of terror in the name of propagating their religion, so even considering forcing non-adherents to bow to one of their arbitrary rules would be considered a major victory for religious extremism and terrorism as a whole.
On December 14 2010 04:29 darmousseh wrote: There is absolutely no reason anyone should ever be prohibited from doing anything they like.
I'm sure you didn't really think about writing this down but you really should refrain from making such a huge retarded statement. No reason anyone should ever be prohibited from doing anything just because they like it? Murder, rape, hard drugs are all just fine and good cause the user liked it? Pretty dumb.
The only controversial aspect of the free speech debate is the line of a reasonable limit. Anything in excess is bad.
On December 14 2010 00:48 DND_Enkil wrote: I try to look at it differently, for me religion is not a fail-safe agaisnt anything or an excuse agaisnt anything either.
It is not "should it be allowed to draw Muhammed?"
It is "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
Was all the comic drawings about Clinton that circulated around the Lewinsky-time offensive to him? Yeah probably, but it should still not be against the law to make them.
In my opinion Muslims need to get off thier high horse, it is a shit world and you live in it like the rest of us, dont expect to be the only one one walking around without stains on your clothes. I see no point in making an exeption for you because you are upset about it, i have seen things that upset me aswell but i dont martyr myself because of it. I swallow the nice stinking coctail and move on.
Funny that you say the following: "why should it be allowed to draw everything exept Muhammed?"
You know...In Islam, it's generally not a good thing to draw any of the prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham). In fact, I don't EVER recall seeing a muslim representation of Jesus or a cartoon parody of the prophets drawn by a muslim in a newspaper or anything of the like. I might be wrong but those things are usually condemned. So it's not as though the Muslims are ASKING for it.
Also, I really like how everyone here is all for freedom of speech and how they love hiding behind its silky veil after insulting others for no valid reason. What are you saying? That it's fine to baselessly insult Jesus and other prophets like Muhammed for the sake of "humour" and then run back and hide behind the freedom of speech cloak? Please...I find it very unclassy for ANYONE to randomly insult someone else's religion or belief. This type of thing should NOT be supported. Of course, the retards at the other end (aka the terrorists) are looking for an excuse as well but I say, instead of pissing them off, we kill them off...But that's another topic that I don't want to get into right now.
With that being said, all you freedom of speech people need to get off that pony of yours and smell the roses. EVERYTHING has its limits...Including freedom of speech.
Except government authority. Anyone being "unclassy" must be arrested immediately. The precise definition of the term "unclassy" shall remain open for the judge to decide. The bureaucracy shall dictate just whom the police will go about arresting, and shall do so under the direction of the Fuhrer, who also controls the Judges, because he can simply have them arrested for being "unclassy".
You can't compare current radical Muslim extremism with current Christianity and use what if arguments. Look back several centuries to Christian extremism, even during the beginning of the USA. Difference? No IEDs.
People questioned the church, only questioned it, and they were killed or imprisoned. So now, after centuries of critiquing and then mocking the church and we're past those dark times, I'm extremely happy that I didn't have to live through those times.
Does it mean the entire world needs to have pictures of the prophet up everywhere? No. Should people keep drawing them though? To be honest, yes. It's insensitive, but, on the one hand, you need to weed out the extremists, and two, when people make it a point not to draw the prophet(s), you know it's out of respect, not fear, which is what they're searching for in the first place.
It's Sweden we're talking about, so they'll probably make drawing Muhammad punishable by death in a decade or so. It seems like Swedes on the internet are always the first to defend Muslim extremists because someone "hurt their feelings" and therefore "deserved it".
Very sad to see something like this happening to Sweden.
On December 14 2010 07:26 Hinanawi wrote: It's Sweden we're talking about, so they'll probably make drawing Muhammad punishable by death in a decade or so. It seems like Swedes on the internet are always the first to defend Muslim extremists because someone "hurt their feelings" and therefore "deserved it".
Very sad to see something like this happening to Sweden.
What.. No one is defending muslim extremists. You must be thinking of muslim moderates?
Oh and no I don't think we should be restricting free speech as requested by some group of people. That would mean restricting a whole lot more than just against drawing profets or w/e.
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world? By saying "Many countries have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" do you mean that all the Islam religion and Muslims are terrorists just because of the doing of some retarded suicide bomber who thought he is something but really he isn't and he deserved to die? if you are then you've got serious problems, every single country and religion has some fucked up people! you cant judge everyone by the doing of one person. I'm not going to argue about this here because I'm easily out numbered... but seriously! grow the fuck up!.
User was temp banned for this post.
User was temp banned for this post.
Religion is one thing but this is a world of many religions, thousands of different religions and cult groups exist today. The simple question is why do Terrorists care about a cartoon maker? I mean its not like they have to watch the cartoons, they are crude forms of a joke and it makes me LOL that people think its a bad thing to joke about something. Also i am Christian and i dont think ide give a shit if some one made a cartoon Bashing Jesus.. cus wait, is it? o thats right its a fucken cartoon...
On December 14 2010 04:29 darmousseh wrote: There is absolutely no reason anyone should ever be prohibited from doing anything they like.
I'm sure you didn't really think about writing this down but you really should refrain from making such a huge retarded statement. No reason anyone should ever be prohibited from doing anything just because they like it? Murder, rape, hard drugs are all just fine and good cause the user liked it? Pretty dumb.
The only controversial aspect of the free speech debate is the line of a reasonable limit. Anything in excess is bad.
I thought the same thing, but realized he just wasn't thinking before he posted^^.
On December 14 2010 07:26 Hinanawi wrote: It's Sweden we're talking about, so they'll probably make drawing Muhammad punishable by death in a decade or so. It seems like Swedes on the internet are always the first to defend Muslim extremists because someone "hurt their feelings" and therefore "deserved it".
Very sad to see something like this happening to Sweden.
What.. No one is defending muslim extremists. You must be thinking of muslim moderates?
Oh and no I don't think we should be restricting free speech as requested by some group of people. That would mean restricting a whole lot more than just against drawing profets or w/e.
As far as I'm concerned, any Muslim who thinks drawing Muhammad should be illegal is an extremist.
Sweden is getting muslimized, too high imigration-numbers in combination with bad assimilation equals terrorist-attacks like the first we experienced the 11th of December 2010 in Stockholm.
On December 14 2010 07:26 Hinanawi wrote: It's Sweden we're talking about, so they'll probably make drawing Muhammad punishable by death in a decade or so. It seems like Swedes on the internet are always the first to defend Muslim extremists because someone "hurt their feelings" and therefore "deserved it".
Very sad to see something like this happening to Sweden.
What.. No one is defending muslim extremists. You must be thinking of muslim moderates?
Oh and no I don't think we should be restricting free speech as requested by some group of people. That would mean restricting a whole lot more than just against drawing profets or w/e.
As far as I'm concerned, any Muslim who thinks drawing Muhammad should be illegal is an extremist.
That's pretty absurd.. People want all kinds of stupid shit to be illegalized. The term extremism refers to the actions of a group of people of a certain ideology, religion or whatever, and thoughts are not actions.
With resolutions such as these, I'm not surprised. Sure, you can insult somebody on politics, ethics, morals, etc, but when it comes to religion (which usually affects the beliefs of the preceding), we have to be "considerate".
My right to draw a picture of Old Gods, or to make fun of older religions with silly practices, is definitely a freedom of speech. The only difference is there are no Roman Pagans, Aztecs, or the like left alive to raise such a silly fuss about it.
On December 14 2010 03:15 inlagdsil wrote: I think it comes down to this: the threat of violence cannot be a good reason to limit free speech. Freedom of expression means that one group can tell you that they don't like what you're doing. It doesn't mean that they can shut you up by threatening to kill you.
I found this picture in the Random pics that make you laugh thread: Anti-semitic pictures like the one on the left abound in the Muslim world. By the standards of those who would say that Sweden should not allow people to draw Mohammed, not only would only the left picture be tolerated, but the guy who drew this comic would be persecuted. Just think of the irony if people went after this artist for drawing Mohammed!
Here's an example of an anti-semitic comic in the style of the one parodied up there. It comes from an Egyptian newspaper. I'm putting it here as an illustration of my point, obviously I don't agree with it: + Show Spoiler +
Not to say i agree with these pics. I just don't like ppl who hate period. But this is a lot different than attacking a phrophet. I just fear that this will escalate even more. Didn't they use to draw jews and mock them in Germany. And then it escalated to killing them?
On December 14 2010 03:15 inlagdsil wrote: I think it comes down to this: the threat of violence cannot be a good reason to limit free speech. Freedom of expression means that one group can tell you that they don't like what you're doing. It doesn't mean that they can shut you up by threatening to kill you.
I found this picture in the Random pics that make you laugh thread: Anti-semitic pictures like the one on the left abound in the Muslim world. By the standards of those who would say that Sweden should not allow people to draw Mohammed, not only would only the left picture be tolerated, but the guy who drew this comic would be persecuted. Just think of the irony if people went after this artist for drawing Mohammed!
Here's an example of an anti-semitic comic in the style of the one parodied up there. It comes from an Egyptian newspaper. I'm putting it here as an illustration of my point, obviously I don't agree with it: + Show Spoiler +
Not to say i agree with these pics. I just don't like ppl who hate period. But this is a lot different than attacking a phrophet. I just fear that this will escalate even more. Didn't they use to draw jews and mock them in Germany. And then it escalated to killing them?
Yes, I know it would be horrible if the Swedes killed Muhammed... (perhaps the Muslims are worried about swedish time travel research)
On December 14 2010 06:20 DragoonPK wrote: The thing that cracks me up is that people leave everything else in the world to make fun of and just concentrate on making fun of other people's prophets xD. Seriously guys, there are lots of other stuff you can go make fun of these days, go crazy! But in the ideal world, I wouldn't want people to make fun of figures that are really important to a group of people. I mean in all honesty, Prophet Mohammed was a great PERSON. If you don't recognize him as a prophet, then at least respect his personality which was even respected by the people who opposed him at his time. I don't enjoy people making fun of these great people that tried to send a pure message like Jesus, Mohammed and Moses (The three biggest religions). Just because of how much good they contributed to the world. Just like I would not like people making fun of other great figures such as Ghandi. Well sure people joke about things all the time. What I am saying is using and depicting these people in very offensive way is not the right thing to do. If you are a sensible person at least. If only we respected everyone equally we wouldn't have been in this mess of a world we are in right now. But oh well, its too fun to give up right? *sigh*
Sure, because no one in the western world makes fun of anything else except religious figures, that's right...
Do you have any clue how rife the western world is with satire and mockery of all kinds? The question isn't what DO people make fun of, the question is what DON'T they make fun of, and the answer is NOTHING. And yet, some Muslims are WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER because their beloved icon gets treated the same way as EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.
He may be sacred to a lot of people, but he's not to me, and that's what this whole issue comes down to. If someone believes that's an offense worth killing me over, then that's very useful information for me to know.
Hey dude. Chill, I wasn't saying that people should go crazy like they did. Thats totally wrong and retarded. What I am hoping for which is proper respect to each other, will never happen I guess. People always find new things to make fun of .
Look, I'm not trying to piss you off, but this is just not a subject that can be put to rest with a "chill, dude." The simple fact is there are certain elements within Islam that are provoked by this stuff, and we NEED TO PROVOKE THEM. That's the only way they'll be brought out into the open so they can be destroyed. Whether that destruction is brought about by pressure from within the Muslim community or at the end of a US missile is up to the Muslims of the world.
On December 14 2010 06:20 DragoonPK wrote: The thing that cracks me up is that people leave everything else in the world to make fun of and just concentrate on making fun of other people's prophets xD. Seriously guys, there are lots of other stuff you can go make fun of these days, go crazy! But in the ideal world, I wouldn't want people to make fun of figures that are really important to a group of people. I mean in all honesty, Prophet Mohammed was a great PERSON. If you don't recognize him as a prophet, then at least respect his personality which was even respected by the people who opposed him at his time. I don't enjoy people making fun of these great people that tried to send a pure message like Jesus, Mohammed and Moses (The three biggest religions). Just because of how much good they contributed to the world. Just like I would not like people making fun of other great figures such as Ghandi. Well sure people joke about things all the time. What I am saying is using and depicting these people in very offensive way is not the right thing to do. If you are a sensible person at least. If only we respected everyone equally we wouldn't have been in this mess of a world we are in right now. But oh well, its too fun to give up right? *sigh*
Sure, because no one in the western world makes fun of anything else except religious figures, that's right...
Do you have any clue how rife the western world is with satire and mockery of all kinds? The question isn't what DO people make fun of, the question is what DON'T they make fun of, and the answer is NOTHING. And yet, some Muslims are WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER because their beloved icon gets treated the same way as EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.
He may be sacred to a lot of people, but he's not to me, and that's what this whole issue comes down to. If someone believes that's an offense worth killing me over, then that's very useful information for me to know.
Hey dude. Chill, I wasn't saying that people should go crazy like they did. Thats totally wrong and retarded. What I am hoping for which is proper respect to each other, will never happen I guess. People always find new things to make fun of .
Look, I'm not trying to piss you off, but this is just not a subject that can be put to rest with a "chill, dude." The simple fact is there are certain elements within Islam that are provoked by this stuff, and we NEED TO PROVOKE THEM. That's the only way they'll be brought out into the open so they can be destroyed. Whether that destruction is brought about by pressure from within the Muslim community or at the end of a US missile is up to the Muslims of the world.
You sir, are the one of the reasons I doubt the validity of free speech.
This is a very complex issue that we are only looking at one very small tip of. I can understand where they want to stop this trend. I don't think they want to wait to see these cartoons degenerate into something like Jesus Christ superstar or Monty Python 's Holy Grail, or Madonna being a popstar that dresses and acts like a hooker. I can only say at this time that if we respect these people, their religion, and their countries we can get less violence not more. On the other side of the coin I'll admit I'm ignorant on why a cartoon is so blasphmous (sp) that someone would give their life(s) over it. It seems this is only the straw that broke the camels back.
It's just dumb, radical muslims should really grow some thicker skin, or better yet they should just grow up and stop thinking that their imaginary friend is worth more than other people's imaginary friends.
On December 14 2010 08:29 Persev wrote: This is a very complex issue that we are only looking at one very small tip of. I can understand where they want to stop this trend. I don't think they want to wait to see these cartoons degenerate into something like Jesus Christ superstar or Monty Python 's Holy Grail, or Madonna being a popstar that dresses and acts like a hooker. I can only say at this time that if we respect these people, their religion, and their countries we can get less violence not more. On the other side of the coin I'll admit I'm ignorant on why a cartoon is so blasphmous (sp) that someone would give their life(s) over it. It seems this is only the straw that broke the camels back.
The reason why is because certain Islamic leaders use fundamentalist Islam as a tool to gain power. They want to rile up other Muslims and incite them for their own power struggle. The Denmark cartoon incident is a prime example.+ Show Spoiler +
Two imams who had been granted sanctuary in Denmark, dissatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten, created a dossier containing a forty-three-page document entitled "Dossier about championing the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him."[30] This consisted of several letters from Muslim organisations explaining their case including allegations of the mistreatment of Danish Muslims, citing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (including the false claim that said publication was a government-run newspaper) and further containing the following causes of "pain and torment" for the authors: Pictures from another Danish newspaper, Weekendavisen, which they called "even more offending" (than the original 12 cartoons); Hate-mail pictures and letters that the dossier's authors alleged were sent to Muslims in Denmark, said to be indicative of the rejection of Muslims by the Danish; A televised interview discussing Islam with Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Hirsi Ali, who had received the Freedom Prize "for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women" from the Danish Liberal Party represented by Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Appended to the dossier were multiple clippings from Jyllands-Posten, multiple clippings from Weekendavisen, some clippings from Arabic-language papers and three additional images which also had no connection with Denmark.
This picture of a French pig-squealing contestant was unrelated to the Muhammed drawings, but was included in the imams' dossier. Original caption included in the dossier: "Her er det rigtige billede af Muhammed", meaning "Here is the real image of Muhammad."[31] The imams claimed that the three additional images were sent anonymously by mail to Muslims who were participating in an online debate on Jyllands-Posten,[32] and were apparently included to illustrate the perceived atmosphere of Islamophobia in which they lived.[33] On 1 February BBC World incorrectly reported that one of them had been published in Jyllands-Posten.[34] This image was later found[35] to be a wire-service photo of a contestant at a French pig-squealing contest in the Trie-sur-Baise's annual festival.[36] One of the other two additional images (a photo) portrayed a Muslim being mounted by a dog while praying, and the other (a cartoon) portrayed Muhammad as a demonic paedophile. Equipped with the dossier, the two imams circulated it throughout the Muslim world, presenting their case to many influential religious and political leaders, asking for support.[37] The dossier[30] contained such statements as the following: We urge you [recipient of the letter or dossier] to — on the behalf of thousands of believing Muslims — to give us the opportunity of having a constructive contact with the press and particularly with the relevant decision makers, not briefly, but with a scientific methodology and a planned and long-term programme seeking to make views approach each other and remove misunderstandings between the two parties involved. Since we do not wish for Muslims to be accused of being backward and narrow, likewise we do not wish for Danes to be accused of ideological arrogance either. When this relationship is back on its track, the result will bring satisfaction, an underpinning of security and the stable relations, and a flourishing Denmark for all that live here. The faithful in their religion (Muslims) suffer under a number of circumstances, first and foremost the lack of official recognition of the Islamic faith. This has led to a lot of problems, especially the lack of right to build mosques [...] Even though they [the Danes] belong to the Christian faith, the secularizations have overcome them, and if you say that they are all infidels, then you are not wrong. We [Muslims] do not need lessons in democracy, but it is actually us, who through our deeds and speeches educate the whole world in democracy. This [Europe's] dictatorial way of using democracy is completely unacceptable. The inclusion in the dossier of the cartoons from Weekendavisen was possibly a misunderstanding, as these were more likely intended as parodies of the pompousness of Jyllands-Posten's cartoons than as comments on Muhammad in their own right.[38] They consist of reproductions of works such as the Mona Lisa (caption: For centuries, a previously unknown society has known that this is a painting of the Prophet, and guarded this secret. The back page's anonymous artist is doing everything he can to reveal this secret in his contribution. He has since then been forced to go underground, fearing for the wrath of a crazy albino imam). This is a parody of the Da Vinci Code. At a 6 December 2005 summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), with many heads of state in attendance, the dossier was handed around on the sidelines first,[39] and eventually an official communiqué was issued, demanding that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark.[40]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
People seem so touchy feely about religion and Islam in particular. If some one thinks that they should kill them self and take the lives of others because a picture was drawn, OF ANY THING, they are unfit to live in civilized society.
Persev, this is not a complex issue. There are people out there willing to kill other people because a picture was drawn of their god. Its not complex, its insanity. Muslim extremism makes me sick.
I am an atheist and i do not hold grudges against whatever religion people choose they all deserve a fair go.
But when threatening to kill people over a cartoon image depicted of their prophet, that is a bit too far.
They can do whatever they want slag on everyone and threaten whoever they like for whatever small reason they have but as soon as another religion reacts or replies it is death threats everywhere.
On December 14 2010 06:44 DragoonPK wrote: A story: There was once a Jewish man living near Prophet Mohammed's house. The guy hated the prophet to death, he kept throwing animal remains infront of his house, throwing stones at him etc. (Basically stuff to bother the prophet as much as possible. One day this man got sick. So the prophet went to visit the guy. The guy asked, why the hell did you come visit me I try to make your life a misery everyday. The prophet replied by saying, " I didn't see you bothering me the past couple of days so I came to see if something wrong happened to you".
All in all this is just one case of how the prophet usually reacts to things against him. He was never an angry mindless killing machine some people accuses him and his religion of being.
It's always funny to see people quoting the early parts of the Qu'ran, back before muhammad had an army and was massively out numbered by the jewish population. Once he had his first army (which is also when the Islamic calendar starts) is when muhammad begins taking a slightly different approach towards anyone not muslim. You also ignore abrogated parts of the qu'ran and quote them as if they are at all relevant and not abolished.
On December 14 2010 06:44 DragoonPK wrote: A story: There was once a Jewish man living near Prophet Mohammed's house. The guy hated the prophet to death, he kept throwing animal remains infront of his house, throwing stones at him etc. (Basically stuff to bother the prophet as much as possible. One day this man got sick. So the prophet went to visit the guy. The guy asked, why the hell did you come visit me I try to make your life a misery everyday. The prophet replied by saying, " I didn't see you bothering me the past couple of days so I came to see if something wrong happened to you".
All in all this is just one case of how the prophet usually reacts to things against him. He was never an angry mindless killing machine some people accuses him and his religion of being.
It's always funny to see people quoting the early parts of the Qu'ran, back before muhammad had an army and was massively out numbered by the jewish population. Once he had his first army (which is also when the Islamic calendar starts) is when muhammad begins taking a slightly different approach towards anyone not muslim. You also ignore abrogated parts of the qu'ran and quote them as if they are at all relevant and not abolished.
Must be nice to live in western society where people defend your right to say things like "Death to those who say Islam is violent". But draw a picture of the Islamic prophet..... oh man, now that's crossing the line...
On December 14 2010 07:45 TheOvermind77 wrote: With resolutions such as these, I'm not surprised. Sure, you can insult somebody on politics, ethics, morals, etc, but when it comes to religion (which usually affects the beliefs of the preceding), we have to be "considerate".
My right to draw a picture of Old Gods, or to make fun of older religions with silly practices, is definitely a freedom of speech. The only difference is there are no Roman Pagans, Aztecs, or the like left alive to raise such a silly fuss about it.
Why should we be considerate of others religions? because it is the "right" thing to do? i say bull shit! making fun of some ones politics, ethics, morals would be the same thing as making fun or "insulting" their religion ... has no difference what so ever. An Insult is an Insult....if you cant take the joke don't read into it, the threats they issued over these drawings are retarded and not even warranted...Its like threatening that 8 year old kid at school to shut his mouth or you'll beat him...they are not going to listen .. also if the pictures/drawings stop that just lets them all know they can bully around any one they want and they will take advantage of that if the sweeds give in, youll start seeing more and more OMG THATS AGIANST MY RELIGION IT HAS TO BE TAKEN DOWN!
On December 14 2010 06:20 DragoonPK wrote: The thing that cracks me up is that people leave everything else in the world to make fun of and just concentrate on making fun of other people's prophets xD. Seriously guys, there are lots of other stuff you can go make fun of these days, go crazy! But in the ideal world, I wouldn't want people to make fun of figures that are really important to a group of people. I mean in all honesty, Prophet Mohammed was a great PERSON. If you don't recognize him as a prophet, then at least respect his personality which was even respected by the people who opposed him at his time. I don't enjoy people making fun of these great people that tried to send a pure message like Jesus, Mohammed and Moses (The three biggest religions). Just because of how much good they contributed to the world. Just like I would not like people making fun of other great figures such as Ghandi. Well sure people joke about things all the time. What I am saying is using and depicting these people in very offensive way is not the right thing to do. If you are a sensible person at least. If only we respected everyone equally we wouldn't have been in this mess of a world we are in right now. But oh well, its too fun to give up right? *sigh*
Sure, because no one in the western world makes fun of anything else except religious figures, that's right...
Do you have any clue how rife the western world is with satire and mockery of all kinds? The question isn't what DO people make fun of, the question is what DON'T they make fun of, and the answer is NOTHING. And yet, some Muslims are WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER because their beloved icon gets treated the same way as EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD.
He may be sacred to a lot of people, but he's not to me, and that's what this whole issue comes down to. If someone believes that's an offense worth killing me over, then that's very useful information for me to know.
Hey dude. Chill, I wasn't saying that people should go crazy like they did. Thats totally wrong and retarded. What I am hoping for which is proper respect to each other, will never happen I guess. People always find new things to make fun of .
Look, I'm not trying to piss you off, but this is just not a subject that can be put to rest with a "chill, dude." The simple fact is there are certain elements within Islam that are provoked by this stuff, and we NEED TO PROVOKE THEM. That's the only way they'll be brought out into the open so they can be destroyed. Whether that destruction is brought about by pressure from within the Muslim community or at the end of a US missile is up to the Muslims of the world.
You sir, are the one of the reasons I doubt the validity of free speech.
I have to assume the word you meant to use was "benefit" or "logic", not "validity" here, correct? If so, and you don't understand why free speech is so important, then it's rather important you educate yourself. Since it's the basis of the entirety of western culture, it's kinda important you understand.
And it's exactly that freedom that you are being asked to give up, hell, that you seem to be WILLING to give up, just for the sake of not pissing off some assholes. That's what you are suggesting in your little "100,000 people" hypothetical from a page back. Unfortunately, your thought experiment is utterly worthless since this is not a question of giving anything up for "1 week", this is giving it up forever. What's more, there's a difference between being forced to do something and being a willing participant. In this real world situation, it appears you would be a willing participant in the loss of your own freedom.
You're suggesting we should dictate by law what people can and cannot say, because what they say might piss off some homicidal maniacs.
Really? Are you really so afraid of some lunatic strapping a bomb to himself that you would forfeit the underpinnings of all of western culture just to be safe from it?
If you can't understand the problem with that, move to North Korea, they'll show you pretty quickly the value of freedom of speech.
On December 14 2010 09:18 preacha wrote: i get that "freedom of speech" is important - but, you have to think of the consequence(sp?) when doing something like that.
...i would rather have a "prohibition" instead of violence.
Ban these cartoons and these people will find something else to blow themselves up over. Restriction on free speech will not change the fact that there are warped people who want to kill you because you don't subjugate yourself to their fucked up interpretation of Islam.
On December 14 2010 10:06 P00RKID wrote: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
On December 14 2010 07:45 TheOvermind77 wrote: With resolutions such as these, I'm not surprised. Sure, you can insult somebody on politics, ethics, morals, etc, but when it comes to religion (which usually affects the beliefs of the preceding), we have to be "considerate".
My right to draw a picture of Old Gods, or to make fun of older religions with silly practices, is definitely a freedom of speech. The only difference is there are no Roman Pagans, Aztecs, or the like left alive to raise such a silly fuss about it.
Why should we be considerate of others religions? because it is the "right" thing to do? i say bull shit! making fun of some ones politics, ethics, morals would be the same thing as making fun or "insulting" their religion ... has no difference what so ever. An Insult is an Insult....if you cant take the joke don't read into it, the threats they issued over these drawings are retarded and not even warranted...Its like threatening that 8 year old kid at school to shut his mouth or you'll beat him...they are not going to listen .. also if the pictures/drawings stop that just lets them all know they can bully around any one they want and they will take advantage of that if the sweeds give in, youll start seeing more and more OMG THATS AGIANST MY RELIGION IT HAS TO BE TAKEN DOWN!
I think you misunderstood. I put "considerate" in quotations. And we do belittle old religions. That's my point. I see no problem with doing that to the current ones, and not doing so, especially when they warrant it, is hypocrisy. We SHOULD be able to insult religion as much as politics, ethics, and morals. Especially when they have a track record of performing some of the most disgusting acts in all of human history.
And to be clear, this isn't just an Islam thing. Christians recently went berserk a movie shown at the Smithsonian that depicted a rotting cross. This video was made by an artist who died from AIDS, a disease which Catholics in particular have helped to spread all across Africa despite the works of medical professionals to encourage the use of condoms. The Smithsonian had it removed.
Apparently, the religious think that they should have the right to say whatever they want but when someone says something that might offend them, HANDS OFF!
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 have got a point there, but sorry if I focus on this specific issue and lask you this: why should I, a non-Muslim individual who does not agree with this specific Islamic dogma, not act to show my disagreement? Why should I care about people getting offended by something that is a matter of opinion?
The thing is, I personally am not asking anyone to care its really up to you. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of complete freedom of speech which a lot of people preach from the West. They preach human right violations in China yet they have guantanamo bay right in their backdoor. They talk about Taliban monsters, yet they've killed over 2 million muslims, scratch that 2 million terrorists since 9/11 according to them. Its sad how repetitive history is. Just a few centuries ago, the aborigines/blacks/native American Indians were the savages and the Europeans felt the need to save them by making them civil by completely destroying them. As much as I'd like this West-Islam tension to cool down and go down a peaceful road, I honestly believe it isn't going to happen.
As sad as this sounds, I think this is just going to lead to something as big as the fight for black rights/jews during the holocaust, if not bigger before its ever resolved.
i don't really see the point in agitating something which you know is going to bite back hard. people that draw comics of muhammad are obviously trying to provoke a response.
On December 14 2010 01:08 PlaKen wrote: Also, I really like how everyone here is all for freedom of speech and how they love hiding behind its silky veil after insulting others for no valid reason. What are you saying? That it's fine to baselessly insult Jesus and other prophets like Muhammed for the sake of "humour" and then run back and hide behind the freedom of speech cloak? Please...I find it very unclassy for ANYONE to randomly insult someone else's religion or belief. This type of thing should NOT be supported. Of course, the retards at the other end (aka the terrorists) are looking for an excuse as well but I say, instead of pissing them off, we kill them off...But that's another topic that I don't want to get into right now.
With that being said, all you freedom of speech people need to get off that pony of yours and smell the roses. EVERYTHING has its limits...Including freedom of speech.
That it's fine to baselessly insult Jesus and other prophets like Muhammed for the sake of "humour" and then run back and hide behind the freedom of speech cloak?
by default.. yes simply because if you start putting up blocks you will come to see that about every joke that involves humans/human behavior will be insulting so someone. How many parodies of the steriotypical gay man have you seen? plenty? insulting to gay people? yup.... funny as hell though... would religious jokes count higher than ethnic or sexual behavior jokes? Everything can be funny.. the pictures are not realy my taste but i can see some comedic value. as a legend said.. Everything can be funny, its all in where the exaggeration is, every joke has atleast one For another example where the topic is probably volatile.. Rape! Rape can be funny! just picture porky pig raping Elmer Fudd (george carlin) why do you think they call him porky?
(for those who know enough to understand it) I'm from northern norway... but i live in the south... I get jokes about northerners every damn day but i dont go blowing people up.. instead i use the good old "eye for eye.. arrow for a arrow" and retaliate with my own about southerners
I should be allowed to say anything i want.. you should be allowed to say anything you want.. but be careful not to cross into the area where you force people to listen.. if people dont like what you say.. they are fully allowed to ignore you and keep going.. if you stop them from avoiding you, thats bordering into harrsement/bullying.. legal against workers.. not against people
On December 14 2010 07:45 TheOvermind77 wrote: With resolutions such as these, I'm not surprised. Sure, you can insult somebody on politics, ethics, morals, etc, but when it comes to religion (which usually affects the beliefs of the preceding), we have to be "considerate".
My right to draw a picture of Old Gods, or to make fun of older religions with silly practices, is definitely a freedom of speech. The only difference is there are no Roman Pagans, Aztecs, or the like left alive to raise such a silly fuss about it.
Why should we be considerate of others religions? because it is the "right" thing to do? i say bull shit! making fun of some ones politics, ethics, morals would be the same thing as making fun or "insulting" their religion ... has no difference what so ever. An Insult is an Insult....if you cant take the joke don't read into it, the threats they issued over these drawings are retarded and not even warranted...Its like threatening that 8 year old kid at school to shut his mouth or you'll beat him...they are not going to listen .. also if the pictures/drawings stop that just lets them all know they can bully around any one they want and they will take advantage of that if the sweeds give in, youll start seeing more and more OMG THATS AGIANST MY RELIGION IT HAS TO BE TAKEN DOWN!
I think you misunderstood. I put "considerate" in quotations. And we do belittle old religions. That's my point. I see no problem with doing that to the current ones, and not doing so, especially when they warrant it, is hypocrisy. We SHOULD be able to insult religion as much as politics, ethics, and morals. Especially when they have a track record of performing some of the most disgusting acts in all of human history.
And to be clear, this isn't just an Islam thing. Christians recently went berserk a movie shown at the Smithsonian that depicted a rotting cross. This video was made by an artist who died from AIDS, a disease which Catholics in particular have helped to spread all across Africa despite the works of medical professionals to encourage the use of condoms. The Smithsonian had it removed.
Apparently, the religious think that they should have the right to say whatever they want but when someone says something that might offend them, HANDS OFF!
hehe yeah just from one series we get that the norse gods are little grey dudes.. while the egyptian gods and the devil is simply a worm that has taken a human as a host
Canada does not have an unbreakable freedom of speech; in fact all of the rights guaranteed in the Charter can be overlooked in certain circumstances.
That being said, protection of religious sanctity should not be one of those circumstances. A person's speech should not be restricted simply because it violates the moral code of a certain religion, because there are a hell of a lot of religions out there and (considering the way the Canadian judiciary works) if you appease one, you have to appease them all out of a sense of equality.
On December 14 2010 07:45 TheOvermind77 wrote: With resolutions such as these, I'm not surprised. Sure, you can insult somebody on politics, ethics, morals, etc, but when it comes to religion (which usually affects the beliefs of the preceding), we have to be "considerate".
My right to draw a picture of Old Gods, or to make fun of older religions with silly practices, is definitely a freedom of speech. The only difference is there are no Roman Pagans, Aztecs, or the like left alive to raise such a silly fuss about it.
Why should we be considerate of others religions? because it is the "right" thing to do? i say bull shit! making fun of some ones politics, ethics, morals would be the same thing as making fun or "insulting" their religion ... has no difference what so ever. An Insult is an Insult....if you cant take the joke don't read into it, the threats they issued over these drawings are retarded and not even warranted...Its like threatening that 8 year old kid at school to shut his mouth or you'll beat him...they are not going to listen .. also if the pictures/drawings stop that just lets them all know they can bully around any one they want and they will take advantage of that if the sweeds give in, youll start seeing more and more OMG THATS AGIANST MY RELIGION IT HAS TO BE TAKEN DOWN!
I think you misunderstood. I put "considerate" in quotations. And we do belittle old religions. That's my point. I see no problem with doing that to the current ones, and not doing so, especially when they warrant it, is hypocrisy. We SHOULD be able to insult religion as much as politics, ethics, and morals. Especially when they have a track record of performing some of the most disgusting acts in all of human history.
And to be clear, this isn't just an Islam thing. Christians recently went berserk a movie shown at the Smithsonian that depicted a rotting cross. This video was made by an artist who died from AIDS, a disease which Catholics in particular have helped to spread all across Africa despite the works of medical professionals to encourage the use of condoms. The Smithsonian had it removed.
Apparently, the religious think that they should have the right to say whatever they want but when someone says something that might offend them, HANDS OFF!
Very nice post, can't agree more. As the 'four horsemen of atheism' commonly argue (notably Dawkins), it has never been more pressing than now to break down the perception that any religion is above criticism.
I live in a muslim majority country, and I have to say that all of my muslim collegues wants Bush dead, cartoon drawers dead and jews dead.
This is what most moderate muslims supports and thinks. Most notably is they want jews out of this world. and the extremist are the ones that does the works.
I live in a muslim majority country, and I have to say that all of my muslim collegues wants Bush dead, cartoon drawers dead and jews dead.
This is what most moderate muslims supports and thinks. Most notably is they want jews out of this world. and the extremist are the ones that does the works.
Is this really true? If so, it is quite disturbing. Everybody is saying it's only a small percent, but when is the last time you saw a majority movement by muslims to protest the violence against caricatures and the sort? If muslims feel the danish incident was an overreaction, they're doing a bad job showing it.
I live in a muslim majority country, and I have to say that all of my muslim collegues wants Bush dead, cartoon drawers dead and jews dead.
This is what most moderate muslims supports and thinks. Most notably is they want jews out of this world. and the extremist are the ones that does the works.
Is this really true? If so, it is quite disturbing. Everybody is saying it's only a small percent, but when is the last time you saw a majority movement by muslims to protest the violence against caricatures and the sort? If muslims feel the danish incident was an overreaction, they're doing a bad job showing it.
Well you don't have to worry about this because moderates won't do any harm they just voice on their opinion. It's the extremist the ones to be feared.
I understand the moderates won't harm anybody, but they haven't spoken out against the harm either. My point is, if they want people to accept them as peaceful, where is their majority voice speaking out against these crimes? As far as I know they don't. So until they do, I'm going to assume they're either FOR the violence, or just plain apathetic, both of which are equally fatal.
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world? By saying "Many countries have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" do you mean that all the Islam religion and Muslims are terrorists just because of the doing of some retarded suicide bomber who thought he is something but really he isn't and he deserved to die? if you are then you've got serious problems, every single country and religion has some fucked up people! you cant judge everyone by the doing of one person. I'm not going to argue about this here because I'm easily out numbered... but seriously! grow the fuck up!.
User was temp banned for this post.
User was temp banned for this post.
Ever heard of a christian suicide bomber because of a stupid drawing of jesus? >-<;
Hey guys i just wanted to pop in to say that if there is ever a cartoon i can not draw in order to save your lives or the lives of your loved ones, just let me know. Thanks.
Prohibition would be contrary to the freedom of speech and of caricature.
There is absolutely no compromise there, and the day we start compromising with theses kind of thing, we are basically fucked. Then, you won't be able to represent Jesus, or God, or a homosexual, or anyhting at all since there is always a fucktard to feel offended somewhere.
I find really threatening the increasing recognition of the long forgotten concept of blasphemy.
Obviously these cartoons are unacceptable and quite blasphemous in the eyes of the average extremist muslim. While it's acceptable for the other 99% of the world. I could rant on about acceptance and compassion and understanding but these people will never try to belong to this world.
On December 14 2010 17:07 pyrogenetix wrote: i don't really see the point in agitating something which you know is going to bite back hard. people that draw comics of muhammad are obviously trying to provoke a response.
There are plenty of good reasons for "agitating" religion.
Either it exposes the flaws in their doctrine which will help them wake up or help their religion evolve with the times, and/or it exposes the extremists which will similarly damage the image of the religion.
Anyone who is willing to commit murder over drawings does not deserve to reside in a civilized society. Anything that weeds these people out and even damages religion at the same time is a good thing in my book.
The day when anyone can make drawings making fun of anyone and there is no hate, no threat of violence, no religious backlash, that is the day we will have reached true tolerance.
No because sweden and other countries would be catering exclusively to a small minority. I see the drawings as satire and nothing else. No person, group, religion or government is perfect. Those terrorists are willing to bomb anything anyway no matter the reason. Remove this one and next week or tomorrow there will be a new thing they will threaten people about. They are just wanting to disrupt people's lives is the goal of that group and if you allow them to do that they won. They need to get over it and themselves imo.
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
This is such backwards logic that im wondering if this guy is trolling. What defines "real beliefs"? Why shouldnt they be insulted? Ppl arent allowed to be "ignorant dick heads"? I dont even know where to begin.... and leave my slipper god alone
Just a heads up , most Muslims in this world are religious blindly just because their society and everyone they know is without really understanding anything about their religion. They are guided by higher people such as imams in mosques and such that also don't know what they are talking about . If you view Islam as a whole in this world , then only a very small minority understand what the hell they are doing and why they are doing it. Because no one bothers to think and find reason to.what he believes in , you get a bunch of people that abuse this by taking the concept of jihad and making everything answerable by killing , death.etc. seriously if the prophet was alive , he would be pretty damn sad with all these threats and responses that people of his religion are showing to the world .
On December 13 2010 19:42 PaPoolee wrote: I know that freedom of speech is important, but it's still wrong to insult what people believe in, I mean if you believe in a slipper, then yes you deserve criticism because that's just plain stupid and you just want people to criticize you, but people with real beliefs shouldn't be insulted and you would be a fucking ignorant dick head if you thought it was okay to insult people for no reason and get away with it just because of your right of freedom of speech.
Who are you to say whats right and wrong? so just because something is popular its right? THAT is ignorant. what if heaven exists (not a believer myself but hey thats not the point) and you get there and it turns out believing in rocks or something is the true religion (using a crazy example as to not offend anyone ) And comedy doesn't need a reason. Go watch a stand up comic they make fun of people for entertainment for the sake of entertainment. There are comic strips that make fun of US presidents because its funny! Lighten up if you take everything this serious you are not going to make it!! laugh!! not everything is life and death! Freedom of speech doesnt mean your free to say what you want?
I think religion as a whole just needs to fucking end.
With that, we could drawn whatever fucking CARTOONS we wanted, and people wouldn't be getting killed for an opinion on paper.
Seriously this world is pretty screwed....But as for the question, NO. Don't do shit, if anything draw MORE insulting pictures. Show these stupid ass hats that we don't care what they say, Religion as a whole in this world causes far more bad than good has ever come.
On December 14 2010 11:12 TheOvermind77 wrote: And to be clear, this isn't just an Islam thing. Christians recently went berserk a movie shown at the Smithsonian that depicted a rotting cross.
By "went berserk" do you mean "set off bombs and killed people"?
On December 13 2010 23:34 sc4k wrote: Freedom of mockery is one of the cornerstones of free speech. Your religion violates basic civilised decency if it can't be mocked. Every edified establishment can and should be mocked. The only establishments which don't usually permit mockery are authoritarian- fascism and communism. Islam is in this group because of the large amount of undiplomatic, unsavoury, unworldly individuals that run the gamut of importance in this religion from lowest to highest postings who are extremely outspoken and refuse us the right to mock their completely unsubstantiated claims as to the true nature and origin of the universe and life.
Being respectful to religions in the political arena is one thing- diplomacy is king there. But in mockery the king is freedom.
Quoting this because I fully agree with it.
But I have to add that I understand that people can be offended by it, people always have been.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
you didnt read it yourself so better dont start this discussion.
And there is no need to ban these Cartoons. It should be a matter of respect not do to this. Making a Muhammad cartoon just shows off the witlessness of the cartoonist if he cant think of something original, and has to insult the vast majority of muslims, who are perfectly fine people just to annoy some extremists.
How can you come right off the bat saying that I didn't read the Quran? You have no idea who I am or know anything about me, for all you know I could be a theologian studying Islam. But in any case, you are partially correct, I haven't read the entire Quran, but I read about the first 150 pages of the approximately 300 page version that I had, and in those 150 pages I read plenty of passages that had a lot in common with these extremists, thats why I said you should actually read the book before you start spouting nonsense about what it does and doesn't have anything in common with.
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 have got a point there, but sorry if I focus on this specific issue and lask you this: why should I, a non-Muslim individual who does not agree with this specific Islamic dogma, not act to show my disagreement? Why should I care about people getting offended by something that is a matter of opinion?
The thing is, I personally am not asking anyone to care its really up to you. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of complete freedom of speech which a lot of people preach from the West. They preach human right violations in China yet they have guantanamo bay right in their backdoor. They talk about Taliban monsters, yet they've killed over 2 million muslims, scratch that 2 million terrorists since 9/11 according to them. Its sad how repetitive history is. Just a few centuries ago, the aborigines/blacks/native American Indians were the savages and the Europeans felt the need to save them by making them civil by completely destroying them. As much as I'd like this West-Islam tension to cool down and go down a peaceful road, I honestly believe it isn't going to happen.
As sad as this sounds, I think this is just going to lead to something as big as the fight for black rights/jews during the holocaust, if not bigger before its ever resolved.
The real problem with the offense people take when their religion is insulted is that they were brainwashed to believe those religions are somehow sacred when they were children, and to act out against any naysayers.
I have a question for you: Do you believe that the world will never see peace until every person on earth is a Muslim? Does it not say that in the Qur'an?
I personally believe we can achieve world peace without anybody changing any religion (although more atheists might help). The problem with feeling insulted when somebody bashes mohammud, jesus, or moses is that those things are completely ridiculous from a logical and reasonable standpoint. Modern ethics should not be be influenced by any of the writings which spawned public thought on those figures. Although each does some good things in their respective works, and it's easy to quote the passages in which they do good things, one must realize that the rest of the books are founded in completely nothing and should merit no more reaction than reading about how Atticus Finch defended the black man in court in "To Kill a Mockingbird".
I can honestly say I would never feel hatred toward anybody over something they write, draw, or depict in video. Do you want to post pictures of the 9/11 victims at inappropriate times to prove a point? Fine. That's your right, and a lot of people will hate you for it, but at least in America you don't have to worry about dying over it.
Another point I'd like to make is that the atrocities that the American government has committed in the middle east and in guantanamo bay will come to light eventually, and I hope as much as you that the people responsible for those atrocities are brought to justice. The great thing about America is that nobody fully agrees with the government 100% of the time and we're allowed to speak out against those horrible crimes without fear of backlash. Can you say the same about islamic middle eastern theocracies?
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
I hate arguments like this one, just because the Big bang is a theory doesn't put it in the same group as religion.
The big bang is based on very solid science, with lots of observation to back it up. Evolution isn't a theory anymore.... it is fact. Science doesn't remove the word theory from anything ,even once its proven because there might be an even more elegant proof beyond it. Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
Religion has no proof other than "because I said so" and will never have more proof until god stands before us and shows us his/her power. Religion is not logical, at least not in the modern age when we can explain most of the stuff the bible and other religious texts were written to explain. If you want to believe in a religion, thats fine, more power to you, but you have no right to try to impose your values on anyone else.
Muslims have good reasons to not portray Muhammed, I understand them and respect them, however I am not Muslim and I do not agree with their reasons therefore if i want to do some satire using Muhammed I will and I should be able to do it without fear of death. In Muslim countries you will see horrible pictures of the current President being buttfucked or shot or whatever being held up at anti US rallies, this is their version of satire and we don't then say "you can't draw stuff like that of a president... now we kill you" its ridiculous.
Most Muslims who grow up in western countries understand that satire is a heathy by-product of free speech, I know a Muslim comedian who does alot of material about Jesus being gay and the crowd of both Muslim and non-muslim people laugh it up.... even the christians.
Should we mock people's beliefs? Perhaps we shouldn't, but critism is the best mechanism for change and when there are people in the world who can blow me up along with 1000 of my countrymen at any moment, you best believe I am gonna make Muhammed jokes. I would rather die than give up my right to express myself
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
I hate arguments like this one, just because the Big bang is a theory doesn't put it in the same group as religion.
The big bang is based on very solid science, with lots of observation to back it up. Evolution isn't a theory anymore.... it is fact. Science doesn't remove the word theory from anything ,even once its proven because there might be an even more elegant proof beyond it. Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
Religion has no proof other than "because I said so" and will never have more proof until god stands before us and shows us his/her power. Religion is not logical, at least not in the modern age when we can explain most of the stuff the bible and other religious texts were written to explain. If you want to believe in a religion, thats fine, more power to you, but you have no right to try to impose your values on anyone else.
Muslims have good reasons to not portray Muhammed, I understand them and respect them, however I am not Muslim and I do not agree with their reasons therefore if i want to do some satire using Muhammed I will and I should be able to do it without fear of death. In Muslim countries you will see horrible pictures of the current President being buttfucked or shot or whatever being held up at anti US rallies, this is their version of satire and we don't then say "you can't draw stuff like that of a president... now we kill you" its ridiculous.
Most Muslims who grow up in western countries understand that satire is a heathy by-product of free speech, I know a Muslim comedian who does alot of material about Jesus being gay and the crowd of both Muslim and non-muslim people laugh it up.... even the christians.
Should we mock people's beliefs? Perhaps we shouldn't, but critism is the best mechanism for change and when there are people in the world who can blow me up along with 1000 of my countrymen at any moment, you best believe I am gonna make Muhammed jokes. I would rather die than give up my right to express myself
"Criticism is the best mechanism for change."
This should be shouted in the streets. If religion can't be criticized it will remain forever an archaic by-product of ancient human stupidity that has absolutely no place in the modern, scientific world.
Religion should be criticized, scrutinized and thought about deeply by every single believer and nonbeliever on the planet. There's no harm in criticism, and if your theories stand up to all criticism they are good theories, and if not they must be revised. So far, no religion has stood up to my decade of criticism, and in my eyes no religion is therefore worth believing in its current state.
But, religion being what it is cannot change. The books don't get revised to accommodate new evidence or arguments. That's why I gave up on religion, and that's the only way religious people will give up on their beliefs. Thought. Scrutiny. Doubt. And criticism.
Well if a person can make satirical political comics, why can this not be true for Islam? Also what if the person drew a stick figure and it said on the stick figure this is Mohamed. It also could say in caption he was a great man and follow his teaching, but do not idealize this image. Should that be illegal for people to do? Also I read a few pages in and I seem to not get where this line should be drawn.
On December 15 2010 03:02 emythrel wrote:Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
In mathematics something is only a theorem or lemma if it has been proven. If The Pythagoras Theorem was unproven it would be a hypothesis. In science it seems to work differently, after all String Theory is by no means proven but it's still apparently called a theory.
Background info: I am muslim. My opinion on this: Every religion is getting mocked somewhere by someone. Why would mocking certain religion should be more important than other? It shouldn't. In this case, many ignorant people (mostly muslims) are making look themselves like fools, threatening the author. Yes, I hate the guy and I hate what he is doing but he is not the only one, and other people are making fun of catholics for example. Don't get heated over one retard, just ignore, that's the best way. And terrorists are just retards, I hope people will understand that they are not muslim
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
I hate arguments like this one, just because the Big bang is a theory doesn't put it in the same group as religion.
The big bang is based on very solid science, with lots of observation to back it up. Evolution isn't a theory anymore.... it is fact. Science doesn't remove the word theory from anything ,even once its proven because there might be an even more elegant proof beyond it. Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
Religion has no proof other than "because I said so" and will never have more proof until god stands before us and shows us his/her power. Religion is not logical, at least not in the modern age when we can explain most of the stuff the bible and other religious texts were written to explain. If you want to believe in a religion, thats fine, more power to you, but you have no right to try to impose your values on anyone else.
Muslims have good reasons to not portray Muhammed, I understand them and respect them, however I am not Muslim and I do not agree with their reasons therefore if i want to do some satire using Muhammed I will and I should be able to do it without fear of death. In Muslim countries you will see horrible pictures of the current President being buttfucked or shot or whatever being held up at anti US rallies, this is their version of satire and we don't then say "you can't draw stuff like that of a president... now we kill you" its ridiculous.
Most Muslims who grow up in western countries understand that satire is a heathy by-product of free speech, I know a Muslim comedian who does alot of material about Jesus being gay and the crowd of both Muslim and non-muslim people laugh it up.... even the christians.
Should we mock people's beliefs? Perhaps we shouldn't, but critism is the best mechanism for change and when there are people in the world who can blow me up along with 1000 of my countrymen at any moment, you best believe I am gonna make Muhammed jokes. I would rather die than give up my right to express myself
I agree. It's just a theory has to be the the most ignorant argument I have ever heard. Guess what Newton's theory of gravitation is just a theory but that doesn't mean that I don't believe in gravity.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
I hate arguments like this one, just because the Big bang is a theory doesn't put it in the same group as religion.
The big bang is based on very solid science, with lots of observation to back it up. Evolution isn't a theory anymore.... it is fact. Science doesn't remove the word theory from anything ,even once its proven because there might be an even more elegant proof beyond it. Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
Religion has no proof other than "because I said so" and will never have more proof until god stands before us and shows us his/her power. Religion is not logical, at least not in the modern age when we can explain most of the stuff the bible and other religious texts were written to explain. If you want to believe in a religion, thats fine, more power to you, but you have no right to try to impose your values on anyone else.
Muslims have good reasons to not portray Muhammed, I understand them and respect them, however I am not Muslim and I do not agree with their reasons therefore if i want to do some satire using Muhammed I will and I should be able to do it without fear of death. In Muslim countries you will see horrible pictures of the current President being buttfucked or shot or whatever being held up at anti US rallies, this is their version of satire and we don't then say "you can't draw stuff like that of a president... now we kill you" its ridiculous.
Most Muslims who grow up in western countries understand that satire is a heathy by-product of free speech, I know a Muslim comedian who does alot of material about Jesus being gay and the crowd of both Muslim and non-muslim people laugh it up.... even the christians.
Should we mock people's beliefs? Perhaps we shouldn't, but critism is the best mechanism for change and when there are people in the world who can blow me up along with 1000 of my countrymen at any moment, you best believe I am gonna make Muhammed jokes. I would rather die than give up my right to express myself
I agree. It's just a theory has to be the the most ignorant argument I have ever heard. Guess what Newton's theory of gravitation is just a theory but that doesn't mean that I don't believe in gravity.
Newton's theory of gravity is also wrong.. Don't believe in it!
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
I hate arguments like this one, just because the Big bang is a theory doesn't put it in the same group as religion.
The big bang is based on very solid science, with lots of observation to back it up. Evolution isn't a theory anymore.... it is fact. Science doesn't remove the word theory from anything ,even once its proven because there might be an even more elegant proof beyond it. Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
Religion has no proof other than "because I said so" and will never have more proof until god stands before us and shows us his/her power. Religion is not logical, at least not in the modern age when we can explain most of the stuff the bible and other religious texts were written to explain. If you want to believe in a religion, thats fine, more power to you, but you have no right to try to impose your values on anyone else.
Muslims have good reasons to not portray Muhammed, I understand them and respect them, however I am not Muslim and I do not agree with their reasons therefore if i want to do some satire using Muhammed I will and I should be able to do it without fear of death. In Muslim countries you will see horrible pictures of the current President being buttfucked or shot or whatever being held up at anti US rallies, this is their version of satire and we don't then say "you can't draw stuff like that of a president... now we kill you" its ridiculous.
Most Muslims who grow up in western countries understand that satire is a heathy by-product of free speech, I know a Muslim comedian who does alot of material about Jesus being gay and the crowd of both Muslim and non-muslim people laugh it up.... even the christians.
Should we mock people's beliefs? Perhaps we shouldn't, but critism is the best mechanism for change and when there are people in the world who can blow me up along with 1000 of my countrymen at any moment, you best believe I am gonna make Muhammed jokes. I would rather die than give up my right to express myself
I agree. It's just a theory has to be the the most ignorant argument I have ever heard. Guess what Newton's theory of gravitation is just a theory but that doesn't mean that I don't believe in gravity.
Newton's theory of gravity is also wrong.. Don't believe in it!
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
I hate arguments like this one, just because the Big bang is a theory doesn't put it in the same group as religion.
The big bang is based on very solid science, with lots of observation to back it up. Evolution isn't a theory anymore.... it is fact. Science doesn't remove the word theory from anything ,even once its proven because there might be an even more elegant proof beyond it. Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
Religion has no proof other than "because I said so" and will never have more proof until god stands before us and shows us his/her power. Religion is not logical, at least not in the modern age when we can explain most of the stuff the bible and other religious texts were written to explain. If you want to believe in a religion, thats fine, more power to you, but you have no right to try to impose your values on anyone else.
Muslims have good reasons to not portray Muhammed, I understand them and respect them, however I am not Muslim and I do not agree with their reasons therefore if i want to do some satire using Muhammed I will and I should be able to do it without fear of death. In Muslim countries you will see horrible pictures of the current President being buttfucked or shot or whatever being held up at anti US rallies, this is their version of satire and we don't then say "you can't draw stuff like that of a president... now we kill you" its ridiculous.
Most Muslims who grow up in western countries understand that satire is a heathy by-product of free speech, I know a Muslim comedian who does alot of material about Jesus being gay and the crowd of both Muslim and non-muslim people laugh it up.... even the christians.
Should we mock people's beliefs? Perhaps we shouldn't, but critism is the best mechanism for change and when there are people in the world who can blow me up along with 1000 of my countrymen at any moment, you best believe I am gonna make Muhammed jokes. I would rather die than give up my right to express myself
I agree. It's just a theory has to be the the most ignorant argument I have ever heard. Guess what Newton's theory of gravitation is just a theory but that doesn't mean that I don't believe in gravity.
Newton's theory of gravity is also wrong.. Don't believe in it!
Every time you argue religion against science religion wins. Not because they have better arguments but rather because you give religion a position in the discussion it should not have. If you compare religion with science you are basically saying they are equally possible which is obviously not true.
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.
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.
On December 13 2010 18:57 BeWat3r wrote: I think T.O.P has some good points on his side. One of the biggest problems with those extremists is, they hide themself under the sheet of the muslims. They may say, they belong to this certain group, but the things they do, do not have anything in common with the Qran.
I think you need to read the Quran
I did :-) Ofc the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels. The problem is, the people who commit those sucizide attacks got blinded by some false prophets. They tell them what to do not the Quran. Pretty simple because most of those people can not read, so they do follow everything they have been told
Where are you getting the information your stating here? and where exactly have you read the Qur'an? What exactly do you mean by "the old parts are as retared as the old parts of the bible but there is nothing like : Hey lets kill all infidels."? What old parts are you talking about? do they release a new version of the Qur'an and the Bible every couple of months? are you stupid?.
I think he's talking about religious leaders that dont stick to the Qur'an itself but to some newer hadith, that dont need to have any connection to the qur'an even though they try to make that connection.
Well that's false information and it is irrelevant and people who believe false information are stupid.
So you are basically saying all religious ppl are stupid since the Coran and the Bible is false information ? Unless you really believe he walked on water i guess....
Who are you to say it is false information? Has it been proven to be false? Thats like saying all the people who believe in evolution or the big bang theory are stupid because they are just theories and are not proven. What he is trying to say is if the Quran says one thing and and someone says something different and is trying to associate it with the religion when it actually isn't than it is false and irrelevant.
I hate arguments like this one, just because the Big bang is a theory doesn't put it in the same group as religion.
The big bang is based on very solid science, with lots of observation to back it up. Evolution isn't a theory anymore.... it is fact. Science doesn't remove the word theory from anything ,even once its proven because there might be an even more elegant proof beyond it. Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
Religion has no proof other than "because I said so" and will never have more proof until god stands before us and shows us his/her power. Religion is not logical, at least not in the modern age when we can explain most of the stuff the bible and other religious texts were written to explain. If you want to believe in a religion, thats fine, more power to you, but you have no right to try to impose your values on anyone else.
Muslims have good reasons to not portray Muhammed, I understand them and respect them, however I am not Muslim and I do not agree with their reasons therefore if i want to do some satire using Muhammed I will and I should be able to do it without fear of death. In Muslim countries you will see horrible pictures of the current President being buttfucked or shot or whatever being held up at anti US rallies, this is their version of satire and we don't then say "you can't draw stuff like that of a president... now we kill you" its ridiculous.
Most Muslims who grow up in western countries understand that satire is a heathy by-product of free speech, I know a Muslim comedian who does alot of material about Jesus being gay and the crowd of both Muslim and non-muslim people laugh it up.... even the christians.
Should we mock people's beliefs? Perhaps we shouldn't, but critism is the best mechanism for change and when there are people in the world who can blow me up along with 1000 of my countrymen at any moment, you best believe I am gonna make Muhammed jokes. I would rather die than give up my right to express myself
Why would you hate arguments such as that one? Your absolutely correct that just because it is a theory it can not be put in the same group, but the other way around. Religion, at least Islam can explain the Big Bang Theory where as not believing can not.
The one thing that peeves me a lot is people's misconceptions and misunderstanding of the religion that they choose blindly to hate. I for one believe in the big bang theory but without the "whole thing happened by chance" argument. Where we differ is that I believe that God created the universe and the way he did it is what people refer to as the Big Bang. After all God describes the Big bang theory 1400 years ago,
Then He turned to the heavens when it was smoke... [ Quran 41:11]
Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same 'smoke' we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous 'smoke', they formed and separated from each other. God said in the Quran:
Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?.. [Quran 21:30]
Professor Alfred Kroner is one of the world's well-known geologists. He is a Professor of the Department of Geosciences, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany. He said, "Thinking where Muhammad came from .. I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years with very complicated and advance technological methods that this is the case." (From 'This is the Truth' [video]). Also he said, "Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin."
You guys have to understand that Islam and Science go hand in hand. Islam encompasses science and everything else. I don't know where you guys get the idea that Islam and science are at war or something, maybe because of the Church-Science conflicts? Who knows.
When I wrote my post it was to challenge the previous poster saying that the Quran is false information because it is not proven. By that logic people who believe in those theories (and they are just theories) would be in the same boat, which is not the case.
I strongly disagree with your statement that Religion does not have any proof other than "because I said so" , and i would glady show you if that is something you would have the time for. I also think Islam is much more logical than your way of thinking because in the end you can not find an end point to explain where it all came from. I use this example a lot when I have debates like these in real life because it is easy to follow and logically makes sense.
If i were to come up to you one day with a machine you nor anyone else has seen before, you had no idea what it was, and i asked you who can explain it mechanisms to me? What would you say? My guess is you would say the manufacturer, or the producer, the creator, the inventor or what have you. Now logically this makes sense right? You would not believe me if i said it just came into being, it just happened, even if i told you it took itself 10 billion years to make, you would simply think im crazy. Now think about the scale of things, this is just a machine, the universe is amazing everything works so perfectly. The earth, our bodies, out minds (I'm getting chills talking about this, haha), How can it all happen by itself? It's much easier and logical to think that God is behind it isn't it?
I should definitely start a blog about all the misconceptions and misunderstandings that people have about Islam because most of you have only seen one side of the story. It really upsets me that so many people could hate on a religion that has done so much good for this world. As for the whole freedom of speech debate, governments and people take people's freedoms everyday and it is "alright" if it is in your interest but it's hell if it isn't. Too hypocritical for me imo. I'm all for freedom of speech when it is done for the good of humanity but how is drawing a holy prophet to 1.6 billion people with a bomb anything other than just an insult. I mean write a million books on how much you disagree with Islam and how it is the devil but at least there would be an argument and it is not done just to hurt, and humiliate people. Wow that was long!
Anyway, OP I apologize that my post did not have to do with the subject on hand, please forgive me I got a little carried away.
A problem with those making cartoons or jokes about Islam is they are not doing it in a joking way, there's obviously a difference between a good natured joke and one that's made because they hate Muslims and want to annoy them fully knowing how easy provocation is. How Islam is portrayed doesn't do it any favours with the 'kill all non believers' propaganda and stories of death threats, it's just asking to be made fun of. It doesn't seem Muslims can accept any form of cartoon/joke about their religion which is a shame because this can never be outlawed otherwise we are going back in time.
Why would you hate arguments such as that one? Your absolutely correct that just because it is a theory it can not be put in the same group, but the other way around. Religion, at least Islam can explain the Big Bang Theory where as not believing can not.
The one thing that peeves me a lot is people's misconceptions and misunderstanding of the religion that they choose blindly to hate. I for one believe in the big bang theory but without the "whole thing happened by chance" argument. Where we differ is that I believe that God created the universe and the way he did it is what people refer to as the Big Bang. After all God describes the Big bang theory 1400 years ago,
Then He turned to the heavens when it was smoke... [ Quran 41:11]
Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same 'smoke' we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous 'smoke', they formed and separated from each other. God said in the Quran:
Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?.. [Quran 21:30]
Professor Alfred Kroner is one of the world's well-known geologists. He is a Professor of the Department of Geosciences, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany. He said, "Thinking where Muhammad came from .. I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years with very complicated and advance technological methods that this is the case." (From 'This is the Truth' [video]). Also he said, "Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin."
You guys have to understand that Islam and Science go hand in hand. Islam encompasses science and everything else. I don't know where you guys get the idea that Islam and science are at war or something, maybe because of the Church-Science conflicts? Who knows.
When I wrote my post it was to challenge the previous poster saying that the Quran is false information because it is not proven. By that logic people who believe in those theories (and they are just theories) would be in the same boat, which is not the case.
I strongly disagree with your statement that Religion does not have any proof other than "because I said so" , and i would glady show you if that is something you would have the time for. I also think Islam is much more logical than your way of thinking because in the end you can not find an end point to explain where it all came from. I use this example a lot when I have debates like these in real life because it is easy to follow and logically makes sense.
If i were to come up to you one day with a machine you nor anyone else has seen before, you had no idea what it was, and i asked you who can explain it mechanisms to me? What would you say? My guess is you would say the manufacturer, or the producer, the creator, the inventor or what have you. Now logically this makes sense right? You would not believe me if i said it just came into being, it just happened, even if i told you it took itself 10 billion years to make, you would simply think im crazy. Now think about the scale of things, this is just a machine, the universe is amazing everything works so perfectly. The earth, our bodies, out minds (I'm getting chills talking about this, haha), How can it all happen by itself? It's much easier and logical to think that God is behind it isn't it?
I should definitely start a blog about all the misconceptions and misunderstandings that people have about Islam because most of you have only seen one side of the story. It really upsets me that so many people could hate on a religion that has done so much good for this world. As for the whole freedom of speech debate, governments and people take people's freedoms everyday and it is "alright" if it is in your interest but it's hell if it isn't. Too hypocritical for me imo. I'm all for freedom of speech when it is done for the good of humanity but how is drawing a holy prophet to 1.6 billion people with a bomb anything other than just an insult. I mean write a million books on how much you disagree with Islam and how it is the devil but at least there would be an argument and it is not done just to hurt, and humiliate people. Wow that was long!
Anyway, OP I apologize that my post did not have to do with the subject on hand, please forgive me I got a little carried away.
Science is about making a conclusion to fit the evidence.
Religion is about making evidence fit a conclusion.
If in 15 years we get new evidence that shows that the universe was created by the death of a white dwarf or something, I'm sure there's some texts in the Qur'an that can somehow be interpreted to have said that too, and all of this stuff about the Big Bang was just a misinterpretation. That doesn't make the text a predictor, and it doesn't make your religion somehow correct or in parallel with scientific thinking.
Given enough flowery language and selective interpretation, I can make any religion logically sound and fitting with the scientific evidence we have at hand. Maybe given all the words along the lines of "sun", "explosion", "heat", "energy", and "lightning" in Mesoamerican manuscripts, it really turns out Huitzilopochtli and Quetzalcoatl created the universe through the Big Bang. No one believes that, but by religious logic it's every bit as sound an interpretation as any other god doing it.
I don't care what doctrine you subscribe to to give yourself spiritual comfort and provide a sound explanation of the universe for your intellectual curiosity. But don't insult science by pretending religion is science.
On December 15 2010 03:02 emythrel wrote:Pythagoras theory has been proven thousands of times over thousands of years, but its still known as "The Pythagoras Theorum".
In mathematics something is only a theorem or lemma if it has been proven. If The Pythagoras Theorem was unproven it would be a hypothesis. In science it seems to work differently, after all String Theory is by no means proven but it's still apparently called a theory.
Theorem: Given assumptions, a theorem is a true fact. Ie, if you have a right angle triangle in a 2-d plane, you get pythagoras.
Theory: A predictive set of statements that matches all observed data in a particular field and scope.
Religion: A set of statements that may or may not conflict with observed data, that are held to be true.
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.
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.
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."
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 22:10 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.
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
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.
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.
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 19:30 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 19:30 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 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."
On December 13 2010 18:58 PaPoolee wrote: You guys are retarded, I don't get it, you are refusing to do something about people who insult other peoples religions? I mean would you be okay with it if you were a Christian and somebody made stupid drawings of Jesus or something and spread it around the world? By saying "Many countries have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" do you mean that all the Islam religion and Muslims are terrorists just because of the doing of some retarded suicide bomber who thought he is something but really he isn't and he deserved to die? if you are then you've got serious problems, every single country and religion has some fucked up people! you cant judge everyone by the doing of one person. I'm not going to argue about this here because I'm easily out numbered... but seriously! grow the fuck up!.
User was temp banned for this post.
User was temp banned for this post.
People DO make stupid drawings of Jesus and mock him. People DO mock the Christian faith.
But our pastors don't tell us that we should get revenge on these people or that these people need to die. Of course I get mildly offended by pictures like: But I realize that it is intended to be funny, and I'm able to laugh at it.
People need to just let things roll off their back more.
Religion's need to be open to scrutiny and ridicule, if history has shown mankind anything it is that religion attracts extremist and the delusional individuals who will bend and warp an otherwise well intended idea or philosophy into their own personal crusade against anyone who challenges them or their world view. I am not naive enough to generalize all Arabs or Muslims, they all have their own own beliefs and no one really has the same exact religious beliefs or view of god/religion, religion and spirituality are personal matters. But I do think that Islam needs to be checked just like any other religion. There are plenty of modernized and progressive Muslims nations out there but there are still tons of fundamentalist fascist Islamic states, who abuse women and commit horrible acts against anyone who steps out of line in the name of Islam(ex: women in Sudan lashed for wearing trousers + Show Spoiler +
. Should I not challenge Islam because I might offend someone who is a moderate? Well, my answer is I am not trying to offend them but I cannot pull my punches against radicals and fascist just because I may offend someone. Should I not criticize the Pope for protecting pedophiles and child molesters because the majority of Catholics are peaceful and respectful, well no that would be turning a blind eye to evil.
Also America has a long history of being a targeted for attack by radical Muslims, 300 years ago we had to deal with Barbary pirates, just look at how the Koran was used as a justification by an Islamic state to pillage and pirate Western states.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy in London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied: It was written in their Qu'ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [13]
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...
No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
On December 16 2010 06:36 RaptorX wrote: No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
Do you get the point?
Wow, this is WRONG on so many levels that I don not even know where to begin. What you say here is vry dagerous thinking because, basically, it means that the "intelligent" people must bow to the will of the fanatics. Following that argument, it the right thing to do to stand aside while Nazis deported the Jews. Not cool, imo.
Also, what you do not seems to take into account is that in our society there are laws that actually prohibit people from killing you for religiouos reasons, i.e. while some delusional iditios may think that fathwas are OK (btw, they are not a part of the quran but arose later, around the 12th or 13th century and were politically motivated - quran still says its not cool to kill people).
That said, you propose that if you insult a faith which is totally in accorandance with our jurisdiction you have no right to complain when someone attacks you, thereby violating our laws.
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience.
If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in.
On December 16 2010 06:36 Jswizzy wrote: Religion's need to be open to scrutiny and ridicule, if history has shown mankind anything it is that religion attracts extremist and the delusional individuals who will bend and warp an otherwise well intended idea or philosophy into their own personal crusade against anyone who challenges them or their world view. I am not naive enough to generalize all Arabs or Muslims, they all have their own own beliefs and no one really has the same exact religious beliefs or view of god/religion, religion and spirituality are personal matters. But I do think that Islam needs to be checked just like any other religion. There are plenty of modernized and progressive Muslims nations out there but there are still tons of fundamentalist fascist Islamic states, who abuse women and commit horrible acts against anyone who steps out of line in the name of Islam(ex: women in Sudan lashed for wearing trousers + Show Spoiler +
. Should I not challenge Islam because I might offend someone who is a moderate? Well, my answer is I am not trying to offend them but I cannot pull my punches against radicals and fascist just because I may offend someone. Should I not criticize the Pope for protecting pedophiles and child molesters because the majority of Catholics are peaceful and respectful, well no that would be turning a blind eye to evil.
Also America has a long history of being a targeted for attack by radical Muslims, 300 years ago we had to deal with Barbary pirates, just look at how the Koran was used as a justification by an Islamic state to pillage and pirate Western states.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy in London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied: It was written in their Qu'ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [13]
TLR; People use religion as an excuse to commit evil so it should be open to attack and criticism, sorry if your feelings get hurt.
America has a long history of shit doings also, every nation in this whole planet has done crappy things if you look at it with today's standard. Try looking at something with an open mind...
Barbary pirates.... hmmmmmm they are pirates!!!! what the hell do expect from a pirate?
well my point is that you said People that uses religion as an excuse to commit evil should be open to attack and criticism, then criticize those guys, why go for the Prophet Muhammad?
The immigrants should not give up their faith, but do not try to impose it on other people. At least thank the nation for letting them come in the first place.
But people seem to get the idea that ALL Muslims seem to act like that. I know from my personal experience with Muslims in the US is that they are not a bunch of over zealous crusaders and oddly enough, the biggest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia and we do not hear do not religious battles from there (Use to however)
On December 16 2010 06:36 RaptorX wrote: No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
Do you get the point?
Wow, this is WRONG on so many levels that I don not even know where to begin. What you say here is vry dagerous thinking because, basically, it means that the "intelligent" people must bow to the will of the fanatics. Following that argument, it the right thing to do to stand aside while Nazis deported the Jews. Not cool, imo.
Also, what you do not seems to take into account is that in our society there are laws that actually prohibit people from killing you for religiouos reasons, i.e. while some delusional iditios may think that fathwas are OK (btw, they are not a part of the quran but arose later, around the 12th or 13th century and were politically motivated - quran still says its not cool to kill people).
That said, you propose that if you insult a faith which is totally in accorandance with our jurisdiction you have no right to complain when someone attacks you, thereby violating our laws.
No. I do not say that we have to do what they say.
Ok, I want you to go and grab a knife make a small cut in one of your fingers and then jump in to a water that is infested with sharks.
why not?
I mean are you going to bow to their "demands"? they "say" that if they smell blood they will eat you..
Well, I feel the same when im dealing with fanatics. They for me are like animals in the sense that you cant reason with them,you cant talk to them and they believe they are right and you are wrong... SOOO...
Being the intelligent being that I am I will refrain myself from doing stuff that not only is dangerous for me but for other people as well. Freedom of speech doesnt mean "say whatever is on your mind without thinking about the consequences" . You must weight the consequences and ask yourself:
"does depicting a dog with the head of an islamist and basically saying that they are animals bring anything good? no? is it worth it to make the joke EVEN AT EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES? no? then why do i have to do it?"
You are free to say whatever you want but that doesnt mean that you have to, specially when what you say will bring nothing good.
Again, in my eyes if you are an instigator or a dumb fuck then you are better off out of our world, it will save us a lot of troubles.
On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
--Edit: Let me add a little radical thought of mine: If you cant be responsible in the use of "freedom of speech" you probably should not have it at all.
well, food for thought.
--Edit2 LOL i sound like those movies... "with great power comes great responsibility"... so cheesy
On December 16 2010 06:36 RaptorX wrote: No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
Do you get the point?
Wow, this is WRONG on so many levels that I don not even know where to begin. What you say here is vry dagerous thinking because, basically, it means that the "intelligent" people must bow to the will of the fanatics. Following that argument, it the right thing to do to stand aside while Nazis deported the Jews. Not cool, imo.
Also, what you do not seems to take into account is that in our society there are laws that actually prohibit people from killing you for religiouos reasons, i.e. while some delusional iditios may think that fathwas are OK (btw, they are not a part of the quran but arose later, around the 12th or 13th century and were politically motivated - quran still says its not cool to kill people).
That said, you propose that if you insult a faith which is totally in accorandance with our jurisdiction you have no right to complain when someone attacks you, thereby violating our laws.
No. I do not say that we have to do what they say.
Ok, I want you to go and grab a knife make a small cut in one of your fingers and then jump in to a water that is infested with sharks.
why not?
I mean are you going to bow to their "demands"? they "say" that if they smell blood they will eat you..
Well, I feel the same when im dealing with fanatics. They for me are like animals in the sense that you cant reason with them,you cant talk to them and they believe they are right and you are wrong... SOOO...
Being the intelligent being that I am I will refrain myself from doing stuff that not only is dangerous for me but for other people as well. Freedom of speech doesnt mean "say whatever is on your mind without thinking about the consequences" . You must weight the consequences and ask yourself:
"does depicting a dog with the head of an islamist and basically saying that they are animals bring anything good? no? is it worth it to make the joke EVEN AT EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES? no? then why do i have to do it?"
You are free to say whatever you want but that doesnt mean that you have to, specially when what you say will bring nothing good.
Again, in my eyes if you are an instigator or a dumb fuck then you are better off out of our world, it will save us a lot of troubles.
On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
I'm really pleased the world has individuals as enlightened as you, whom are willing to classify extremists (of any sort) as animals, and will gladly limit the freedoms of rational thinking people world-wide in order to placate these so called "animals." I'm also really glad that you see something wrong with protecting peaceful, open-minded individuals attempting to exercise their unalienable rights.
I mean, I guess despite the fact that homo sapiens have a limbic system and neo-cortex, we really can't fault them for acting the same way as an animal that kills at the slightest stimuli, even though my metaphor is terribly incomplete considering the animal is killing for sustenance.
You need to ask yourself how your message sounds before you post it, because you come across as too unintelligent to express your opinions without embarrassing yourself. That said, since the population of TL aren't fascists, we won't fault you for expressing such a poorly hashed-out opinion, even though your fault other people for their's.
On December 16 2010 06:36 RaptorX wrote: No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
Do you get the point?
Wow, this is WRONG on so many levels that I don not even know where to begin. What you say here is vry dagerous thinking because, basically, it means that the "intelligent" people must bow to the will of the fanatics. Following that argument, it the right thing to do to stand aside while Nazis deported the Jews. Not cool, imo.
Also, what you do not seems to take into account is that in our society there are laws that actually prohibit people from killing you for religiouos reasons, i.e. while some delusional iditios may think that fathwas are OK (btw, they are not a part of the quran but arose later, around the 12th or 13th century and were politically motivated - quran still says its not cool to kill people).
That said, you propose that if you insult a faith which is totally in accorandance with our jurisdiction you have no right to complain when someone attacks you, thereby violating our laws.
No. I do not say that we have to do what they say.
Ok, I want you to go and grab a knife make a small cut in one of your fingers and then jump in to a water that is infested with sharks.
why not?
I mean are you going to bow to their "demands"? they "say" that if they smell blood they will eat you..
Well, I feel the same when im dealing with fanatics. They for me are like animals in the sense that you cant reason with them,you cant talk to them and they believe they are right and you are wrong... SOOO...
Being the intelligent being that I am I will refrain myself from doing stuff that not only is dangerous for me but for other people as well. Freedom of speech doesnt mean "say whatever is on your mind without thinking about the consequences" . You must weight the consequences and ask yourself:
"does depicting a dog with the head of an islamist and basically saying that they are animals bring anything good? no? is it worth it to make the joke EVEN AT EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES? no? then why do i have to do it?"
You are free to say whatever you want but that doesnt mean that you have to, specially when what you say will bring nothing good.
Again, in my eyes if you are an instigator or a dumb fuck then you are better off out of our world, it will save us a lot of troubles.
On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
--Edit: Let me add a little radical thought of mine: If you cant be responsible in the use of "freedom of speech" you probably should not have it at all.
well, food for thought.
--Edit2 LOL i sound like those movies... "with great power comes great responsibility"... so cheesy
Your argument shows bizarre cowardice. Obey ignorant violent people rather than take the small risk that they might be able to hurt you.
Punch yourself in the nose or I will come and kill you. According to you, you should punch yourself in the nose. As long as I make a threat more dangerous than the act I want you to do, I have total power over you.
Even on a pragmatic level you make no sense, given how small the risk of retribution is, assuming you are not in a Country that is mostly muslim in population.
Yeah and obviously we CAN expect them to abide by our laws in our country, where they have to come if they wish to retaliate against us for exercising free speech.
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
I think that murder is illegal in most countries, so your point is invalid. Besides, as I already mentioned, it is condiered sin in the quran as well.
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
Well, that goes both ways, does it not. Lets say that some people feel offended by certain cartoons that are perfectly normal in Western society. But why does no one take into account that might feel offended by the fact that some nutjubs threaten one of the most important cultural achievemtns lacking any rational justification. (I kill you because you drew my imaginary friend, sure thing). But no one takes that into account. Double standards?
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: --Edit: Let me add a little radical thought of mine: If you cant be responsible in the use of "freedom of speech" you probably should not have it at all.
well, food for thought.
That shows that you no not understand the concept of freedom of speech. Basically what you say is that you have two choices.
a) Use freedom of speech and suffer the consequences. b) Consor yourself and remain unharmed.
Basically that means that certain thoughts are not going to be uttered, meaning that freedom of speech does no longer apply.
Don't forget that people who don't believe in a certain religion, have the same rights as the people that do believe in their religions.
In the end it's all about respect for each other.
People who can't respect other people, those are extremists and are bad for the world, even more if they convince others to communicate their beliefs with violence.
On December 16 2010 06:36 RaptorX wrote: No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
Do you get the point?
Wow, this is WRONG on so many levels that I don not even know where to begin. What you say here is vry dagerous thinking because, basically, it means that the "intelligent" people must bow to the will of the fanatics. Following that argument, it the right thing to do to stand aside while Nazis deported the Jews. Not cool, imo.
Also, what you do not seems to take into account is that in our society there are laws that actually prohibit people from killing you for religiouos reasons, i.e. while some delusional iditios may think that fathwas are OK (btw, they are not a part of the quran but arose later, around the 12th or 13th century and were politically motivated - quran still says its not cool to kill people).
That said, you propose that if you insult a faith which is totally in accorandance with our jurisdiction you have no right to complain when someone attacks you, thereby violating our laws.
No. I do not say that we have to do what they say.
Ok, I want you to go and grab a knife make a small cut in one of your fingers and then jump in to a water that is infested with sharks.
why not?
I mean are you going to bow to their "demands"? they "say" that if they smell blood they will eat you..
Well, I feel the same when im dealing with fanatics. They for me are like animals in the sense that you cant reason with them,you cant talk to them and they believe they are right and you are wrong... SOOO...
Being the intelligent being that I am I will refrain myself from doing stuff that not only is dangerous for me but for other people as well. Freedom of speech doesnt mean "say whatever is on your mind without thinking about the consequences" . You must weight the consequences and ask yourself:
"does depicting a dog with the head of an islamist and basically saying that they are animals bring anything good? no? is it worth it to make the joke EVEN AT EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES? no? then why do i have to do it?"
You are free to say whatever you want but that doesnt mean that you have to, specially when what you say will bring nothing good.
Again, in my eyes if you are an instigator or a dumb fuck then you are better off out of our world, it will save us a lot of troubles.
On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
I'm really pleased the world has individuals as enlightened as you, whom are willing to classify extremists (of any sort) as animals, and will gladly limit the freedoms of rational thinking people world-wide in order to placate these so called "animals." I'm also really glad that you see something wrong with protecting peaceful, open-minded individuals attempting to exercise their unalienable rights.
I mean, I guess despite the fact that homo sapiens have a limbic system and neo-cortex, we really can't fault them for acting the same way as an animal that kills at the slightest stimuli, even though my metaphor is terribly incomplete considering the animal is killing for sustenance.
You need to ask yourself how your message sounds before you post it, because you come across as too unintelligent to express your opinions without embarrassing yourself. That said, since the population of TL aren't fascists, we won't fault you for expressing such a poorly hashed-out opinion, even though your fault other people for their's.
how can something that will definetely offend people can be considered peaceful? and you need to ask yourself how your message sounds before you post it, because you come across as too unintelligent to express your opinions without embarrassing yourself. That said, since the population of TL aren't fascists, we won't fault you for expressing such a poorly hashed-out opinion, even though your fault other people for their's.
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
I think that murder is illegal in most countries, so your point is invalid. Besides, as I already mentioned, it is condiered sin in the quran as well.
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
Well, that goes both ways, does it not. Lets say that some people feel offended by certain cartoons that are perfectly normal in Western society. But why does no one take into account that might feel offended by the fact that some nutjubs threaten one of the most important cultural achievemtns lacking any rational justification. (I kill you because you drew my imaginary friend, sure thing). But no one takes that into account. Double standards?
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: --Edit: Let me add a little radical thought of mine: If you cant be responsible in the use of "freedom of speech" you probably should not have it at all.
well, food for thought.
That shows that you no not understand the concept of freedom of speech. Basically what you say is that you have two choices.
a) Use freedom of speech and suffer the consequences. b) Consor yourself and remain unharmed.
Basically that means that certain thoughts are not going to be uttered, meaning that freedom of speech does no longer apply.
good points
Now, as far as I understand killing is not really illegal in some Arabic countries, since they use it regularly as a penalty for some absurd (for us) stuff like, infidelity and other cases like killing if you mock their religion so for some groups that seems perfectly fine.
My point was that you cannot judge them with your rules/laws the same as they shouldnt judge us with their rules/laws because that doesnt go. Now, I am sure as hell they will continue judging us with their laws in mind since as i stated they are not very flexible. But at the same time I know that I can control myself.
Remember that I do NOT agree with them, but I do know where to draw the line for my freedom of speech.
What i have been pointing out is that what the cartoons express do not help anybody, so why bother? if they meant to be funny they arent, specially when the lives of other people are at stake.
So yes I do firmly believe that you should weight the consequences of your "speech" before you exercise your "freedom of speech" to see if it is worth it.
If the guy made some important point or tried to put light on to the argument by the means of his cartoons or even if the jokes were not ill-intended then i have no problems with them, but those are plain offensive even to non-islamics... would you like being called a dog/animal just because of what you believe?
So clearly he is abusing his freedom of speech and I do not side with him. At the same time I do not side with the extremists on the fact that they "solve" their problems by sending off some poor goof with bombs attached to die for an ideal that more than 60% of the world considers stupid.
You both sides are at fault, and I see you like kids in the kindergarten fighting on who is right and who is wrong, and while I find it really amusing I really hate how this is affecting the real use of freedom of speech... again you guys are giving more and more excuses to get your freedom taken away because you cannot handle it.
On December 16 2010 06:36 RaptorX wrote: No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
Do you get the point?
Wow, this is WRONG on so many levels that I don not even know where to begin. What you say here is vry dagerous thinking because, basically, it means that the "intelligent" people must bow to the will of the fanatics. Following that argument, it the right thing to do to stand aside while Nazis deported the Jews. Not cool, imo.
Also, what you do not seems to take into account is that in our society there are laws that actually prohibit people from killing you for religiouos reasons, i.e. while some delusional iditios may think that fathwas are OK (btw, they are not a part of the quran but arose later, around the 12th or 13th century and were politically motivated - quran still says its not cool to kill people).
That said, you propose that if you insult a faith which is totally in accorandance with our jurisdiction you have no right to complain when someone attacks you, thereby violating our laws.
No. I do not say that we have to do what they say.
Ok, I want you to go and grab a knife make a small cut in one of your fingers and then jump in to a water that is infested with sharks.
why not?
I mean are you going to bow to their "demands"? they "say" that if they smell blood they will eat you..
Well, I feel the same when im dealing with fanatics. They for me are like animals in the sense that you cant reason with them,you cant talk to them and they believe they are right and you are wrong... SOOO...
Being the intelligent being that I am I will refrain myself from doing stuff that not only is dangerous for me but for other people as well. Freedom of speech doesnt mean "say whatever is on your mind without thinking about the consequences" . You must weight the consequences and ask yourself:
"does depicting a dog with the head of an islamist and basically saying that they are animals bring anything good? no? is it worth it to make the joke EVEN AT EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES? no? then why do i have to do it?"
You are free to say whatever you want but that doesnt mean that you have to, specially when what you say will bring nothing good.
Again, in my eyes if you are an instigator or a dumb fuck then you are better off out of our world, it will save us a lot of troubles.
On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
I'm really pleased the world has individuals as enlightened as you, whom are willing to classify extremists (of any sort) as animals, and will gladly limit the freedoms of rational thinking people world-wide in order to placate these so called "animals." I'm also really glad that you see something wrong with protecting peaceful, open-minded individuals attempting to exercise their unalienable rights.
I mean, I guess despite the fact that homo sapiens have a limbic system and neo-cortex, we really can't fault them for acting the same way as an animal that kills at the slightest stimuli, even though my metaphor is terribly incomplete considering the animal is killing for sustenance.
You need to ask yourself how your message sounds before you post it, because you come across as too unintelligent to express your opinions without embarrassing yourself. That said, since the population of TL aren't fascists, we won't fault you for expressing such a poorly hashed-out opinion, even though your fault other people for their's.
First i did not classify them as animals, I compared them to animals, and as i stated it was "in the sense of not being able to rationalize with them"
I am not saying that I want to limit the freedom of speech, I said you should be more responsible with its use. You know like in being an adult and stuff...
And I am not faulting anybody for their opinion, I just dont agree with any of you.
Either i speak very badly (im sorry english is not my first language) or you have much troubles reading between the lines.
Another thing is that I am speaking of Arabs in THEIR country, I agree that if they travel to another country they have to abide and live by the rules of their new home, and they will have to suck up all the shit people say about their religion...
But the ones orchestrating the bombings are not located on the countries they are bombing, just in case you didnt know that. They are intelligent enough to 1) not go themselves (they send the goofs) 2) dont even come to this country for fear of repercutions.
In complete agreement with Deletrious. The simple fact is that most of us are not Muslim, and do not subscribe to the Quran as the basis of how to live life on this Earth. What I do believe in, more than anything else, is free speech. I'm not going to kill anyone because they believe differently, well, because I try to be a rational human being. That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
On December 16 2010 06:36 RaptorX wrote: No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
Do you get the point?
Wow, this is WRONG on so many levels that I don not even know where to begin. What you say here is vry dagerous thinking because, basically, it means that the "intelligent" people must bow to the will of the fanatics. Following that argument, it the right thing to do to stand aside while Nazis deported the Jews. Not cool, imo.
Also, what you do not seems to take into account is that in our society there are laws that actually prohibit people from killing you for religiouos reasons, i.e. while some delusional iditios may think that fathwas are OK (btw, they are not a part of the quran but arose later, around the 12th or 13th century and were politically motivated - quran still says its not cool to kill people).
That said, you propose that if you insult a faith which is totally in accorandance with our jurisdiction you have no right to complain when someone attacks you, thereby violating our laws.
No. I do not say that we have to do what they say.
Ok, I want you to go and grab a knife make a small cut in one of your fingers and then jump in to a water that is infested with sharks.
why not?
I mean are you going to bow to their "demands"? they "say" that if they smell blood they will eat you..
Well, I feel the same when im dealing with fanatics. They for me are like animals in the sense that you cant reason with them,you cant talk to them and they believe they are right and you are wrong... SOOO...
Being the intelligent being that I am I will refrain myself from doing stuff that not only is dangerous for me but for other people as well. Freedom of speech doesnt mean "say whatever is on your mind without thinking about the consequences" . You must weight the consequences and ask yourself:
"does depicting a dog with the head of an islamist and basically saying that they are animals bring anything good? no? is it worth it to make the joke EVEN AT EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES? no? then why do i have to do it?"
You are free to say whatever you want but that doesnt mean that you have to, specially when what you say will bring nothing good.
Again, in my eyes if you are an instigator or a dumb fuck then you are better off out of our world, it will save us a lot of troubles.
On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
I'm really pleased the world has individuals as enlightened as you, whom are willing to classify extremists (of any sort) as animals, and will gladly limit the freedoms of rational thinking people world-wide in order to placate these so called "animals." I'm also really glad that you see something wrong with protecting peaceful, open-minded individuals attempting to exercise their unalienable rights.
I mean, I guess despite the fact that homo sapiens have a limbic system and neo-cortex, we really can't fault them for acting the same way as an animal that kills at the slightest stimuli, even though my metaphor is terribly incomplete considering the animal is killing for sustenance.
You need to ask yourself how your message sounds before you post it, because you come across as too unintelligent to express your opinions without embarrassing yourself. That said, since the population of TL aren't fascists, we won't fault you for expressing such a poorly hashed-out opinion, even though your fault other people for their's.
how can something that will definetely offend people can be considered peaceful? and you need to ask yourself how your message sounds before you post it, because you come across as too unintelligent to express your opinions without embarrassing yourself. That said, since the population of TL aren't fascists, we won't fault you for expressing such a poorly hashed-out opinion, even though your fault other people for their's.
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
I think that murder is illegal in most countries, so your point is invalid. Besides, as I already mentioned, it is condiered sin in the quran as well.
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
Well, that goes both ways, does it not. Lets say that some people feel offended by certain cartoons that are perfectly normal in Western society. But why does no one take into account that might feel offended by the fact that some nutjubs threaten one of the most important cultural achievemtns lacking any rational justification. (I kill you because you drew my imaginary friend, sure thing). But no one takes that into account. Double standards?
On December 16 2010 07:25 RaptorX wrote: --Edit: Let me add a little radical thought of mine: If you cant be responsible in the use of "freedom of speech" you probably should not have it at all.
well, food for thought.
That shows that you no not understand the concept of freedom of speech. Basically what you say is that you have two choices.
a) Use freedom of speech and suffer the consequences. b) Consor yourself and remain unharmed.
Basically that means that certain thoughts are not going to be uttered, meaning that freedom of speech does no longer apply.
good points
Now, as far as I understand killing is not really illegal in some Arabic countries, since they use it regularly as a penalty for some absurd (for us) stuff like, infidelity and other cases like killing if you mock their religion so for some groups that seems perfectly fine.
My point was that you cannot judge them with your rules/laws the same as they shouldnt judge us with their rules/laws because that doesnt go. Now, I am sure as hell they will continue judging us with their laws in mind since as i stated they are not very flexible. But at the same time I know that I can control myself.
Remember that I do NOT agree with them, but I do know where to draw the line for my freedom of speech.
What i have been pointing out is that what the cartoons express do not help anybody, so why bother? if they meant to be funny they arent, specially when the lives of other people are at stake.
So yes I do firmly believe that you should weight the consequences of your "speech" before you exercise your "freedom of speech" to see if it is worth it.
If the guy made some important point or tried to put light on to the argument by the means of his cartoons or even if the jokes were not ill-intended then i have no problems with them, but those are plain offensive even to non-islamics... would you like being called a dog/animal just because of what you believe?
So clearly he is abusing his freedom of speech and I do not side with him. At the same time I do not side with the extremists on the fact that they "solve" their problems by sending off some poor goof with bombs attached to die for an ideal that more than 60% of the world considers stupid.
You both sides are at fault, and I see you like kids in the kindergarten fighting on who is right and who is wrong, and while I find it really amusing I really hate how this is affecting the real use of freedom of speech... again you guys are giving more and more excuses to get your freedom taken away because you cannot handle it.
Are you really incapable of differentiating between killing for food (like a shark), killing for political reasons (like a soldier), and murder (like Islamist fundamentalist suicide bombers)? Yes, no type of killing is pleasant, but some types are necessary (for food), and some types are criminal (like murders).
On December 16 2010 06:36 RaptorX wrote: No. I stated that if you drawn the cartoons you cannot complain about the reactions that might be aroused. I do not see the point of killing 20 inocent people that had nothing to do with the drawing just to make a point (a bomb for example) I do think that if they decide to kill the guy who created the drawings then they can go ahead and behead him or torture him or whatever they want for 2 main reasons:
1) he knew that they would do that and he still draw the cartoons (so he is a dumb ass or an instigator, either way we are better without him) 2) he puts his "freedom of speech" (which he is clearly abusing) above everybody else's safety (so again he is not to be trusted, we are better off without him)
I do not agree with the methods but you must be realistic, those people dont think like you and me (they probably dont think at all, and im not referring to islamic people but to the fanatics in any religion) so reasoning with them doesnt seem to be an option.
So, what do an intelligent people do in that case? avoid those people like we avoid lions and bears. I am not saying "dont make fun at their gods" since i make fun of all religion myself, what im saying is "DONT BE A FUCKING MORON AND POKE THE THING THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOU AND ME you fucking idiot"... mock them, make fun at them, do whatever you want but dont taunt them since you will get what you deserve (like what gawk got from 4chan because of being too arrogants).
If you you make some degrading stuff about their religion/god and release it to the media to make your whole country to mock them too then you are fucking asking for it. I feel nothing if you get killed.
Do you get the point?
Wow, this is WRONG on so many levels that I don not even know where to begin. What you say here is vry dagerous thinking because, basically, it means that the "intelligent" people must bow to the will of the fanatics. Following that argument, it the right thing to do to stand aside while Nazis deported the Jews. Not cool, imo.
Also, what you do not seems to take into account is that in our society there are laws that actually prohibit people from killing you for religiouos reasons, i.e. while some delusional iditios may think that fathwas are OK (btw, they are not a part of the quran but arose later, around the 12th or 13th century and were politically motivated - quran still says its not cool to kill people).
That said, you propose that if you insult a faith which is totally in accorandance with our jurisdiction you have no right to complain when someone attacks you, thereby violating our laws.
No. I do not say that we have to do what they say.
Ok, I want you to go and grab a knife make a small cut in one of your fingers and then jump in to a water that is infested with sharks.
why not?
I mean are you going to bow to their "demands"? they "say" that if they smell blood they will eat you..
Well, I feel the same when im dealing with fanatics. They for me are like animals in the sense that you cant reason with them,you cant talk to them and they believe they are right and you are wrong... SOOO...
Being the intelligent being that I am I will refrain myself from doing stuff that not only is dangerous for me but for other people as well. Freedom of speech doesnt mean "say whatever is on your mind without thinking about the consequences" . You must weight the consequences and ask yourself:
"does depicting a dog with the head of an islamist and basically saying that they are animals bring anything good? no? is it worth it to make the joke EVEN AT EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES? no? then why do i have to do it?"
You are free to say whatever you want but that doesnt mean that you have to, specially when what you say will bring nothing good.
Again, in my eyes if you are an instigator or a dumb fuck then you are better off out of our world, it will save us a lot of troubles.
On another note, your silly laws apply only for YOU. Most laws in Germany dont apply in Dominican Republic, and even though part of the world already has a set of "common laws" as part of the globalization process (which might not be as good as they make it sound) there are plenty of countries that 1) do not share the same opinion on those laws or 2) sees them as plain silly.
You cannot expect them to behave like you, or abide your laws, simple as that, so you cant bring that argument forward.
I'm really pleased the world has individuals as enlightened as you, whom are willing to classify extremists (of any sort) as animals, and will gladly limit the freedoms of rational thinking people world-wide in order to placate these so called "animals." I'm also really glad that you see something wrong with protecting peaceful, open-minded individuals attempting to exercise their unalienable rights.
I mean, I guess despite the fact that homo sapiens have a limbic system and neo-cortex, we really can't fault them for acting the same way as an animal that kills at the slightest stimuli, even though my metaphor is terribly incomplete considering the animal is killing for sustenance.
You need to ask yourself how your message sounds before you post it, because you come across as too unintelligent to express your opinions without embarrassing yourself. That said, since the population of TL aren't fascists, we won't fault you for expressing such a poorly hashed-out opinion, even though your fault other people for their's.
how can something that will definetely offend people can be considered peaceful? and you need to ask yourself how your message sounds before you post it, because you come across as too unintelligent to express your opinions without embarrassing yourself. That said, since the population of TL aren't fascists, we won't fault you for expressing such a poorly hashed-out opinion, even though your fault other people for their's.
see what i did there?
You must be trolling, or English is a language you're not familiar with, or you have no formal education. No one is stupid enough to legitimately believe that offensive imagery (or forums posts for that matter) are synonymous with violence. Peacefulness is a measurement of violence, not agreeability. Ghandi was not necessarily an agreeable person, given his advocation of civil disobedience, but no intelligent human would ever call him violent.
Do you really feel that in order to have a right to express yourself, you must be a peaceful individual? What idiot taught you that?
People in some nations don't understand the meaning of freedom of expression. To some people freedom is only freedom in such that you don't do anything offensive, annoying, hateful, etc to them. A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want. Talking good or bad about anything, from food to religion, from people to corporations.
My father and his family had to leave Iran in the late 1980s since they are a minority christian people called Assyrians and recently a ton more are leaving Iraq because the new government is just as bad as the old. They are not allowed to express their religion how they want to and are mocked and killed for it.
On December 16 2010 06:36 Jswizzy wrote: Religion's need to be open to scrutiny and ridicule, if history has shown mankind anything it is that religion attracts extremist and the delusional individuals who will bend and warp an otherwise well intended idea or philosophy into their own personal crusade against anyone who challenges them or their world view. I am not naive enough to generalize all Arabs or Muslims, they all have their own own beliefs and no one really has the same exact religious beliefs or view of god/religion, religion and spirituality are personal matters. But I do think that Islam needs to be checked just like any other religion. There are plenty of modernized and progressive Muslims nations out there but there are still tons of fundamentalist fascist Islamic states, who abuse women and commit horrible acts against anyone who steps out of line in the name of Islam(ex: women in Sudan lashed for wearing trousers + Show Spoiler +
. Should I not challenge Islam because I might offend someone who is a moderate? Well, my answer is I am not trying to offend them but I cannot pull my punches against radicals and fascist just because I may offend someone. Should I not criticize the Pope for protecting pedophiles and child molesters because the majority of Catholics are peaceful and respectful, well no that would be turning a blind eye to evil.
Also America has a long history of being a targeted for attack by radical Muslims, 300 years ago we had to deal with Barbary pirates, just look at how the Koran was used as a justification by an Islamic state to pillage and pirate Western states.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy in London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied: It was written in their Qu'ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [13]
TLR; People use religion as an excuse to commit evil so it should be open to attack and criticism, sorry if your feelings get hurt.
America has a long history of shit doings also, every nation in this whole planet has done crappy things if you look at it with today's standard. Try looking at something with an open mind...
Barbary pirates.... hmmmmmm they are pirates!!!! what the hell do expect from a pirate?
well my point is that you said People that uses religion as an excuse to commit evil should be open to attack and criticism, then criticize those guys, why go for the Prophet Muhammad?
Because apparently he endorses it if it's in the Quaran, right? I have no background knowledge on this subject really, just going off the text he quoted.
On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote: That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote: That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks
I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no?
The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives.
On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote: That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks
Fanatic freedom extremists? Really?
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
I guess I just can't wrap my mind around your contempt for temerity; why don't you believe that someone with an unpopular or "dangerous" (not in the literal sense of the word, so you and Sanjuro don't Forrest Gump your way through that) idea is often the person that needs to be heard the most? That without people willing to question the status quo, literally every piece of accumulated knowledge humanity has cobbled together would never have been learned in the first place?
Questioning our own values is something that most of the world does, because it allows us to alter or discard values and ideas that hinder us, and reaffirms those that are beneficial. The act of physically drawing a depiction of Muhammed is the West's metaphor for the values of Islam, values we question at length. Most reasonable-minded people question at least some of Islam's values, especially the treatment of women.
Sanjuro and RaptorX certainly have no inhibitions about questioning the values of many posters in this thread, yet they take issue with those of us that do the same?
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your post grossly offends me. I am going to kill you and it won't be my fault because you choose to provoke me.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad.
What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right".
It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?
I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it..
So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it?
Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good?
again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right.
Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across.
I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it?
When will people learn to stop killing each other over who's god is bigger. It's sad,really sad. I don't think any of the founders of the major religions would be happy with many of their followers actions in their names.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote: That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks
I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no?
Sorry but in my eyes you just described America. They think all countries should have "freedom of speech" and use it as an excuse to go and bomb them.
On December 16 2010 08:35 hizBALLIN wrote: I guess I just can't wrap my mind around your contempt for temerity; why don't you believe that someone with an unpopular or "dangerous" (not in the literal sense of the word, so you and Sanjuro don't Forrest Gump your way through that) idea is often the person that needs to be heard the most? That without people willing to question the status quo, literally every piece of accumulated knowledge humanity has cobbled together would never have been learned in the first place?
Questioning our own values is something that most of the world does, because it allows us to alter or discard values and ideas that hinder us, and reaffirms those that are beneficial. The act of physically drawing a depiction of Muhammed is the West's metaphor for the values of Islam, values we question at length. Most reasonable-minded people question at least some of Islam's values, especially the treatment of women.
Sanjuro and RaptorX certainly have no inhibitions about questioning the values of many posters in this thread, yet they take issue with those of us that do the same?
After this post i think I actually agree with your main idea what I do not agree with is HOW that idea is being delivered.
I do believe islam/christianism/any religion must be questioned and they should be open to it.
now please answer me honestly: that image of a dog with an image of a muslim... does that help at all with getting your idea across?? is insulting other people the only way to go?
I think not.
At the same time what they do and how they react is also bad and in my opinion it should change but I rather use a different method to make them understand that. After they do understand Im sure that joking about their god wont be seen as radical as it is now.
For the time being I think that exercising prudence is way above in the priority list than using our freedom of speech
Raptor your analogy is terribly flawed, most so when you say "Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?"
This is not no reason, freedom of expression, ideas and speech are one of the driving powers behind democracy as well as individual freedom and to give in to those who would strip of us these freedoms due to potential harm is fundamentally wrong.
Fighting for rights and freedoms in spite of great opposition, danger and harm is what has conquered evils in societys across the globe and history such as slavery, oppresive governments//monarchys and countless other examples.
I for one am not prepared to abandon, or restrict freedom of speech even at the expense of suffering to myself or others, and anyone who values the essential freedoms that humanity ought to have should stand along side me.
FIGHT THE POWER!
(sarcastic//exaggeratory post, bit in humour, but I do actually stand by it ^^)
On December 16 2010 08:51 XeliN wrote: Raptor your analogy is terribly flawed, most so when you say "Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?"
This is not no reason, freedom of expression, ideas and speech are one of the driving powers behind democracy as well as individual freedom and to give in to those who would strip of us these freedoms due to potential harm is fundamentally wrong.
Fighting for rights and freedoms in spite of great opposition, danger and harm is what has conquered evils in societys across the globe and history such as slavery, oppresive governments//monarchys and countless other examples.
I for one am not prepared to abandon, or restrict freedom of speech even at the expense of suffering to myself or others, and anyone who values the essential freedoms that humanity ought to have should stand along side me.
FIGHT THE POWER!
(sarcastic//exaggeratory post, bit in humour, but I do actually stand by it ^^)
I have centered most of my arguing based on this image: how does this help getting your idea of freedom of speech to that country? how does insulting bring anything good?
Raptor, whenever you hear "freedom" used by American politicians in reference to "liberating" a country, it's rhetoric. That's not the reason they actually decided to invade. Not sure why I even answered that, since it's irrelevant to the discussion. The US Government is not always right, nor are they the polar opposite of Muslim extremists. Next time you find yourself at a loss for counter arguments, try to stay away from making a generalization about a group of people that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad.
What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right".
It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?
I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it..
So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it?
Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good?
again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right.
Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across.
I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it?
No. What you say does not seem intelligent. A person with your mentality is dead-weight.
Freedom of speech must be ENFORCED. If people are willing to go to the lengths of violence to destroy it, the situation forces the better class of human beings to respond in kind.
You may one day come across a extremist so offended at the fact that you are not of his creed that he will try to kill you.
Who will come to your aid? All the 'adult and intelligent' individuals' having long since conceded to the extremists.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad.
What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right".
It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?
I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it..
So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it?
Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good?
again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right.
Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across.
I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it?
No. What you say does not seem intelligent. A person with your mentality is dead-weight.
Freedom of speech must be ENFORCED. If people are willing to go to the lengths of violence to destroy it, the situation forces the better class of human beings to respond in kind.
You may one day come across a extremist so offended at the fact that you are not of his creed that he will try to kill you.
Who will come to your aid? All the 'adult and intelligent' individuals' having long since conceded to the extremists.
Lol they were trying to find the "freedom of speech" extremist and you showed yourself.
As the saying goes "work smarter not harder". I will make other people understand the importance of freedom of speech without having to go down to their levels and act like them. Yes you think exactly like them but with a different idea, they want to ENFORCE their believe the same way as you do.
As I said before you both groups look the same to me... kids in a kindergarten.
On December 16 2010 09:02 contraSol wrote: Raptor, whenever you hear "freedom" used by American politicians in reference to "liberating" a country, it's rhetoric. That's not the reason they actually decided to invade. Not sure why I even answered that, since it's irrelevant to the discussion. The US Government is not always right, nor are they the polar opposite of Muslim extremists. Next time you find yourself at a loss for counter arguments, try to stay away from making a generalization about a group of people that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad.
What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right".
It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?
I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it..
So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it?
Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good?
again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right.
Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across.
I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it?
No. What you say does not seem intelligent. A person with your mentality is dead-weight.
Freedom of speech must be ENFORCED. If people are willing to go to the lengths of violence to destroy it, the situation forces the better class of human beings to respond in kind.
You may one day come across a extremist so offended at the fact that you are not of his creed that he will try to kill you.
Who will come to your aid? All the 'adult and intelligent' individuals' having long since conceded to the extremists.
Lol they were trying to find the "freedom of speech" extremist and you showed yourself.
As the saying goes "work smarter not harder". I will make other people understand the importance of freedom of speech without having to go down to their levels and act like them. Yes you think exactly like them but with a different idea, they want to ENFORCE their believe the same way as you do.
As I said before you both groups look the same to me... kids in a kindergarten.
You're doing it again.. comparing speech to killing people. Can you not see how ridiculous that is?
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad.
What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right".
It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?
I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it..
So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it?
Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good?
again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right.
Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across.
I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it?
No. What you say does not seem intelligent. A person with your mentality is dead-weight.
Freedom of speech must be ENFORCED. If people are willing to go to the lengths of violence to destroy it, the situation forces the better class of human beings to respond in kind.
You may one day come across a extremist so offended at the fact that you are not of his creed that he will try to kill you.
Who will come to your aid? All the 'adult and intelligent' individuals' having long since conceded to the extremists.
Lol they were trying to find the "freedom of speech" extremist and you showed yourself.
As the saying goes "work smarter not harder". I will make other people understand the importance of freedom of speech without having to go down to their levels and act like them. Yes you think exactly like them but with a different idea, they want to ENFORCE their believe the same way as you do.
As I said before you both groups look the same to me... kids in a kindergarten.
You're doing it again.. comparing speech to killing people. Can you not see how ridiculous that is?
if you didnt know, a lot of times a few words can cause more damage than killing some one. I would be more careful of things being said than a gun.
A gun kills you in a few seconds, something that somebody said that really hurt you can haunt you for years until the end of your life.
again there is something called responsibility... you should use it when you express yourself.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad.
What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right".
It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?
I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it..
So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it?
Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good?
again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right.
Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across.
I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it?
No. What you say does not seem intelligent. A person with your mentality is dead-weight.
Freedom of speech must be ENFORCED. If people are willing to go to the lengths of violence to destroy it, the situation forces the better class of human beings to respond in kind.
You may one day come across a extremist so offended at the fact that you are not of his creed that he will try to kill you.
Who will come to your aid? All the 'adult and intelligent' individuals' having long since conceded to the extremists.
Lol they were trying to find the "freedom of speech" extremist and you showed yourself.
As the saying goes "work smarter not harder". I will make other people understand the importance of freedom of speech without having to go down to their levels and act like them. Yes you think exactly like them but with a different idea, they want to ENFORCE their believe the same way as you do.
As I said before you both groups look the same to me... kids in a kindergarten.
You have the worst logic I have ever seen. Comparing freedom of speech to religious extremism? "Freedom of speech extremist"? I can't even wrap my mind around how bizarre your reasoning is.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad.
What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right".
It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?
I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it..
So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it?
Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good?
again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right.
Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across.
I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it?
No. What you say does not seem intelligent. A person with your mentality is dead-weight.
Freedom of speech must be ENFORCED. If people are willing to go to the lengths of violence to destroy it, the situation forces the better class of human beings to respond in kind.
You may one day come across a extremist so offended at the fact that you are not of his creed that he will try to kill you.
Who will come to your aid? All the 'adult and intelligent' individuals' having long since conceded to the extremists.
Lol they were trying to find the "freedom of speech" extremist and you showed yourself.
As the saying goes "work smarter not harder". I will make other people understand the importance of freedom of speech without having to go down to their levels and act like them. Yes you think exactly like them but with a different idea, they want to ENFORCE their believe the same way as you do.
As I said before you both groups look the same to me... kids in a kindergarten.
You're doing it again.. comparing speech to killing people. Can you not see how ridiculous that is?
if you didnt know, a lot of times a few words can cause more damage than killing some one. I would be more careful of things being said than a gun.
A gun kills you in a few seconds, something that somebody said that really hurt you can haunt you for years until the end of your life.
again there is something called responsibility... you should use it when you express yourself.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice?
Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad.
What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right".
It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON?
I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it..
So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it?
Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good?
again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right.
Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across.
I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it?
No. What you say does not seem intelligent. A person with your mentality is dead-weight.
Freedom of speech must be ENFORCED. If people are willing to go to the lengths of violence to destroy it, the situation forces the better class of human beings to respond in kind.
You may one day come across a extremist so offended at the fact that you are not of his creed that he will try to kill you.
Who will come to your aid? All the 'adult and intelligent' individuals' having long since conceded to the extremists.
Lol they were trying to find the "freedom of speech" extremist and you showed yourself.
As the saying goes "work smarter not harder". I will make other people understand the importance of freedom of speech without having to go down to their levels and act like them. Yes you think exactly like them but with a different idea, they want to ENFORCE their believe the same way as you do.
As I said before you both groups look the same to me... kids in a kindergarten.
How can you convince these extremists if you can't even convince me?
You don't get it. I will kill you because your opinion offends me. Because you are obviously trying to provoke me, your death is your own responsibility.
I will kill you and you alone would be responsible.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
And Churchill calling the Nazi's evil provoked them into attacking other european countries. If only that evil Winston churchill didn't provoke the Nazi's into killing millions of jews! How can such a horrible man be remembered as a hero for all the evil that he did!
What you don't understand is that they are raised from birth with the belief that dying and killing for allah is right. They read poetry from martyrs in classrooms, crying about how brave they will be in suicide bombing jews.
Let me leave you with a quote:
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you
On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote: That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks
I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no?
The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives.
what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you
But this raises a serious question. Who is to determine what is responsible and what is not when it comes to expressing one's thoughts. Maybe ridiculing crude irrationalities and bigotry in religion (not restircted to Islam, of course, we can equally well ridicule catholic priests for abusing children) is the responsible thing to do? It worked pretty well in the era of enlightenment and if you know how hard free thinkers were oppressed by the church in Europe in the 17th and 18th century, you know what I am talking about.
The fact that drawing Muhammed offends muslims (even if it is all of them) doesn't negate the fact that it is an effective means of demonstrating one's criticism of Islam. The cartoonist made the cartoon to demonstrate his contempt for much of the intolerance of Islamic Law.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
On December 16 2010 08:58 RaptorX wrote: I have centered most of my arguing based on this image: how does this help getting your idea of freedom of speech to that country? how does insulting bring anything good?
I simply dont get it.
There was some interesting text, I believe from the editor of Jyllands Posten (the paper which published the images in the first place) where he explained himself. Since I'm lazy I'm just going to paraphrase him rather than look it up.
"Caricature of various forms have long been standard and is part of our (Danish/Western) culture. Rather than exclude muslims/immigrants we want to include them in to our customs and make them feel like they are on a level playingfield with us rather than having an us vs them attitude."
That muslims stick to the us vs them attitude is rather obvious though. I mean I understand that the issue isn't an easy one but they should ease off, just as christian religious figures (and faith in general) did a long time ago.
On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote: That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks
I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no?
The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives.
what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
The drawings offend all Muslims ( I doubt even that... it may have offended all serious Muslims, but there are plenty of people who are muslims in name only). But even if it did I doubt it offended all people. Cartoons of Hitler certainly offended all Nazis (at least all good Nazis) and cartoons of Marx offended all good Communists. I'm sure cartoons of Einstein offend all Relativistic physicists.
However, those people may need to be offended, the truth is often offensive. While offensive truth can be delivered graciously sometimes, oftentimes the offensiveness of the truth is necessary.
Now you may contend that the cartoons aren't supporting any truth, that Muhammed is a prophet of Allah, etc. You should realize that non muslims believe that to be an offensive lie. (if they didn't they would be muslims)
You also realize that if the concept of blasphemy as a crime was reintroduced to the western world, Muslims would be the first to be punished by it... claiming that Muhammed is a prophet from Allah would definitely be considered blasphemy.. as would much of the Koran. If you really want the Spanish Inquisition back... you may get it, but don't say you weren't warned.
Now simple poor taste has its own ways to be punished.. social/economic exclusion, perhaps subject to restriction from children. But legally its a bad idea... the person with the sword must not interfere with the pen.
Also, if you call fire in a crowded theater, and you actually believe there is a fire, then you are legally OK regardless of the actual fire (although you may be commited to a mental institution for seeing things that aren't there and endangering others)
On December 16 2010 09:55 hizBALLIN wrote: The fact that drawing Muhammed offends muslims (even if it is all of them) doesn't negate the fact that it is an effective means of demonstrating one's criticism of Islam. The cartoonist made the cartoon to demonstrate his contempt for much of the intolerance of Islamic Law.
Yeah good way to promote tolerance with intolerance. GG
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact.
Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech.
I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
Sanjuro, I analyze, talk about, and sometimes make fun of every religion, ethnicity, and personality type on this planet [that I know about], including my own. None, so far, have tried to kill me. To me, bigotry is saying that there is one religion/ethnicity/person out there that you CANNOT analyze/talk about/make fun of. It's either all fair game or none of it's fair game, and if none of it is OK, then we are not free to discuss anything on a deeper-than-superficial level. Our ideas will never progress.
On December 16 2010 09:55 hizBALLIN wrote: The fact that drawing Muhammed offends muslims (even if it is all of them) doesn't negate the fact that it is an effective means of demonstrating one's criticism of Islam. The cartoonist made the cartoon to demonstrate his contempt for much of the intolerance of Islamic Law.
Yeah good way to promote tolerance with intolerance. GG
Intolerance of intolerance is different than naked intolerance.
I am intolerant of bigots. Does that make me a bigot? Even if I am technically bigoted against bigots, surely you can see the difference...
Don't get caught up on semantics, you're not fooling anyone.
On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote: That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks
I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no?
The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives.
what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
The drawings offend all Muslims ( I doubt even that... it may have offended all serious Muslims, but there are plenty of people who are muslims in name only). But even if it did I doubt it offended all people. Cartoons of Hitler certainly offended all Nazis (at least all good Nazis) and cartoons of Marx offended all good Communists. I'm sure cartoons of Einstein offend all Relativistic physicists.
However, those people may need to be offended, the truth is often offensive. While offensive truth can be delivered graciously sometimes, oftentimes the offensiveness of the truth is necessary.
Now you may contend that the cartoons aren't supporting any truth, that Muhammed is a prophet of Allah, etc. You should realize that non muslims believe that to be an offensive lie. (if they didn't they would be muslims)
You also realize that if the concept of blasphemy as a crime was reintroduced to the western world, Muslims would be the first to be punished by it... claiming that Muhammed is a prophet from Allah would definitely be considered blasphemy.. as would much of the Koran. If you really want the Spanish Inquisition back... you may get it, but don't say you weren't warned.
Now simple poor taste has its own ways to be punished.. social/economic exclusion, perhaps subject to restriction from children. But legally its a bad idea... the person with the sword must not interfere with the pen.
Also, if you call fire in a crowded theater, and you actually believe there is a fire, then you are legally OK regardless of the actual fire (although you may be commited to a mental institution for seeing things that aren't there and endangering others)
nah, the way i see it, if you are not offended by it then you are not a Muslim, it's a simple as that, you gonna open a can of spanish inquisition on me, bring it on LOL, you are so funny
I think depictions should obviously be allowed due to freedom of speech, no question about it. However, I don't think such drawing should be encouraged in any way, due to public safety issues. It's like revamping airport security, obviously it takes away some freedom or adds some annoyances for every traveler, but it's for safety purposes because the truth is there are some nutsos out there.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact.
Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech.
I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute."
At the same time, how is the yelling fire in a theater not qualify as reckless endangerment? Especially if the result is a stampede that kills someone.
On December 16 2010 10:09 contraSol wrote: Sanjuro, I analyze, talk about, and sometimes make fun of every religion, ethnicity, and personality type on this planet [that I know about], including my own. None, so far, have tried to kill me. To me, bigotry is saying that there is one religion/ethnicity/person out there that you CANNOT analyze/talk about/make fun of. It's either all fair game or none of it's fair game, and if none of it is OK, then we are not free to discuss anything on a deeper-than-superficial level. Our ideas will never progress.
i have many friends from other religions, its one of the perks living in Indonesia so much diversity thats makes me to be a more tolerent person, of course people will make fun of every other religion, i've traded jokes with christians friends, the funny thing is our jokes are the exact same thing even the punchline, his jokes uses imams, my jokes uses priest. i dont take offense in it.
i have nothing against discusion about religion, but posting/sharing a drawing of a person considered most holy by muslims with an animal body does not provoke discussion, it provokes just more hatred that we dont need.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact.
Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech.
I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute."
At the federal level there are no criminal defamation laws. Libel/slader are civil matters, not criminal.
On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote: That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse.
if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks
I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no?
The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives.
what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
The drawings offend all Muslims ( I doubt even that... it may have offended all serious Muslims, but there are plenty of people who are muslims in name only). But even if it did I doubt it offended all people. Cartoons of Hitler certainly offended all Nazis (at least all good Nazis) and cartoons of Marx offended all good Communists. I'm sure cartoons of Einstein offend all Relativistic physicists.
However, those people may need to be offended, the truth is often offensive. While offensive truth can be delivered graciously sometimes, oftentimes the offensiveness of the truth is necessary.
Now you may contend that the cartoons aren't supporting any truth, that Muhammed is a prophet of Allah, etc. You should realize that non muslims believe that to be an offensive lie. (if they didn't they would be muslims)
You also realize that if the concept of blasphemy as a crime was reintroduced to the western world, Muslims would be the first to be punished by it... claiming that Muhammed is a prophet from Allah would definitely be considered blasphemy.. as would much of the Koran. If you really want the Spanish Inquisition back... you may get it, but don't say you weren't warned.
Now simple poor taste has its own ways to be punished.. social/economic exclusion, perhaps subject to restriction from children. But legally its a bad idea... the person with the sword must not interfere with the pen.
Also, if you call fire in a crowded theater, and you actually believe there is a fire, then you are legally OK regardless of the actual fire (although you may be commited to a mental institution for seeing things that aren't there and endangering others)
nah, the way i see it, if you are not offended by it then you are not a Muslim, it's a simple of that, you gonna open a can of spanish inquisition on me, bring it on LOL, you are so funny
I see. And I'm not threatening the Spanish Inquisition... I'm saying that's what restricting it would lead to (even though you wouldn't expect it).
I mean you already have some of the beginnings of the right ingredients in Europe.. an "'underclass' feeding off of more 'noble' cultures". and in the US "security measures" that the people are always wanting to profile more.
Essentially restricting those cartoon would show that the Nazis and Fascists were right in their basic principle(just unfortunate on the military front), Liberal Democracy doesn't work.
And since Communism demonstrably doesn't either... we have a limited number of models.
I mean the ovens probably wouldn't get going until at least the 70s or 80s... but they still might. And I'd be really annoyed that it was because some people couldn't live with being mocked.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact.
Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech.
I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute."
At the federal level there are no criminal defamation laws. Libel/slader are civil matters, not criminal.
I see, I was aware that they were civil matters, but I wasn't aware you were making a distinction between civil vs criminal in your claim that freedom of speech is absolute.
Also, I'm curious why yelling fire in a theater does not qualify as reckless endangerment, especially if it results in the stampede and death of someone.
On December 16 2010 10:09 contraSol wrote: Sanjuro, I analyze, talk about, and sometimes make fun of every religion, ethnicity, and personality type on this planet [that I know about], including my own. None, so far, have tried to kill me. To me, bigotry is saying that there is one religion/ethnicity/person out there that you CANNOT analyze/talk about/make fun of. It's either all fair game or none of it's fair game, and if none of it is OK, then we are not free to discuss anything on a deeper-than-superficial level. Our ideas will never progress.
i have many friends from other religions, its one of the perks living in Indonesia so much diversity thats makes me to be a more tolerent person, of course people will make fun of every other religion, i've traded jokes with christians friends, the funny thing is our jokes are the exact same thing even the punchline, his jokes uses imams, my jokes uses priest. i dont take offense in it.
i have nothing against discusion about religion, but posting/sharing a drawing of a person considered most holy by muslims with an animal body does not provoke discussion, it provokes just more hatred that we dont need.
The publishing of such a cartoon should not be a criminal offense. The mere existence of the Muslim religion offends me, but I don't call for it to be outlawed, nor am I driven to violence over it.
The people who set fire to the Danish embassy are the actual criminals. It's strange how people forget that.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact.
Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech.
I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute."
At the federal level there are no criminal defamation laws. Libel/slader are civil matters, not criminal.
I see, I was aware that they were civil matters, but I wasn't aware you were making a distinction between civil vs criminal in your claim that freedom of speech is absolute.
Also, I'm curious why yelling fire in a theater does not qualify as reckless endangerment, especially if it results in the stampede and death of someone.
The distinction should be obvious. Civil matters are between individuals. Criminal matters are between the individual and the government. Freedom of speech is protected by the government.
Don't get carried away with the definition of 'absolute'. There is no celestial law to justify freedom of speech. What I'm merely saying is that level of freedom of speech in the US protected by national law is greater than people think.
'Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre' could be considered to be reckless endangerment. However, remember that this example is an analogy - it's not actually a free speech issue.
Don't you see, sanjuro? Simply drawing a picture of Mohammad IS as social criticism of the religion and its values. That IS the discussion topic. Look at us... we're discussing freedom of speech right now, all because someone drew a picture. Yeah, it offends people, but you know what, the mere idea that the Earth wasn't flat offended the Catholic church for hundreds of years. Socrates was forced to drink poison for "corrupting youth" with his ideas, yet they were some of the most influential, world-changing philosophies in human history. Where would we be if not for those who spoke, wrote, and created against the will of people with the power to end their lives? Where would we be if everyone adopted your philosophy of "free speech... until it pisses someone off"?
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact.
Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech.
I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute."
At the federal level there are no criminal defamation laws. Libel/slader are civil matters, not criminal.
I see, I was aware that they were civil matters, but I wasn't aware you were making a distinction between civil vs criminal in your claim that freedom of speech is absolute.
Also, I'm curious why yelling fire in a theater does not qualify as reckless endangerment, especially if it results in the stampede and death of someone.
The distinction should be obvious. Civil matters are between individuals. Criminal matters are between the individual and the government. Freedom of speech is protected by the government.
Don't get carried away with the definition of 'absolute'. There is no celestial law to justify freedom of speech. What I'm merely saying is that level of freedom of speech in the US protected by national law is greater than people think.
As said, I'm not fluent with the court system. I was under the assumption if something was protected by the government, it meant you were protected in both civil and criminal situations.
the way i see it contraSol, you are comparing an idiot to Socrates, come on. he cant even draw. What does he know about Islam? is he a theologist? did he spent time in a muslim country learning about Islam and it's values, or did he just sit down and googled Islam then make a drawing?
at least defend somebody that worth defending, not that troll
On December 16 2010 11:29 Sanjuro wrote: the way i see it contraSol, you are comparing an idiot to Socrates, come on. he cant even draw. What does he know about Islam? is he a theologist? did he spent time in a muslim country learning about the Islam and it's values, or did he just sit down and googled Islam then make a drawing?
at least defend somebody that worth defending, not that troll
There's no test required to earn your "freedom of speech" license. I'm not defending that guy, I'm defending the idea, and for that idea to work, it has to be universal. Yes, some bigoted douchebags will say/write/draw some intolerant, hateful things, but in the same vein, some intelligent, foreword-thinking individuals will say/write/draw things that change the way we look at the world. If you can't consider the source and tune out the ignorant hatespeech, thats on you.
The lives of the south park creators were threatened before censoring this episode. Yet South Park has made fun of everyone and everything, including scenes of Jesus doing drugs. Do radical Christians threaten to bomb the White House, or do they shrug it off/ignore it?
On December 16 2010 11:56 chadissilent wrote: This pretty much explains it all:
The lives of the south park creators were threatened before censoring this episode. Yet South Park has made fun of everyone and everything, including scenes of Jesus doing drugs. Do radical Christians threaten to bomb the White House, or do they shrug it off/ignore it?
I remember that south park episode where they censored the image of the prophet mohamed. In the end they had, I think it was, Jesus taking a shit all over an american flag - this was just fine. >.>
These muslims that advocate that violence are just doing what they always do - using terror to fulfill their goals. We should never give in to their demands, for the sake of all the people who have died in past wars over our freedom (In europe and America alike). Enough with the violence.... God doesn't even exist..
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.
I feel that we shoudl respect every religion regardless of what they believe. To muslims, drawings and depictions of muhammad are banned, so we should respect that in the very least. just as we respect christains and the right to go to church on sundays, which is something they are supposed to do, and we as a society respect that.
I really feel that to myself, the images are insulting to me, i am not muslim, but i believe in all the religions of the world, and feels its disrespectful to everyone.
I feel many people take the freedom of speech thing too extreme. my thinking of the freedom is that we have the freedom to seek our minds, so long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. it seems as though the person who is drawing the pictures is infringing on the rights and freedoms of muslims and their own religious law.
I feel that many people are getting too passionate about this issue and really taking things to the extreme, in both ways. with the discrimation of muslims by people in this forum and by society, but that does not grant them the right to bomb of kill us in any respect.
mind you. out of the almost 2 billion muslims, maybe a few thousand are auctual terroists, if you think about the percentage, its amanzingly small.
This is respect of almost every religion though, heck. there are christains who bomb abortion clinics, but not all christains are bombers though. we have to remember to not judge a few bad apples from the bunch.
On December 16 2010 16:37 masterbreti wrote: I feel that we shoudl respect every religion regardless of what they believe. To muslims, drawings and depictions of muhammad are banned, so we should respect that in the very least. just as we respect christains and the right to go to church on sundays, which is something they are supposed to do, and we as a society respect that.
I really feel that to myself, the images are insulting to me, i am not muslim, but i believe in all the religions of the world, and feels its disrespectful to everyone.
I feel many people take the freedom of speech thing too extreme. my thinking of the freedom is that we have the freedom to seek our minds, so long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. it seems as though the person who is drawing the pictures is infringing on the rights and freedoms of muslims and their own religious law.
I feel that many people are getting too passionate about this issue and really taking things to the extreme, in both ways. with the discrimation of muslims by people in this forum and by society, but that does not grant them the right to bomb of kill us in any respect.
mind you. out of the almost 2 billion muslims, maybe a few thousand are auctual terroists, if you think about the percentage, its amanzingly small.
This is respect of almost every religion though, heck. there are christains who bomb abortion clinics, but not all christains are bombers though. we have to remember to not judge a few bad apples from the bunch.
Yes, I am passionate about the rights that supposedly come with American citizenship. I am passionate about the ideals that my country was founded upon (minus the whole slavery thing... not such a big fan). Please excuse me for my outrage when these promises fail to deliver, and for my disbelief that only a handful of people seem to actually care. Excuse me for worrying that people care more about hurting a group's feelings than for protecting its rights. With that, I'll excuse myself from this thread. It's getting too depressing.
On December 16 2010 09:49 Sanjuro wrote: what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
You know what offends me? Women not being allowed to show their faces in public because some douche bag might have an impure thought. Little girls having acid splashed in their faces for the offense of going to school. Women not being allowed to work or drive cars, or spend five minutes in a room with a stranger. People being beheaded for adultery. Authors having death sentences put on their heads for writing a book. Artists having their throats slit for creating art. Teenagers being brainwashed into turning themselves into suicide bombers, and killing innocent people in their demented quest for paradise.
And of course, I'm offended by Muslims who defend it all by claiming that I just don't understand.
I don't WANT to understand the sick and degenerate culture that makes such extremism tolerable. In my opinion, Islamic culture SHOULD be offended on a regular basis, you should be prodded and provoked until you get off your asses and do something to root out this cancer within your ranks. And if you refuse to do it, we will, and to be brutally frank that's going to be a lot more messy.
And yes, America has our own extremists, who would murder innocent people to forward their agenda, like Timothy McVeigh. You know what we do to them? We fucking kill them. We don't defend their actions by saying "the FBI is pretty offensive, so those kids in the daycare center kinda had it coming!"
On December 16 2010 10:51 Consolidate wrote: The publishing of such a cartoon should not be a criminal offense. The mere existence of the Muslim religion offends me, but I don't call for it to be outlawed, nor am I driven to violence over it.
The people who set fire to the Danish embassy are the actual criminals. It's strange how people forget that.
I completely agree with you, and if you guys had really read all my posts you would see that I have never mentioned that the cartoons should be banned or that free speech should be trimmed down by any means.
What I AM saying is that the person who created the cartoons did have the option of thinking before exercising his rights and decide whether publishing it would be good for him, his country or free speech in general. In my opinion it doesnt and anything that comes after that would be on him.
SnK-Arcbound brought Churchill in to the conversation as if it has anything to do with what Im arguing... Churchill said Nazis are evil, and stood by it without defending his thought behind "freedom of speech" and what he said was the pure truth, Nazis were/are evil.
These cartoons dont depict anything that i can say is completely true. Muslims arent dogs/animals so his cartoons were more to provoke than to call the truth, and going behind the freedom of speech shit is just being coward.
Actually few posts before somebody posted a cartoon that i thought it was very good and would support the creator even with the cost of my own life.
The cartoon depicts a Muslim drawing a devilish Jew but at the same time complaining when someone else draws Mohammad. THAT cartoon is helping bring across a very important thought treat others as you want to be treated. If they want tolerance for their religion then they must tolerate other cultures including the Jews.
The cartoons I saw from Sweden are trouble makers and bring nothing good to the argument, thus I dont support the creator and dont feel anything about what happens next to him and his country.
When South Park depicted Muhammad handing something to another character I was fully supporting them and I think is a shame that it got censored in the end. "But what is the difference?" you may ask, that depicting Muhammad handing something is not the same as depicting Muhammad's head on a dogs body. It is not the time for those kind of jokes yet...
I hope that in the future we can make jokes about Muhammad pooping on an American flag or something like that and that we can laugh it off, but guess what? we are not there yet, we still have a long way to go.
Muslims do not think like us and they dont believe in freedom of speech either, so if we want them to think like us we must first spoon feed that Idea to them until they get used to it and then later on try with something harder until they are like us.... You do not give a 3 month old baby chili for a reason.
On December 16 2010 09:14 Krigwin wrote: You have the worst logic I have ever seen. Comparing freedom of speech to religious extremism? "Freedom of speech extremist"? I can't even wrap my mind around how bizarre your reasoning is.
dude, being an extremist is simply grabbing an idea and stretching it to some stupid extreme level, like "you dont like my god, i kill you" or "we ALL need to have free speech, so we need to enforce it by any means necessary even if my actions will provoke deaths of innocent people".
Those are extremes.
I think that there should be another way to get our message across, and the less people die in the process the better, but it seems to be that not many people agree with that, they just want what they want and they want it NOW even though it might be bad not only for them but for people around them (thats what shocks me the most, that they dont care that their actions might make the islamists blow OTHER people up instead of the creator of the cartoon).
Thats the reason I left that quote a few posts ago:
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Note the bold. It is not that your idea about enforcing freedom of speech is bad, I want the other people on this world to be free as I am... The problem comes with the timing. There are certain things that we should not do now. It is not cowardice is prudence. The same prudence exercised by the military before sending soldiers to certain areas. They are not cowards but they wont just simply send all their troops forward.
On December 16 2010 10:51 Consolidate wrote: The publishing of such a cartoon should not be a criminal offense. The mere existence of the Muslim religion offends me, but I don't call for it to be outlawed, nor am I driven to violence over it.
The people who set fire to the Danish embassy are the actual criminals. It's strange how people forget that.
I completely agree with you, and if you guys had really read all my posts you would see that I have never mentioned that the cartoons should be banned or that free speech should be trimmed down by any means.
What I AM saying is that the person who created the cartoons did have the option of thinking before exercising his rights and decide whether publishing it would be good for him, his country or free speech in general. In my opinion it doesnt and anything that comes after that would be on him.
SnK-Arcbound brought Churchill in to the conversation as if it has anything to do with what Im arguing... Churchill said Nazis are evil, and stood by it without defending his thought behind "freedom of speech" and what he said was the pure truth, Nazis were/are evil.
These cartoons dont depict anything that i can say is completely true. Muslims arent dogs/animals so his cartoons were more to provoke than to call the truth, and going behind the freedom of speech shit is just being coward.
Actually few posts before somebody posted a cartoon that i thought it was very good and would support the creator even with the cost of my own life.
The cartoon depicts a Muslim drawing a devilish Jew but at the same time complaining when someone else draws Mohammad. THAT cartoon is helping bring across a very important thought treat others as you want to be treated. If they want tolerance for their religion then they must tolerate other cultures including the Jews.
The cartoons I saw from Sweden are trouble makers and bring nothing good to the argument, thus I dont support the creator and dont feel anything about what happens next to him and his country.
When South Park depicted Muhammad handing something to another character I was fully supporting them and I think is a shame that it got censored in the end. "But what is the difference?" you may ask, that depicting Muhammad handing something is not the same as depicting Muhammad's head on a dogs body. It is not the time for those kind of jokes yet...
I hope that in the future we can make jokes about Muhammad pooping on an American flag or something like that and that we can laugh it off, but guess what? we are not there yet, we still have a long way to go.
Muslims do not think like us and they dont believe in freedom of speech either, so if we want them to think like us we must first spoon feed that Idea to them until they get used to it and then later on try with something harder until they are like us.... You do not give a 3 month old baby chili for a reason.
On December 16 2010 09:14 Krigwin wrote: You have the worst logic I have ever seen. Comparing freedom of speech to religious extremism? "Freedom of speech extremist"? I can't even wrap my mind around how bizarre your reasoning is.
dude, being an extremist is simply grabbing an idea and stretching it to some stupid extreme level, like "you dont like my god, i kill you" or "we ALL need to have free speech, so we need to enforce it by any means necessary even if my actions will provoke deaths of innocent people".
Those are extremes.
I think that there should be another way to get our message across, and the less people die in the process the better, but it seems to be that not many people agree with that, they just want what they want and they want it NOW even though it might be bad not only for them but for people around them (thats what shocks me the most, that they dont care that their actions might make the islamists blow OTHER people up instead of the creator of the cartoon).
Thats the reason I left that quote a few posts ago:
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Note the bold. It is not that your idea about enforcing freedom of speech is bad, I want the other people on this world to be free as I am... The problem comes with the timing. There are certain things that we should not do now. It is not cowardice is prudence. The same prudence exercised by the military before sending soldiers to certain areas. They are not cowards but they wont just simply send all their troops forward.
that they dont care that their actions might make the islamists blow OTHER people up instead of the creator of the cartoon
Perhaps instead the islamists should think before exercising their ability to blow people up, because it might make the west go and invade their countries.
You can't shift the blame like that... the islamists are NOT 3 month olds.. they aren't infants they are adults. There are things they (collectively and individually) dislike and they react to them, just as there are things we(collectively and individually) dislike and react to.
And in our society there are particular ways you react to things if you don't want the government to react by jailing/executing you and your associates.
On December 16 2010 23:50 Krikkitone wrote: Perhaps instead the islamists should think before exercising their ability to blow people up, because it might make the west go and invade their countries.
You can't shift the blame like that... the islamists are NOT 3 month olds.. they aren't infants they are adults. There are things they (collectively and individually) dislike and they react to them, just as there are things we(collectively and individually) dislike and react to.
And in our society there are particular ways you react to things if you don't want the government to react by jailing/executing you and your associates.
Agree, but insulting them is not the way to try to make them understand that. Also the analogy with the infant was just an example of how their understanding of free speech is at the moment.
We cannot start making some kinds of jokes yet because they do not understand that those are jokes and are not meant to be taken personally, the analogy tried to explain that we should try to teach them freedom of speech slowly, and when they reach certain "maturity" on that particular topic then we can joke with them or at them knowing that the reaction will not be the extreme one we are seeing today.
On December 16 2010 23:50 Krikkitone wrote: Perhaps instead the islamists should think before exercising their ability to blow people up, because it might make the west go and invade their countries.
You can't shift the blame like that... the islamists are NOT 3 month olds.. they aren't infants they are adults. There are things they (collectively and individually) dislike and they react to them, just as there are things we(collectively and individually) dislike and react to.
And in our society there are particular ways you react to things if you don't want the government to react by jailing/executing you and your associates.
Agree, but insulting them is not the way to try to make them understand that. Also the analogy with the infant was just an example of how their understanding of free speech is at the moment.
We cannot start making some kinds of jokes yet because they do not understand that those are jokes and are not meant to be taken personally, the analogy tried to explain that we should try to teach them freedom of speech slowly, and when they reach certain "maturity" on that particular topic then we can joke with them or at them knowing that the reaction will not be the extreme one we are seeing today.
These lessons are Not gong to come gently... It took Europe ~200-500 years of protestant-catholic violence (within states or between them) to realize state religions cause more trouble than they are worth.
The fact is baby has to get his chili powder or he's not going to grow. The fact that he occasionally spits it back at us is an unfortunate fact that we live on the same planet, but either deal with it or regress to baby's level himself.
Its one thing to respect those who believe they may be wrong. Those who are certain they are right may need to be insulted to be brought into the truth. (Jesus-Pharisees.. and yes I know they ended up getting him killed. sometimes that is necessary) In those cases the 'jokes' ARE meant to be taken personally, they are attacks on the beliefs/attitudes/action, because they is thought to be false/evil.
Could those cartoons have been better... certainly Should they have insulted... I'd say yes
In any case, part of the issue is not just the insult, it is the fact that Muhammed is being depicted... same as Orthodox Jews would object to the Sistine Chapel, not because it is insulting God, but because it is depicting Him at all (they'd even object to my using God and not G_d)
On December 16 2010 11:56 chadissilent wrote: This pretty much explains it all:
The lives of the south park creators were threatened before censoring this episode. Yet South Park has made fun of everyone and everything, including scenes of Jesus doing drugs. Do radical Christians threaten to bomb the White House, or do they shrug it off/ignore it?
That's why I hate terrorists, lol. They keep cencoring my cartoons!
It uses to exist on SPstudios until the episodes 200 and 201 but after that they had to remove it... also cencoring episode 201 fcking shit...
I still have super best friends uncencored on my comp though
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
Sure, you can shout fire in a crowded theatre, but if there isn't a fire, you're going to be kicked out and banned for life. You lose your credibility and the right to go to that particular movie theatre. Is that not a punishment that sets an example for other people to not speak their mind? This example is terribly flawed.
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
Sure, you can shout fire in a crowded theatre, but if there isn't a fire, you're going to be kicked out and banned for life. You lose your credibility and the right to go to that particular movie theatre. Is that not a punishment that sets an example for other people to not speak their mind? This example is terribly flawed.
It's punishment from society, not the government. The two are very different.
If the government decides that no one can criticize McDonald's or you go to jail you have very limited options. Either shut up or rot.
If society deems it unacceptable to criticize McDonald's the most they can do it shun you. You can still say whatever you want about McDonalds, and rather then being locked up in jail, now people just don't like you. Any attempts to imprison or hurt you are illegal, and you can speak your mind 'freely'. I say 'freely' because freedom of speech in not freedom from consequences, its freedom of consequences from the governement.
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.
ok so pretty much what we can say is that many people here don't know a lot about the middle east in general.
what we are seeing in the middle east is the fault of the select mullas (Islamic clergy) who have spoken anti-american comments, and people are taking those comment like they would the words of the koran. reason why the mullas can do this is because they have the power. most of the people in the middle east cannot read or write, so they gain their knowledge of the koran and current issues through the mullas. there are a few mullas who only want power and want to take it by force, so the people listening to mullas will only know that and nothing else.
i will provide a history example. 700 years ago the catholic church had a lot of power, having both political and social power (like the mullas in the middle east) the general population were not that smart and couldn't read or write (like the population in the middle east today) so the priests would eb the bearers of knowledge. we all know how that went. the church killed anyone who stood in their way and only sought the power that they wanted. when the people started to learn more and become more independent, the church reacted and started killing those who had the most knowledge of science.
when we look back at that, it was knowledge that released the masses from the power fo the priests. we can easily now relate what happend 700 years ago to the current problems in the middle east.
what we need to do a society is to let the people in the middle east learn, and gain that knowledge.like the old motto "knowledge is power,"
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote: "A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences?
Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations.
The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved.
In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings).
We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars.
Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact.
Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech.
I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute."
At the federal level there are no criminal defamation laws. Libel/slader are civil matters, not criminal.
I see, I was aware that they were civil matters, but I wasn't aware you were making a distinction between civil vs criminal in your claim that freedom of speech is absolute.
Also, I'm curious why yelling fire in a theater does not qualify as reckless endangerment, especially if it results in the stampede and death of someone.
The distinction should be obvious. Civil matters are between individuals. Criminal matters are between the individual and the government. Freedom of speech is protected by the government.
Don't get carried away with the definition of 'absolute'. There is no celestial law to justify freedom of speech. What I'm merely saying is that level of freedom of speech in the US protected by national law is greater than people think.
'Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre' could be considered to be reckless endangerment. However, remember that this example is an analogy - it's not actually a free speech issue.
Well, it isn't obvious to us. Want to elaborate? Also, threats should fall under the category of criminal matters.
On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote: Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience.
If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in.
On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote: Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience.
If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in.
Censorship of art in terms of expressing part of it, is NOT the artists decision It is the expresser's decision. And in your case, you, the expresser, had a legitimate authority (teacher) over what you could express in class.
If I choose to tell an edited version of a story, that is perfectly fine, as long as I don't pretend it is unedited.
You are right that editing the text alrtered the impact... has it occured to you that the teacher (and other students) Wanted to alter the impact. That is entirely within the teacher's right, as long as you know it is edited. The fact that You read it also altered the work, your voice and build and reputation at the school all became part of the impact of the work altering it beyond what the artist intended.
On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote: Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience.
If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in.
Censorship of art in terms of expressing part of it, is NOT the artists decision It is the expresser's decision. And in your case, you, the expresser, had a legitimate authority (teacher) over what you could express in class.
If I choose to tell an edited version of a story, that is perfectly fine, as long as I don't pretend it is unedited.
You are right that editing the text alrtered the impact... has it occured to you that the teacher (and other students) Wanted to alter the impact. That is entirely within the teacher's right, as long as you know it is edited. The fact that You read it also altered the work, your voice and build and reputation at the school all became part of the impact of the work altering it beyond what the artist intended.
No. Only the creator of the artwork can express their artwork. An intermediary can then interpret the artwork and then express their interpretation of it. An interpreter might omit a critical bit of information that to the artist was very meaningful, but to the interpreter was dismissed as an insignificant detail. This happens very frequently in movies,music,art,books etc.
As such, only the artist can decide what is critical to their expression.
An artist accepts that people's interpretations of their work have the potential to be flawed, or even downright backwards. This problem is unavoidable because communication isn't perfect. However deliberately modifying the message is at best incredibly disrespectful to the artist.
On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote: Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience.
If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in.
Censorship of art in terms of expressing part of it, is NOT the artists decision It is the expresser's decision. And in your case, you, the expresser, had a legitimate authority (teacher) over what you could express in class.
If I choose to tell an edited version of a story, that is perfectly fine, as long as I don't pretend it is unedited.
You are right that editing the text alrtered the impact... has it occured to you that the teacher (and other students) Wanted to alter the impact. That is entirely within the teacher's right, as long as you know it is edited. The fact that You read it also altered the work, your voice and build and reputation at the school all became part of the impact of the work altering it beyond what the artist intended.
No. Only the creator of the artwork can express their artwork. An intermediary can then interpret the artwork and then express their interpretation of it. An interpreter might omit a critical bit of information that to the artist was very meaningful, but to the interpreter was dismissed as an insignificant detail. This happens very frequently in movies,music,art,books etc.
As such, only the artist can decide what is critical to their expression.
An artist accepts that people's interpretations of their work have the potential to be flawed, or even downright backwards. This problem is unavoidable because communication isn't perfect. However deliberately modifying the message is at best incredibly disrespectful to the artist.
The artist can decide what is critical to Their expression of their art. Once they have let it out though, other people can express that artwork however they like.
I am free to read murder mysteries from the last page, although that is not the way the artist wanted their art expressed. That doesn't mean I have learned anything about the artist or what they wanted to express... but who says I need to listen to what they wanted to express. I just need to realize I didn't get what the artist wanted to express.. which is OK, most art I consider for entertainment, and if it gives me some interesting ideas, I really don't care if the artist had those ideas as well.
By editing that one word, the class was expressing not exactly what the artist was expressing. However, they were also expressing differently by reading it out loud in a class and having to do homework assignments on it. I'm sure "To Kill a Mockingbird" was not written with Character analysis questions in the margin, but the teacher has added those. Because the teacher's purpose is not the author's purpose. The author's purpose is only a Small part of the teacher's purpose.
On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote: Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience.
If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in.
Censorship of art in terms of expressing part of it, is NOT the artists decision It is the expresser's decision. And in your case, you, the expresser, had a legitimate authority (teacher) over what you could express in class.
If I choose to tell an edited version of a story, that is perfectly fine, as long as I don't pretend it is unedited.
You are right that editing the text alrtered the impact... has it occured to you that the teacher (and other students) Wanted to alter the impact. That is entirely within the teacher's right, as long as you know it is edited. The fact that You read it also altered the work, your voice and build and reputation at the school all became part of the impact of the work altering it beyond what the artist intended.
No. Only the creator of the artwork can express their artwork. An intermediary can then interpret the artwork and then express their interpretation of it. An interpreter might omit a critical bit of information that to the artist was very meaningful, but to the interpreter was dismissed as an insignificant detail. This happens very frequently in movies,music,art,books etc.
As such, only the artist can decide what is critical to their expression.
An artist accepts that people's interpretations of their work have the potential to be flawed, or even downright backwards. This problem is unavoidable because communication isn't perfect. However deliberately modifying the message is at best incredibly disrespectful to the artist.
The artist can decide what is critical to Their expression of their art. Once they have let it out though, other people can express that artwork however they like.
I am free to read murder mysteries from the last page, although that is not the way the artist wanted their art expressed. That doesn't mean I have learned anything about the artist or what they wanted to express... but who says I need to listen to what they wanted to express. I just need to realize I didn't get what the artist wanted to express.. which is OK, most art I consider for entertainment, and if it gives me some interesting ideas, I really don't care if the artist had those ideas as well.
By editing that one word, the class was expressing not exactly what the artist was expressing. However, they were also expressing differently by reading it out loud in a class and having to do homework assignments on it. I'm sure "To Kill a Mockingbird" was not written with Character analysis questions in the margin, but the teacher has added those. Because the teacher's purpose is not the author's purpose. The author's purpose is only a Small part of the teacher's purpose.
What I am suggesting to you is, teach in good faith the book which has a message you want to express. If you have to choose between editing a book or finding a more suitable book, find the more suitable one. Deliberately editing someone else's message and then pushing a bastardized version around is at best extremely disrespectful to the artist. This behavior is not something I want to support or encourage in any way.
When placed in this situation my response will be: civil disobedience and accept the punishment, which virtually all of the time will be nothing because said disobedience is usually quite trivial.
On December 16 2010 07:18 Shiragaku wrote: When in Rome, do as Romans do.
The immigrants should not give up their faith, but do not try to impose it on other people. At least thank the nation for letting them come in the first place.
But people seem to get the idea that ALL Muslims seem to act like that. I know from my personal experience with Muslims in the US is that they are not a bunch of over zealous crusaders and oddly enough, the biggest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia and we do not hear do not religious battles from there (Use to however)
Actually they have huge problems in some islands with christians vs muslims that made the headlines all over the world!
Freedom of speech > islamic tolerance. Since they aren't known for being the most tolerant group of people in the world I see no reason as to why we should protect them.
The koran also states that muslims should not drink alcohol or do drugs and we all know how that went..
Do all muslims here think Sharia law is acceptable?
Is it acceptable to "circunsize" women clitoris just so that she doesn't take pleasure from sex? Don't muslims like sex? why shouldn't their wifes have also pleasure?
Do all muslims think a wife should be stoned to death because she betrayed her husband? What if a man betrays her wife?
Why is it that some muslims think of "us" as infidels but accept us has humans but don't think of women the same way? what makes a woman inferior to any man?
We have to accept that the writings in koran are old, written by people with much less knowledge then us(they didn't know the earth was round), why should it be taken has laws or even as a way to live your life? Even if we accept the book as true words from the prophet, we have to apply it to our knowledge not the other way around..
Women = man or in some cases way better, so they have the same rights and dutys, and that my friends in 2010 is the only right way of doing things..
In reality the muslim world acts as the christian churches of the mediavel times.
On December 16 2010 09:49 Sanjuro wrote: what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
You know what offends me? Women not being allowed to show their faces in public because some douche bag might have an impure thought. Little girls having acid splashed in their faces for the offense of going to school. Women not being allowed to work or drive cars, or spend five minutes in a room with a stranger. People being beheaded for adultery. Authors having death sentences put on their heads for writing a book. Artists having their throats slit for creating art. Teenagers being brainwashed into turning themselves into suicide bombers, and killing innocent people in their demented quest for paradise.
And of course, I'm offended by Muslims who defend it all by claiming that I just don't understand.
I don't WANT to understand the sick and degenerate culture that makes such extremism tolerable. In my opinion, Islamic culture SHOULD be offended on a regular basis, you should be prodded and provoked until you get off your asses and do something to root out this cancer within your ranks. And if you refuse to do it, we will, and to be brutally frank that's going to be a lot more messy.
And yes, America has our own extremists, who would murder innocent people to forward their agenda, like Timothy McVeigh. You know what we do to them? We fucking kill them. We don't defend their actions by saying "the FBI is pretty offensive, so those kids in the daycare center kinda had it coming!"
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.
this guy only watches Fox news
haha do you really belive that american soldiers never killed muslim civilians?
On January 09 2011 05:06 Derminator wrote: Since I spent so much time criticizing the Muslim world in this thread, it seems appropriate to post this here.
If anything, they should make MORE cartoons and more fun of the idea of Muhammad just to spit in their faces. Seriously anybody willing to take lives for any reason as a first-resort (for a fucking cartoon???) deserves a lifetime of ridicule for being amongst the dumbest and most degenerate people in existence.
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.
On January 09 2011 05:06 Derminator wrote: Since I spent so much time criticizing the Muslim world in this thread, it seems appropriate to post this here.
I read this, too. Seriously, it almost made me cry a tear of joy. This is the majority of muslims which are sane and peaceful people taking a first stand against extremism. Fuck yeah!
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.
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.
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 01:31 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 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 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 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 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 03:42 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).
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 03:37 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 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?
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?
People have all sorts of excuses for doing crazy stuff. Their dog, the devil, the republican party, god whatever. You can''t stop crazy or schizoids. I see zero evidence holy books caused harm. Proof is hundreds of millions of peaceful Christians and Muslims living among us. If it were so dangerous an agnostic like me could not walk the streets with all these religious people.
Islam, in some parts of the world, is were Christianity was at 300 years ago, that's my opinion. We just need to keep promoting secular ideas and reason. After all, fundamentalism is nothing but religion in it's most purest form that has not been restraint by logic and reason. You don't see anyone in the States that takes stoning disrespectful kids or adulterers seriously and thats in the Christan Bible and the Torah. Religions can be reconciled regardless of what bronze age ideas are found in their holy books. To say the Koran is any more violent than the Bible just shows me that someone who holds that idea must not of read the old testament both are incredible violent.
Sorry, but why should believing a religion be respected? Why does belief deserve respect in itself? Respect is something earned, it is not something given. Do you respect someone who believes that there are flying pink armadillos in the sky ? Hell, you'd probably think he's a nutcase. However, when people believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, or that it is okay to marry 4 woman or that there is only one God who likes to intervene with every single issue or topic related to how you live your life, people respect that. The time to realize that religions are an insult to human civiziliation and human mind has long passed, it is time to understand that it should be okay to at least criticise some things to start a change in future.
Of course we shouldn't prohibit further depictions of Muhammad. The people who are asking for this to stop are not Muslims who are genuinely bothered by these depictions, they are terrorists making demands. I don't have any problems with Muslims, but terrorists can go fuck themselves. I'm not going to stand for the curtailing of one of our most precious liberties for the sake of jihadists.
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.
Who are you to tell me any such harm is not real? I don't have to explain my reasons to you, I'm merely stating I am hurt just by Islam itself. By your very lax standards for censorship, that should be enough.
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.
Who are you to tell me any such harm is not real? I don't have to explain my reasons to you, I'm merely stating I am hurt just by Islam itself. By your very lax standards for censorship, that should be enough.
You cant have that type of censorship and free speech. Westerners have valued free speech higher than not offending religion since Martin Luther wrote his Ninety-Five Theses. The whole history of the west since the end of the dark ages has been freedom versus religious oppression.
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?
People have all sorts of excuses for doing crazy stuff. Their dog, the devil, the republican party, god whatever. You can''t stop crazy or schizoids. I see zero evidence holy books caused harm. Proof is hundreds of millions of peaceful Christians and Muslims living among us. If it were so dangerous an agnostic like me could not walk the streets with all these religious people.
First of all, there being zero evidence that any holy scripture ever caused harm is a pretty damn bold statement, but that was not the point I was trying to make and I will not argue about it here. My point is that it is pretty hypocritical to find it justified to prohibit cartoons of Mohamed because it offends a lot of Muslims, while not finding it justified to censor for example the Koran even though that is also offensive to a lot of people in general (I'm extremely against doing either, just to be clear).
On January 12 2011 04:43 Bleak wrote: Sorry, but why should believing a religion be respected? Why does belief deserve respect in itself? Respect is something earned, it is not something given. Do you respect someone who believes that there are flying pink armadillos in the sky ? Hell, you'd probably think he's a nutcase. However, when people believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, or that it is okay to marry 4 woman or that there is only one God who likes to intervene with every single issue or topic related to how you live your life, people respect that. The time to realize that religions are an insult to human civiziliation and human mind has long passed, it is time to understand that it should be okay to at least criticise some things to start a change in future.
If only everyone was just like me it would be easy to receive my respect. Unfortunately they are not. Therefore we must compromise with others around us. Or forever war which seems to be a human condition at this point. Take your pick. I prefer peace and love and give it a try and not getting my ass shot off as an ideologue.
On January 12 2011 04:43 Bleak wrote: Sorry, but why should believing a religion be respected? Why does belief deserve respect in itself? Respect is something earned, it is not something given. Do you respect someone who believes that there are flying pink armadillos in the sky ? Hell, you'd probably think he's a nutcase. However, when people believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, or that it is okay to marry 4 woman or that there is only one God who likes to intervene with every single issue or topic related to how you live your life, people respect that. The time to realize that religions are an insult to human civiziliation and human mind has long passed, it is time to understand that it should be okay to at least criticise some things to start a change in future.
If only everyone was just like me it would be easy to receive my respect. Unfortunately they are not. Therefore we must compromise with others around us. Or forever war which seems to be a human condition at this point. Take your pick. I prefer peace and love not getting my ass shot off as an ideologue.
You don't have to respect religion just religious people there is a huge different between the two. It is disrespectful to me to tell someone that they can't share an opinion or idea because it is blasphemous. The theory of evolution is considered an attack on religion to some just like the theory that the sun and not the earth was the focal point of galaxy and the idea that the universe was infinite. Should ideas be off limits because they offend someone's religion? No that type of thinking belongs back in the dark ages!
On January 12 2011 05:04 tdt wrote: If only everyone was just like me it would be easy to receive my respect. Unfortunately they are not. Therefore we must compromise with others around us. Or forever war which seems to be a human condition at this point. Take your pick. I prefer peace and love not getting my ass shot off as an ideologue.
Your completely out of touch with reality. If you outlaw something a population takes for granted as a freedom your NOT going to create peace and love. Your going to create tension, and there will be riots, because this is the populations way of responding when democracy fails.
On January 12 2011 04:43 Bleak wrote: Sorry, but why should believing a religion be respected? Why does belief deserve respect in itself? Respect is something earned, it is not something given. Do you respect someone who believes that there are flying pink armadillos in the sky ? Hell, you'd probably think he's a nutcase. However, when people believe that the Earth was created in 6 days, or that it is okay to marry 4 woman or that there is only one God who likes to intervene with every single issue or topic related to how you live your life, people respect that. The time to realize that religions are an insult to human civiziliation and human mind has long passed, it is time to understand that it should be okay to at least criticise some things to start a change in future.
If only everyone was just like me it would be easy to receive my respect. Unfortunately they are not. Therefore we must compromise with others around us. Or forever war which seems to be a human condition at this point. Take your pick. I prefer peace and love not getting my ass shot off as an ideologue.
You don't have to respect religion just religious people there is a huge different between the two. It is disrespectful to me to tell someone that they can't share an opinion or idea because it is blasphemous. The theory of evolution is considered an attack on religion to some just like the theory that the sun and not the earth was the focal point of galaxy and the idea that the universe was infinite. Should ideas be off limits because they offend someone's religion? No that type of thinking belongs back in the dark ages!
Give it time bro. It won't happen over night. I believe following history we are all getting more liberal and have respect for the individual and human rights. More you push people into a corner and slums and marginalize and insult them more they are going to push back and stay more fundementalist . It's only been 20-30 years since Muslims came to Europe in massive numbers so that's their culture still but many are just as European as anyone else. Just have patience. In the meantime it's stupid to intentionally insult them.
On January 12 2011 05:04 tdt wrote: If only everyone was just like me it would be easy to receive my respect. Unfortunately they are not. Therefore we must compromise with others around us. Or forever war which seems to be a human condition at this point. Take your pick. I prefer peace and love not getting my ass shot off as an ideologue.
Your completely out of touch with reality. If you outlaw something a population takes for granted as a freedom your NOT going to create peace and love. Your going to create tension, and there will be riots, because this is the populations way of responding when democracy fails.
That's not true. Many forms of hate speech are already illegal in USA and Europe. More in Europe. Adding religion would have minimal effect.
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?
People have all sorts of excuses for doing crazy stuff. Their dog, the devil, the republican party, god whatever. You can''t stop crazy or schizoids. I see zero evidence holy books caused harm. Proof is hundreds of millions of peaceful Christians and Muslims living among us. If it were so dangerous an agnostic like me could not walk the streets with all these religious people.
you can't stop them, but you can entice them and provoke them and eventually drive them to doing things. Try living somewhere else... To quote Hitchens, "Just to stay within the letter 'B', I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem and Baghdad. In each case ... I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance"
On January 12 2011 05:04 tdt wrote: If only everyone was just like me it would be easy to receive my respect. Unfortunately they are not. Therefore we must compromise with others around us. Or forever war which seems to be a human condition at this point. Take your pick. I prefer peace and love not getting my ass shot off as an ideologue.
Your completely out of touch with reality. If you outlaw something a population takes for granted as a freedom your NOT going to create peace and love. Your going to create tension, and there will be riots, because this is the populations way of responding when democracy fails.
That's not true. Many forms of hate speech are already illegal in USA and Europe. More in Europe. Adding religion would have minimal effect.
First of all, stop pressing with your hate-speech-bullshit rhetoric, Muhammad is depicted in a lot of places without it having any relation to hate speech, history books is a good example. Stop playing your game of words and loop-around rhetoric.
Second, again you post something that is little related to reality. Swedes takes their freedom to depict Muhammad for granted, Swedes do not consider depiction of Muhammad as hate speech. There is little you can do to change this. Laws will only aggravate and create tension. If this is not a fact, then it is a solid prediction based on pased events.
No, holy deity no, that's just stupid to even contemplate.
If anything just publish a muhammed cartoon in every medium there is for every day during a whole year and people might get used to it.
That does not mean it has to be mean cartoons.
Fun fact;
Muhammed is as popelour to depict in Iran as it is southern USA... it's everywere. It's a western/extremist myth that it never happens. My uncle is an Imam, so I got a deeper insight in the whole story than most people. It's depressingly simple and redundant to ever talk about free speech in the context of idiots.
other Fun fact:
a racist in sweden shoot over 6 people, killing more than 2 people; he's a murderer.
a idiot blows himself and his car up, killing no one but himself; he's a terrorist and suddenly the whole society is weeping tears.
This might seem like it's in the public's interest but all it is is bowing down to the threat of violence. People have been making fun of all kinds of religious groups throughout history so why should we make an exception for this particular one? The possibility of retaliation should not force us to make concessions on our freedom of speech. If this really does come to pass, the extremists and terrorists are succeeding and will give them a morale boost. HOLD FIRM PEOPLE!
I'm an animation major in college and in my history of animation classes, we learned about cartoons that were banned for portraying stereotypes of African Americans and Asians. IMO, I dont see banning cartoons that are offensive to a religious group as any different. Especially when a lot societies have measures that they take against hate crimes. I mean if you harass a Muslim on the street by calling them something deragatory, that is a hate crime. It would be contradictory to say that a newspaper could do so, but an individual on the street cannot. In addition, by allowing such cartoons, you would be encouraging something that you are against in other contexts.
Now in the case of reacting towards threats, it's a big shame. A lot worse things were done to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) when he was alive and the reactions of Muslims were completely different. I mean, he had stones thrown at him when he went to preach in a city once. Also, there was a period of time where he and the Muslims had been boycotted by a lot of people in Mecca for some time so they ended up starving. Muslims died in that event, including his first wife, Khadijah, but the only times the Muslims really got up in arms, was when they were officially in a war, in which they had their own rules for warfare that were quite modern. Honestly, it goes to show you that these 'Muslims' that are making these threats no nothing about their own religion because if they did, they'd realize that there is a specific way to react to this type of a situation in their own history, but do they follow it? No. They just end up making the rest of Muslims look bad.
Being born black or asian, female, homosexual, etc is not something you can choose. Which imaginary friend you believe in is a choice. It's a very important distinction.
Governments should have no right to ban depictions of Muhammad, but anyone who draws him does so at their own risk. That's what happens when you intentionally bait the crazy wacko extremists of the world, of which Islam has no shortage of (nor any other religion for that matter).
Nutjobs will always find a reason to go crazy. Banning cartoons will most likely not lessen the danger of suicide bombings. Terrorists might see this as an achievement and become encouraged to continue the same way...
On January 12 2011 06:54 RiotSpectre wrote: Governments should have no right to ban depictions of Muhammad, but anyone who draws him does so at their own risk. That's what happens when you intentionally bait the crazy wacko extremists of the world, of which Islam has no shortage of (nor any other religion for that matter).
What about when it's not at their own risk, but at the risk of other people?
The thing is that if the Muslim community had politely asked as a whole, instead of having even a small group send death threats, this wouldnt have been an issue. Unfortunately, as death threats were made, the issue became free speech versus blasphemy, as opposed to one fool trying to anger others.
If the issue wasnt so large, or was solely online, I'd say the artist was trying to troll an entire religion.
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?
People have all sorts of excuses for doing crazy stuff. Their dog, the devil, the republican party, god whatever. You can''t stop crazy or schizoids. I see zero evidence holy books caused harm. Proof is hundreds of millions of peaceful Christians and Muslims living among us. If it were so dangerous an agnostic like me could not walk the streets with all these religious people.
you can't stop them, but you can entice them and provoke them and eventually drive them to doing things. Try living somewhere else... To quote Hitchens, "Just to stay within the letter 'B', I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem and Baghdad. In each case ... I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance"
Hitchens should know about the B word as in Bigot. I can't stand that guy he groups and generalizes and blames religion for everything. Particularly Muslims. He ignores other isms like communism and fascism which have little if any pretext of religion and leaders killed hundreds of millions. Look, sick people will always find some twisted interpretation to do harm to others and it basically revolves around the same thing - they are not like us let's go get them. Guys like Hitchens perpetuate this idea of seeing people as a group to be attacked and feared rather than individuals adding gas to the fire.
Hitchens devotes an entire chapter to the fascism/communism argument in God is Not Great. In fact, the chapter is presciently entitled "An Objection Anticipated."
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?
People have all sorts of excuses for doing crazy stuff. Their dog, the devil, the republican party, god whatever. You can''t stop crazy or schizoids. I see zero evidence holy books caused harm. Proof is hundreds of millions of peaceful Christians and Muslims living among us. If it were so dangerous an agnostic like me could not walk the streets with all these religious people.
you can't stop them, but you can entice them and provoke them and eventually drive them to doing things. Try living somewhere else... To quote Hitchens, "Just to stay within the letter 'B', I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem and Baghdad. In each case ... I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance"
Hitchens should know about the B word as in Bigot. I can't stand that guy he groups and generalizes and blames religion for everything. Particularly Muslims. He ignores other isms like communism and fascism which have little if any pretext of religion and leaders killed hundreds of millions. Look, sick people will always find some twisted interpretation to do harm to others and it basically revolves around the same thing - they are not like us let's go get them. Guys like Hitchens perpetuate this idea of seeing people as a group to be attacked and feared rather than individuals adding gas to the fire.
might want to read his books/writings as well as listen to his debates, lectures and interviews before making that kind of judgement. but hey, doesn't matter i guess. you've already made up your mind haven't you?
Religion is a controversial topic and personally I wouldn't stray near anything that is possibly offensive to anybody in that area. However, as a personal opinion, I think they (that is, followers) should take everything with a pinch of salt and be content with their own understanding of their beliefs and less obsessive about what the rest of the world thinks. If they liek to laugh at funny depictions, then there is no reason you cannot laugh with them, or at the very least, turn the other way.
On January 12 2011 06:13 Krehlmar wrote: Fun fact;
Muhammed is as popelour to depict in Iran as it is southern USA... it's everywere. It's a western/extremist myth that it never happens. My uncle is an Imam, so I got a deeper insight in the whole story than most people. It's depressingly simple and redundant to ever talk about free speech in the context of idiots.
This is quite interesting. I would encourage you to share his inside views. Truth be told, I know very few muslims personally and those I know are rather secular and pretty Europeanized. But what you say makes a lot of sense. I guess the average muslim is about as funny or fun-loving as any other person, so they will have their share of drawing stupid mohammed pictures.
On January 12 2011 06:43 LittleAtari wrote: Honestly, it goes to show you that these 'Muslims' that are making these threats no nothing about their own religion because if they did, they'd realize that there is a specific way to react to this type of a situation in their own history, but do they follow it? No. They just end up making the rest of Muslims look bad.
This. Although one has to admit that the extremist Christians and Jews are in no ways better. I think one can generally agree that extremists (of any kind) make the moderate and decent people (who, ironically often outnumber the whackos) look bad.
On January 12 2011 06:43 LittleAtari wrote: I'm an animation major in college and in my history of animation classes, we learned about cartoons that were banned for portraying stereotypes of African Americans and Asians. IMO, I dont see banning cartoons that are offensive to a religious group as any different. Especially when a lot societies have measures that they take against hate crimes. I mean if you harass a Muslim on the street by calling them something deragatory, that is a hate crime. It would be contradictory to say that a newspaper could do so, but an individual on the street cannot. In addition, by allowing such cartoons, you would be encouraging something that you are against in other contexts.
You can't justify a rule on the basis that a similar rule already exists. For one thing the existing rule might be unjustified. Or it could already rely on a fine balance of arguments where changing circumstances just a tiny bit changes the conclusion.
FWIW, many legitimate arguments against individual religions are just plain offensive. Even ridicule is almost unavoidable sometimes. The classic example of Xenu's story in Scientology. How do you react to a story of aliens bringing billions of people to Earth, in spacecrafts that looked like cargo planes, no less, dropping them into volcanos and then detonating hydrogen bombs on top of them?
Asking people not to offend religious or ethnic groups isn't a trivial request. The consequences are much broader than many believers care to admit.
On January 12 2011 08:28 hypercube wrote: FWIW, many legitimate arguments against individual religions are just plain offensive. Even ridicule is almost unavoidable sometimes. The classic example of Xenu's story in Scientology. How do you react to a story of aliens bringing billions of people to Earth, in spacecrafts that looked like cargo planes, no less, dropping them into volcanos and then detonating hydrogen bombs on top of them?
Asking people not to offend religious or ethnic groups isn't a trivial request. The consequences are much broader than many believers care to admit.
Your point holds true for alomst every religion. I mean, just read the bible, especially the apocalypse. Seriously, that stuff reads like a b-move sci-fi/fantasy crossover.
Problem is that being offended is subjective. No matter how polite, considerate and politically correct you are, there will always be that one guy who is still offended for no reason. So it may be the best solution to just let them be offended and deal with it.
Sure, you may take a risk with that because you never now when some lunatic thinks the only way to rectify the offense is to blow you up. On the other hand, driving to work each morning is probabaly ten times more dangerous and no one cares...
On January 12 2011 08:28 hypercube wrote: FWIW, many legitimate arguments against individual religions are just plain offensive. Even ridicule is almost unavoidable sometimes. The classic example of Xenu's story in Scientology. How do you react to a story of aliens bringing billions of people to Earth, in spacecrafts that looked like cargo planes, no less, dropping them into volcanos and then detonating hydrogen bombs on top of them?
Asking people not to offend religious or ethnic groups isn't a trivial request. The consequences are much broader than many believers care to admit.
Your point holds true for alomst every religion. I mean, just read the bible, especially the apocalypse. Seriously, that stuff reads like a b-move sci-fi/fantasy crossover.
I know, I was deliberately going for a less common example to lose as few people as possible.
If we we're to censor things beacuse people took offense we'd end up with nothing to look , hear , smell or listen to. I don't want that and neither do you. Besides , thoose who get offended to the point of homicidal/suicidal rage are extremists . Extremists are going to kill people , they have lots of spare reason even if we were to stop showing Muhammed. Like capitalism , our lifestyle, imperialism and probably our religion if they get bored enough. Other people that just find it offensive will just have to deal with other countries and other people doing whatever they want within the boundries of the law. Ignoring things are not that hard , but it is the most effective way to get people to stop taunting you.
On January 12 2011 06:43 LittleAtari wrote: I'm an animation major in college and in my history of animation classes, we learned about cartoons that were banned for portraying stereotypes of African Americans and Asians. IMO, I dont see banning cartoons that are offensive to a religious group as any different. Especially when a lot societies have measures that they take against hate crimes. I mean if you harass a Muslim on the street by calling them something deragatory, that is a hate crime. It would be contradictory to say that a newspaper could do so, but an individual on the street cannot. In addition, by allowing such cartoons, you would be encouraging something that you are against in other contexts.
You can't justify a rule on the basis that a similar rule already exists. For one thing the existing rule might be unjustified. Or it could already rely on a fine balance of arguments where changing circumstances just a tiny bit changes the conclusion.
FWIW, many legitimate arguments against individual religions are just plain offensive. Even ridicule is almost unavoidable sometimes. The classic example of Xenu's story in Scientology. How do you react to a story of aliens bringing billions of people to Earth, in spacecrafts that looked like cargo planes, no less, dropping them into volcanos and then detonating hydrogen bombs on top of them?
Asking people not to offend religious or ethnic groups isn't a trivial request. The consequences are much broader than many believers care to admit.
There's also the flip side.
Why should religious groups be afforded protection (from ridicule) in the first place? When their very existence can be offensive to some? I consider Islam an insult to the human race. I consider the idea of morality stemming from a supernatural authority utterly dehumanizing, and the idea of submission to a celestial dictatorship unimaginably insidious. Some would liken the depiction of Muhammad in a derogatory manner as a hate crime against them? Then I would liken any depiction of Islam to be a hate crime against myself. An attack on my intelligence and humanity, if you will. Where's my protection?
No, Thomas Jefferson had the right idea. There should always be a wall of separation between the church and the state, and no law respecting or prohibiting any establishment of religion should ever be condoned. This means neither condemning nor protecting any religion. Muslims just have to learn to deal with being offended like the rest of us.
On January 12 2011 07:04 Aequos wrote: The thing is that if the Muslim community had politely asked as a whole, instead of having even a small group send death threats, this wouldnt have been an issue. Unfortunately, as death threats were made, the issue became free speech versus blasphemy, as opposed to one fool trying to anger others.
If the issue wasnt so large, or was solely online, I'd say the artist was trying to troll an entire religion.
Science and common sense has been trolling religion for a much longer time. Galileo wasn't trying to piss anyone off and look at what happen to him. Just being honest and truthful pisses off fanatics. If you say don't say or do this because it offends someone then were would you draw the line? Who decides what is to far and what is constructive? Stoning is offensive to me but countries like Pakistan Iran, Somalia and Iraqi still do it but yet we are suppose to care about hurting someones feelings when we draw cartoons that criticizes a religion that allows this type of behavior.
As most people are saying, Muslims do not have to listen to these cartoons or pay any mind to them. If they were religious people, they would learn that the Quran exceptionally punishes any form of killing that is not justified and people who commit suicide and violent acts against others are sent straight to hell.
If these Muslims actually believed in their religion, they would understand that anyone trying to depict Muhammad would be sent straight to hell. They would also know that blowing things up and trying to kill people will not solve anything and is totally contradicting their religion.
On January 12 2011 06:13 Krehlmar wrote: Fun fact;
Muhammed is as popelour to depict in Iran as it is southern USA... it's everywere. It's a western/extremist myth that it never happens. My uncle is an Imam, so I got a deeper insight in the whole story than most people. It's depressingly simple and redundant to ever talk about free speech in the context of idiots.
This is quite interesting. I would encourage you to share his inside views. Truth be told, I know very few muslims personally and those I know are rather secular and pretty Europeanized. But what you say makes a lot of sense. I guess the average muslim is about as funny or fun-loving as any other person, so they will have their share of drawing stupid mohammed pictures.
On January 12 2011 06:43 LittleAtari wrote: Honestly, it goes to show you that these 'Muslims' that are making these threats no nothing about their own religion because if they did, they'd realize that there is a specific way to react to this type of a situation in their own history, but do they follow it? No. They just end up making the rest of Muslims look bad.
This. Although one has to admit that the extremist Christians and Jews are in no ways better. I think one can generally agree that extremists (of any kind) make the moderate and decent people (who, ironically often outnumber the whackos) look bad.
The problem is moderate Muslims are not the majority in allot of Muslim nations.
I would consider anyone who thinks apostates should be killed a fundamentalist and if they though of acting on it an extremist.
The problem is moderate Muslims are not the majority in allot of Muslim nations.
I would consider anyone who thinks apostates should be killed a fundamentalist and if they though of acting on it an extremist.
Oops. Do you happen to know whether that is a representative query? If so, I may have to rethink my current opinion of the average muslim. Maybe I am too biased due to the fact that I mainly have contact with Euro-Islam which is, on average, pretty well adjusted towards a liberal society.
The problem is moderate Muslims are not the majority in allot of Muslim nations.
I would consider anyone who thinks apostates should be killed a fundamentalist and if they though of acting on it an extremist.
Oops. Do you happen to know whether that is a representative query? If so, I may have to rethink my current opinion of the average muslim. Maybe I am too biased due to the fact that I mainly have contact with Euro-Islam which is, on average, pretty well adjusted towards a liberal society.
On January 12 2011 09:46 Housemd wrote: As most people are saying, Muslims do not have to listen to these cartoons or pay any mind to them. If they were religious people, they would learn that the Quran exceptionally punishes any form of killing that is not justified and people who commit suicide and violent acts against others are sent straight to hell.
If Muslims actually believed in their religion, they would understand that anyone trying to depict Muhammad would be sent straight to hell. They would also know that blowing things up and trying to kill people will not solve anything and is totally contradicting their religion.
The problem is moderate Muslims are not the majority in allot of Muslim nations.
I would consider anyone who thinks apostates should be killed a fundamentalist and if they though of acting on it an extremist.
Those are some sobering numbers. For anyone interested this is the original article. A more detailed report is available in PDF format here.
It is from PewResearchCenter. They are considered a conservative think tank. I have no mean to judge, however, is that in any way influenced the veridicality or validity of the results.
On January 12 2011 21:45 Electric.Jesus wrote: It is from PewResearchCenter. They are considered a conservative think tank. I have no mean to judge, however, is that in any way influenced the veridicality or validity of the results.
I'm surprised you say that. Didn't know much about them, except that they are considered a reputable polling organization, but a quick lookup on wikipedia showed it's chaired by Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, and John Danforth, who I didn't know, but is apparently a former republican senator described in his wikipedia article as a moderate.
So it looks more like a centrist group to me and I see no reason why they would want to forge the results.
BTW, can you tell me why you think it's a conservative think tank? Or if you don't anymore, why you thought before?
On January 12 2011 21:45 Electric.Jesus wrote: It is from PewResearchCenter. They are considered a conservative think tank. I have no mean to judge, however, is that in any way influenced the veridicality or validity of the results.
I'm surprised you say that. Didn't know much about them, except that they are considered a reputable polling organization, but a quick lookup on wikipedia showed it's chaired by Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, and John Danforth, who I didn't know, but is apparently a former republican senator described in his wikipedia article as a moderate.
So it looks more like a centrist group to me and I see no reason why they would want to forge the results.
BTW, can you tell me why you think it's a conservative think tank? Or if you don't anymore, why you thought before?
You mean this lady? The one who thinks its worth killing 500,000 children for oil? WMD bullshit.
On January 12 2011 06:13 Krehlmar wrote: Fun fact;
Muhammed is as popelour to depict in Iran as it is southern USA... it's everywere. It's a western/extremist myth that it never happens. My uncle is an Imam, so I got a deeper insight in the whole story than most people. It's depressingly simple and redundant to ever talk about free speech in the context of idiots.
This is quite interesting. I would encourage you to share his inside views. Truth be told, I know very few muslims personally and those I know are rather secular and pretty Europeanized. But what you say makes a lot of sense. I guess the average muslim is about as funny or fun-loving as any other person, so they will have their share of drawing stupid mohammed pictures.
On January 12 2011 06:43 LittleAtari wrote: Honestly, it goes to show you that these 'Muslims' that are making these threats no nothing about their own religion because if they did, they'd realize that there is a specific way to react to this type of a situation in their own history, but do they follow it? No. They just end up making the rest of Muslims look bad.
This. Although one has to admit that the extremist Christians and Jews are in no ways better. I think one can generally agree that extremists (of any kind) make the moderate and decent people (who, ironically often outnumber the whackos) look bad.
The problem is moderate Muslims are not the majority in allot of Muslim nations.
I would consider anyone who thinks apostates should be killed a fundamentalist and if they though of acting on it an extremist.
The problem with these numbers is that they are all fake. Its just propaganda used by the western world to persecute Muslims most likely for monetary gains similar to how Jews were also persecuted so that people could obtain their riches.
All the terrorist you see in TV are not even Muslims. It says in the Qu'ran its self that suicide for any reason is a Sin. By this logic if you suicide you are not a Muslim and will be judges as such in the eye of the Muslim God, which is the same as the Christian/Jewish god so this persecution is even more silly.
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?
People have all sorts of excuses for doing crazy stuff. Their dog, the devil, the republican party, god whatever. You can''t stop crazy or schizoids. I see zero evidence holy books caused harm. Proof is hundreds of millions of peaceful Christians and Muslims living among us. If it were so dangerous an agnostic like me could not walk the streets with all these religious people.
You might want to try reading some history books. Zero evidence that holy books caused harm? Oh my..
On January 12 2011 21:45 Electric.Jesus wrote: It is from PewResearchCenter. They are considered a conservative think tank. I have no mean to judge, however, is that in any way influenced the veridicality or validity of the results.
I'm surprised you say that. Didn't know much about them, except that they are considered a reputable polling organization, but a quick lookup on wikipedia showed it's chaired by Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, and John Danforth, who I didn't know, but is apparently a former republican senator described in his wikipedia article as a moderate.
So it looks more like a centrist group to me and I see no reason why they would want to forge the results.
BTW, can you tell me why you think it's a conservative think tank? Or if you don't anymore, why you thought before?
It said so on the German wikipedia site. I checked what their source for this satement was but they do not list one. So may as well be misinformation.
On January 12 2011 23:32 Epicsalmon wrote: The problem with these numbers is that they are all fake. Its just propaganda used by the western world to persecute Muslims most likely for monetary gains similar to how Jews were also persecuted so that people could obtain their riches.
Di you have evidence supporting that claim. I would really like to believe you because I am a happily-ever-after kind of guy who think the woirld just looks pretty in pink. But without facts I am inclined not to. In fact, without evidence to back your claim, it is pretty useless. So please, FACTS on the table.
All the terrorist you see in TV are not even Muslims. It says in the Qu'ran its self that suicide for any reason is a Sin. By this logic if you suicide you are not a Muslim and will be judges as such in the eye of the Muslim God, which is the same as the Christian/Jewish god so this persecution is even more silly.
Interesting. While I agree that they may be commiting sins by killing others, there is sufficient reason to still consider them muslim. If a group of people collectively consider themselves muslims, define their group identity via a relgion/culture known as Islam, and if they are, at the same time, perceived as being mulsims by others, does that not make them muslims?
Or, put differently: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (See Thomas Theorem)
Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
On January 12 2011 23:32 Epicsalmon wrote: The problem with these numbers is that they are all fake. Its just propaganda used by the western world to persecute Muslims most likely for monetary gains similar to how Jews were also persecuted so that people could obtain their riches.
Di you have evidence supporting that claim. I would really like to believe you because I am a happily-ever-after kind of guy who think the woirld just looks pretty in pink. But without facts I am inclined not to. In fact, without evidence to back your claim, it is pretty useless. So please, FACTS on the table.
All the terrorist you see in TV are not even Muslims. It says in the Qu'ran its self that suicide for any reason is a Sin. By this logic if you suicide you are not a Muslim and will be judges as such in the eye of the Muslim God, which is the same as the Christian/Jewish god so this persecution is even more silly.
Interesting. While I agree that they may be commiting sins by killing others, there is sufficient reason to still consider them muslim. If a group of people collectively consider themselves muslims, define their group identity via a relgion/culture known as Islam, and if they are, at the same time, perceived as being mulsims by others, does that not make them muslims?
Or, put differently: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (See Thomas Theorem)
Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
oh you, stop being such a Nazi ^_^. Is it possible to respect a group of people's identity and still derive joy from ridiculing their ancestors barbaric actions? Or does it make me a bad person?
On January 13 2011 01:31 sekritzzz wrote: oh you, stop being such a Nazi ^_^. Is it possible to respect a group of people's identity and still derive joy from ridiculing their ancestors barbaric actions? Or does it make me a bad person?
Actually, to counter a funny remark with a serious answer, I think that ridiculing Nazis is not nly allowed, it is necessary. And making Nazi-jokes is probabaly one of the way we germans can cope with the actrocities in our history. Or as Dürrenmatt put it, modern societies are often so inhuman and twisted that if you don't learn to laugh abut it you are fucked.
On January 12 2011 06:13 Krehlmar wrote: Fun fact;
Muhammed is as popelour to depict in Iran as it is southern USA... it's everywere. It's a western/extremist myth that it never happens. My uncle is an Imam, so I got a deeper insight in the whole story than most people. It's depressingly simple and redundant to ever talk about free speech in the context of idiots.
This is quite interesting. I would encourage you to share his inside views. Truth be told, I know very few muslims personally and those I know are rather secular and pretty Europeanized. But what you say makes a lot of sense. I guess the average muslim is about as funny or fun-loving as any other person, so they will have their share of drawing stupid mohammed pictures.
On January 12 2011 06:43 LittleAtari wrote: Honestly, it goes to show you that these 'Muslims' that are making these threats no nothing about their own religion because if they did, they'd realize that there is a specific way to react to this type of a situation in their own history, but do they follow it? No. They just end up making the rest of Muslims look bad.
This. Although one has to admit that the extremist Christians and Jews are in no ways better. I think one can generally agree that extremists (of any kind) make the moderate and decent people (who, ironically often outnumber the whackos) look bad.
The problem is moderate Muslims are not the majority in allot of Muslim nations.
I would consider anyone who thinks apostates should be killed a fundamentalist and if they though of acting on it an extremist.
The problem with these numbers is that they are all fake. Its just propaganda used by the western world to persecute Muslims most likely for monetary gains similar to how Jews were also persecuted so that people could obtain their riches.
All the terrorist you see in TV are not even Muslims. It says in the Qu'ran its self that suicide for any reason is a Sin. By this logic if you suicide you are not a Muslim and will be judges as such in the eye of the Muslim God, which is the same as the Christian/Jewish god so this persecution is even more silly.
Your using a No true Scotsman to argue your point. How do you know they aren't Muslims? By your flawed logic I could say that no True Christians ever preformed an inquisition because the Bible says not to judge others or kill and True Christians follow the Bible. And saying Yahew is the same as the Christian Trinity is a pretty big stretch considering Muslims and Jews do not see Jesus as part of the godhead or even believe in a trinity but the majority of Christians do.
On January 13 2011 00:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
Why should you respect people's religious beliefs in the first place?
On January 13 2011 00:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
Why should you respect people's religious beliefs in the first place?
Mostly because everyone has to the right to be a moron as long as they don't start bothering others, I guess. ^^
Edit: On a more serious note, when it comes down to the core arguments you reach the point where on person believes in a higher entitiy and life after death and the other does not. Neither can prove or disprove the others opinion. So mutual respect may be the best way to deal with the stalemate.
On January 13 2011 00:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
Why should you respect people's religious beliefs in the first place?
Why should I not respect someone else's beliefs?
There's a fine line between respect and appreciation of a belief. Respect holds the weight of letting someone believe whatever they want without insulting them or deterring them in any way. Likewise there's a fine line between someone following a faith and being psychotic but if you cannot tell the difference between the two, you shouldn't be making judgement calls in the first place.
On January 13 2011 00:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
Why should you respect people's religious beliefs in the first place?
So mutual respect may be the best way to deal with the stalemate.
---and the only logical form of this mutual respect is good ol' freedom of speech. "You can say and think what you want, I can say and think what I want."
On January 13 2011 00:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
Why should you respect people's religious beliefs in the first place?
Mostly because everyone has to the right to be a moron as long as they don't start bothering others, I guess. ^^
Edit: On a more serious note, when it comes down to the core arguments you reach the point where on person believes in a higher entitiy and life after death and the other does not. Neither can prove or disprove the others opinion. So mutual respect may be the best way to deal with the stalemate.
There's no need to reduce the focus of the debate to simply the epistemological realm, especially when we're talking about a religion that makes a myriad of metaphysical claims, as most of them do. Doing so is giving the religious side an unfair advantage.
And you didn't particularly answer my question. Everyone has a right to be a moron, yes, but who said morons have to be respected? Why is respect warranted? Because they're a moron? Isn't that a bit contradictory?
On January 13 2011 00:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
Why should you respect people's religious beliefs in the first place?
Why should I not respect someone else's beliefs?
There's a fine line between respect and appreciation of a belief. Respect holds the weight of letting someone believe whatever they want without insulting them or deterring them in any way. Likewise there's a fine line between someone following a faith and being psychotic but if you cannot tell the difference between the two, you shouldn't be making judgement calls in the first place.
Why is respect the default position? Why do beliefs automatically deserve to be respected?
If someone believed in slavery and genocide, do you think the default position should be to let them believe in that without insulting them or deterring them in any way? That ridicule or even civilized attack on those beliefs, ie debate, would be disrespectful? What if they taught those beliefs to their children? What if they taught those beliefs to a congregation?
On January 13 2011 02:24 Krigwin wrote: And you didn't particularly answer my question. Everyone has a right to be a moron, yes, but who said morons have to be respected? Why is respect warranted? Because they're a moron? Isn't that a bit contradictory?
You are right, I need to answer your question in a differentiated way. Let us say I repsect poeple's religious beliefs as long as they are not conflicting with well-established empirical evidence. That is, I repect a person and his/her beliefs when he/she says that she beliefs in life after death or that some higher entity created the universe. I do not respect beliefs like "god hid some dinosaur skeletons to fool us" and "world was created in six days" because that view is simply not sustainable given empirical evidence.
I can however, respect people because they are fellow human beings regardless of whether I respect their opinions. Maybe that is two different forms of respect, the former consiting of respectful behavior in direct interactions or acknowleding that everyone is entitled to personal beliefs, however moronic they are, as long as the person does not cause harm to others. The latter may be more of an acknowledgement that another's personal beliefs are valid within my own normative value system.
On January 13 2011 02:24 Krigwin wrote: And you didn't particularly answer my question. Everyone has a right to be a moron, yes, but who said morons have to be respected? Why is respect warranted? Because they're a moron? Isn't that a bit contradictory?
You are right, I need to answer your question in a differentiated way. Let us say I repsect poeple's religious beliefs as long as they are not conflicting with well-established empirical evidence. That is, I repect a person and his/her beliefs when he/she says that she beliefs in life after death or that some higher entity created the universe. I do not respect beliefs like "god hid some dinosaur skeletons to fool us" and "world was created in six days" because that view is simply not sustainable given empirical evidence.
I can however, respect people because they are fellow human beings regardless of whether I respect their opinions. Maybe that is two different forms of respect, the former consiting of respectful behavior in direct interactions or acknowleding that everyone is entitled to personal beliefs, however moronic they are, as long as the person does not cause harm to others. The latter may be more of an acknowledgement that another's personal beliefs are valid within my own normative value system.
Firstly - you can respect a person while not respecting at all their beliefs, and in fact this seems a critical skill to learn in our religion-saturated world, although the two often go hand in hand.
Secondly - so you say you, by default, respect beliefs that are beyond empiricism? That seems a bit strange, don't you agree? So you respect solipsism then? Nihilist beliefs? You brought up this example yourself - the idea that we are all captured spirits brought to Earth by an intergalactic dictator, as per Scientology, is also a belief beyond empiricism. Do you respect that as well?
Listen more to the Muslims and they'll demand more and more. There are hundreds of jokes/memes about Jesus and or God, but you don't hear the Christians complain.
The Muslim extremists think that threatening with violence and forcing people to listen with violence is okay. It's not!
They even threatened Southpark because they showed a CENSORED image of Mohammed.
Terrorism it self has no face and can assume any identity although with popular times as it is are more on the islamic terrorist and that being said why should sweden governent be rattle by fanatics terrorist who are willing to excessive force to communicate their disagreement . In my opinion using religion to fund your group is such a cowardly act as most people are so weak in terms of faith which they rely on religion to seek refuge for all their problem thus using this to rally these people out to protect their interest Putting that aside some times its better to fight fire with fire as these is the only way to make these terrorist feel the same way as we do since the bombing of 9/11 .
On January 13 2011 00:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
Why should you respect people's religious beliefs in the first place?
Mostly because everyone has to the right to be a moron as long as they don't start bothering others, I guess. ^^
Edit: On a more serious note, when it comes down to the core arguments you reach the point where on person believes in a higher entitiy and life after death and the other does not. Neither can prove or disprove the others opinion. So mutual respect may be the best way to deal with the stalemate.
There's no need to reduce the focus of the debate to simply the epistemological realm, especially when we're talking about a religion that makes a myriad of metaphysical claims, as most of them do. Doing so is giving the religious side an unfair advantage.
And you didn't particularly answer my question. Everyone has a right to be a moron, yes, but who said morons have to be respected? Why is respect warranted? Because they're a moron? Isn't that a bit contradictory?
On January 13 2011 00:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: Edit: The Baneling made me laugh. Is it possible to respect people's religious belief and derive joy from ridiculing their religion at the same time? Or does it make me a bad person?
Why should you respect people's religious beliefs in the first place?
Why should I not respect someone else's beliefs?
There's a fine line between respect and appreciation of a belief. Respect holds the weight of letting someone believe whatever they want without insulting them or deterring them in any way. Likewise there's a fine line between someone following a faith and being psychotic but if you cannot tell the difference between the two, you shouldn't be making judgement calls in the first place.
Why is respect the default position? Why do beliefs automatically deserve to be respected?
If someone believed in slavery and genocide, do you think the default position should be to let them believe in that without insulting them or deterring them in any way? That ridicule or even civilized attack on those beliefs, ie debate, would be disrespectful? What if they taught those beliefs to their children? What if they taught those beliefs to a congregation?
So you're saying we should not even bother putting forth the effort to learning why we should not respect a belief and simply assume they're all bad (including Atheist beliefs because unless you're a Nihilist, you believe in something)? That is an extremely shallow and some would argue lazy approach to understanding life. Comparing the actual faith of say Islam or Christianity to something such as slavery or genocide is extremely unrealistic to compare (that would be like comparing StarCraft to Microsoft Office...there's nothing to really compare).
Again if you can't even put forth the effort to understand a belief, you shouldn't make a judgement call. You can still distrust something until you know it inside and out which is a fair and safe way to go about things.
On January 12 2011 23:32 Epicsalmon wrote: The problem with these numbers is that they are all fake. Its just propaganda used by the western world to persecute Muslims most likely for monetary gains similar to how Jews were also persecuted so that people could obtain their riches.
Maybe, but as it as it's your word against someone, who actually claims to have done some work on the issue. Can you provide any source that suggests that the actual numbers are different? Maybe local polling organizations asking similar questions and getting different results?
I realize it's just one poll and I do find the results surprising, but without any actual data to the contrary I can't just dismiss it as fraud.
So you're saying we should not even bother putting forth the effort to learning why we should not respect a belief and simply assume they're all bad (including Atheist beliefs because unless you're a Nihilist, you believe in something)?
Atheism isnt a belief, it is a disbelief. Theism->Religion, atheism is simply a lack of belief, thus not a belief system, and it lacks dogmas of any kind.
Religion is given all too much unearnead respect as it is, they have zero proof for their claims and we are supposed to respect this? give me a break.
It's your right to be offended, and mine to not care if you are.
On January 12 2011 21:45 Electric.Jesus wrote: It is from PewResearchCenter. They are considered a conservative think tank. I have no mean to judge, however, is that in any way influenced the veridicality or validity of the results.
I'm surprised you say that. Didn't know much about them, except that they are considered a reputable polling organization, but a quick lookup on wikipedia showed it's chaired by Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton, and John Danforth, who I didn't know, but is apparently a former republican senator described in his wikipedia article as a moderate.
So it looks more like a centrist group to me and I see no reason why they would want to forge the results.
BTW, can you tell me why you think it's a conservative think tank? Or if you don't anymore, why you thought before?
It said so on the German wikipedia site. I checked what their source for this satement was but they do not list one. So may as well be misinformation.
Ah, ok. TBH, I'm not sure either way either and I was really surprised by the results. I still have my doubts but for now I think it's more likely to be accurate than not.
On the issue of respect I think there needs to be a distinction between public and private situations. I'd never go out of my way to ridicule someone's beliefs (even if I did think it was ridiculous). I have no intention to hurt someone's feelings or even to change their minds against their will.
However in public forums (including the old media) sometimes you want to make a point and it's impossible to hide it from those who would get offended.
To make the point explicit, I do think it's a bad idea to depict Muhammed with the goal of upsetting Muslims. However, sometimes you want to make a point to other non Muslims which is best made by drawing a Muhammed cartoon. There's no offence intended even if it is predictable that people will get offended. It's a necessary evil of making a point in the best possible way.
On January 13 2011 05:59 Nausea wrote: Religion is given all too much unearnead respect as it is, they have zero proof for their claims and we are supposed to respect this? give me a break.
I´m not sure if respect is the right word for what we are "supposed" to do.
We can´t treat religious people as adults. We can´t expect them to act as free thinking people. We need to treat religious groups with care just like we need to treat a child with care.
On January 13 2011 05:33 Neo7 wrote: So you're saying we should not even bother putting forth the effort to learning why we should not respect a belief and simply assume they're all bad (including Atheist beliefs because unless you're a Nihilist, you believe in something)? That is an extremely shallow and some would argue lazy approach to understanding life. Comparing the actual faith of say Islam or Christianity to something such as slavery or genocide is extremely unrealistic to compare (that would be like comparing StarCraft to Microsoft Office...there's nothing to really compare).
Again if you can't even put forth the effort to understand a belief, you shouldn't make a judgement call. You can still distrust something until you know it inside and out which is a fair and safe way to go about things.
...Atheist beliefs? Like what, exactly? Also I wasn't comparing any faith to anything, I was making an example to frame a question. A question that you went and dodged, I might add.
But okay, I'll go ahead and argue that yes, religion, and by extension religious people, should be met with skepticism, not unwarranted respect (which, as of yet, still no one has given any actual justification for). What is wrong with this idea?
On January 13 2011 05:59 Nausea wrote: Religion is given all too much unearnead respect as it is, they have zero proof for their claims and we are supposed to respect this? give me a break.
I´m not sure if respect is the right word for what we are "supposed" to do.
We can´t treat religious people as adults. We can´t expect them to act as free thinking people. We need to treat religious groups with care just like we need to treat a child with care.
you may be interest in a series on Transactional Analysis I found interesting on YouTube it reinforces your statement. + Show Spoiler +
On January 13 2011 02:24 Krigwin wrote: And you didn't particularly answer my question. Everyone has a right to be a moron, yes, but who said morons have to be respected? Why is respect warranted? Because they're a moron? Isn't that a bit contradictory?
You are right, I need to answer your question in a differentiated way. Let us say I repsect poeple's religious beliefs as long as they are not conflicting with well-established empirical evidence. That is, I repect a person and his/her beliefs when he/she says that she beliefs in life after death or that some higher entity created the universe. I do not respect beliefs like "god hid some dinosaur skeletons to fool us" and "world was created in six days" because that view is simply not sustainable given empirical evidence.
I can however, respect people because they are fellow human beings regardless of whether I respect their opinions. Maybe that is two different forms of respect, the former consiting of respectful behavior in direct interactions or acknowleding that everyone is entitled to personal beliefs, however moronic they are, as long as the person does not cause harm to others. The latter may be more of an acknowledgement that another's personal beliefs are valid within my own normative value system.
Firstly - you can respect a person while not respecting at all their beliefs, and in fact this seems a critical skill to learn in our religion-saturated world, although the two often go hand in hand.
Exactly. That is what I was trying to say with the second half of my post (that and the fact that the two types of respect are probably qualitatively different from a psychological perspective).
Secondly - so you say you, by default, respect beliefs that are beyond empiricism? That seems a bit strange, don't you agree? So you respect solipsism then? Nihilist beliefs? You brought up this example yourself - the idea that we are all captured spirits brought to Earth by an intergalactic dictator, as per Scientology, is also a belief beyond empiricism. Do you respect that as well?
No, what I am trying to say is that is, on a very rational level, not justified to disrespect a person for holding religious beliefs when believing that there is no god is, basically, an equally unprovable belief. I think the scientolgy thing contradicts scientific evidence in more than one respect and there does not fall into the category that I would respect.
But consider a person that subscribes to a monotheistic religion and says: "I believe that god created the universe, imbued us with immortal souls and awaits us in paradise after we die."
These are views commonly held and none of them contradict empirical evidence the way are formulated, mainly because they exceed the limits of our kowledge. At this point not believing in god or life after death could be considered an equally religious belief, lets called is agnosticism. Disrespecting a point of view soley because I adhere to a different point of view seems pointless to me.
Jesus is mocked a lot in art. There's an art exhibit in San Francisco with Jesus portrayed as homosexual and whatever. Of course we shouldnt have a prohibition on this. Freedom of speech/expression has to apply to everything or nothing at all, you cant just pick and choose.
On January 13 2011 06:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: No, what I am trying to say is that is, on a very rational level, not justified to disrespect a person for holding religious beliefs when believing that there is no god is, basically, an equally unprovable belief. I think the scientolgy thing contradicts scientific evidence in more than one respect and there does not fall into the category that I would respect.
But consider a person that subscribes to a monotheistic religion and says: "I believe that god created the universe, imbued us with immortal souls and awaits us in paradise after we die."
These are views commonly held and none of them contradict empirical evidence the way are formulated, mainly because they exceed the limits of our kowledge. At this point not believing in god or life after death could be considered an equally religious belief, lets called is agnosticism. Disrespecting a point of view soley because I adhere to a different point of view seems pointless to me.
Show me the great monotheistic religion that says "God created the universe, imbued us with immortal souls, and awaits us in paradise after we die" and ends it at that. Makes no metaphysical claims whatsoever, doesn't dictate our behavior, says nothing of unbelievers and blasphemy, and makes no judgments on human beings. Show me this amazingly brief holy scripture that apparently consists of only one line. Show me this fantastical religion.
I said nothing of disrespect, unless you consider skepticism disrespect, which I think only a fanatic would agree with. Zero respect is not the same as disrespect and is what I am instead advocating. Zero respect, and the skepticism that all religions rightfully deserve.
Both extreme sides of this argument are so dumb really and the whole "respect" debate (we have ridiculous amounts of it over here atm) only serves to draw attention away from that fact.
Who cares if someone draws a depiction of something that's important to you, personally (for example, because there's more than one religious group good at being offended about more than one thing).. what does it change, really?
At the same time, if you know someone's offended by something why would you go do it several more times, just because it's your right?
Bunch of troll humans.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. And the freedom not to like it. Just not the freedom to come to blows over it, violence is the line. Crossing it just proves you're silly and, frankly, so does trying to curb said freedom in favor of what you personally do or don't believe.
Generalizing whole swaths of people over the actions of some is just as dumb though, just saying.
On January 13 2011 06:27 Electric.Jesus wrote: No, what I am trying to say is that is, on a very rational level, not justified to disrespect a person for holding religious beliefs when believing that there is no god is, basically, an equally unprovable belief. I think the scientolgy thing contradicts scientific evidence in more than one respect and there does not fall into the category that I would respect.
But consider a person that subscribes to a monotheistic religion and says: "I believe that god created the universe, imbued us with immortal souls and awaits us in paradise after we die."
These are views commonly held and none of them contradict empirical evidence the way are formulated, mainly because they exceed the limits of our kowledge. At this point not believing in god or life after death could be considered an equally religious belief, lets called is agnosticism. Disrespecting a point of view soley because I adhere to a different point of view seems pointless to me.
Show me the great monotheistic religion that says "God created the universe, imbued us with immortal souls, and awaits us in paradise after we die" and ends it at that. Makes no metaphysical claims whatsoever, doesn't dictate our behavior, says nothing of unbelievers and blasphemy, and makes no judgments on human beings. Show me this amazingly brief holy scripture that apparently consists of only one line. Show me this fantastical religion.
I know a guys who considers himself Christian and who pretty much beliefs what I just wrote. Is that sufficient? Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing"). If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I did not base my claim on a whole religion (if you can even clearly define it as a cohesive entity). My original post was about repecting individuals or their religious beliefs. I merely chose monotheistic so I would not have to write god/gods all the time.
I said nothing of disrespect, unless you consider skepticism disrespect, which I think only a fanatic would agree with. Zero respect is not the same as disrespect and is what I am instead advocating. Zero respect, and the skepticism that all religions rightfully deserve.
Hm, maybe a bad choice of word on my part caused a misunderstanding. What is the opposite of respecting? Scepticism is something typical for scientific minds. Maybe it is even the equivalent to a relgious persons' believing. I pretty much encounter everything with scpeticism but I also know that scepticism is only useful in situations where it may contribute to generating knowledge.
I haven't read the entire thread at this point... Sorry if my post is redundant.
Terrorist attacks shouldn't be responded to by appeasing to the demands of fanatics, that is actually the diametrically incorrect response. It prove the methods of terrorist individuals are effective (emboldening their attacks). The problem is actually giving these fanatics any kind of support, rather than condemnation, for their actions and beliefs.
I might be unpopular for my view, but mainstream religion is more of a root cause than secular ideas. Religion is the springboard to carrying out their acts and the validity the mainstream religions actually give to the views (rather than simply calling it what it is, insane) of violent fundamentalists is absurd. Rather than just being able to say "That guy is fucking insane" we have to be respectful of others individual beliefs... Why exactly? Why is religion specifically sheltered from scrutiny? Most religious are moderate, they will condemn the actions but they have to recognize that they create the atmosphere where fundamentalists can, and will, carry out attacks.
Marcus Brigstocke said it better than me though...
"...(religious people) have to accept that they are the power base for the nutters.Without their passive support the loonies in charge would just be loonies, safely locked away and medicated, somewhere nice, you know with a view of some trees where they can claim they have a direct channel to God between sessions making tapestry drink coasters, watching Teletubbies and talking about their days in the Hitler Youth. The ordinary faithful make these vicious, tyrannical thugs what they are. See, I get very angry that shows like Big Brother and Celebrity, insert title of wretched show here, still fill our lives with vapid, pointless, emptiness and I wish the producers and development executives would crawl back under the rocks they emerged from but the truth is they sell stuff people consume. Without the audience to prop it up, Heat magazine and fundamentalist religious fanaticism goes away. Imagine what humanity might be capable of if we had that kind of spare time."
On January 13 2011 07:17 Electric.Jesus wrote: Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing").
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Einstein He used the word God to refer to the mechanics that the universe is governed by, not an actual omnipotent deity.
On January 13 2011 05:33 Neo7 wrote: So you're saying we should not even bother putting forth the effort to learning why we should not respect a belief and simply assume they're all bad (including Atheist beliefs because unless you're a Nihilist, you believe in something)? That is an extremely shallow and some would argue lazy approach to understanding life. Comparing the actual faith of say Islam or Christianity to something such as slavery or genocide is extremely unrealistic to compare (that would be like comparing StarCraft to Microsoft Office...there's nothing to really compare).
Again if you can't even put forth the effort to understand a belief, you shouldn't make a judgement call. You can still distrust something until you know it inside and out which is a fair and safe way to go about things.
On January 13 2011 07:17 Electric.Jesus wrote: I know a guys who considers himself Christian and who pretty much beliefs what I just wrote. Is that sufficient? Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing"). If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I did not base my claim on a whole religion (if you can even clearly define it as a cohesive entity). My original post was about repecting individuals or their religious beliefs. I merely chose monotheistic so I would not have to write god/gods all the time.
Hm, maybe a bad choice of word on my part caused a misunderstanding. What is the opposite of respecting? Scepticism is something typical for scientific minds. Maybe it is even the equivalent to a relgious persons' believing. I pretty much encounter everything with scpeticism but I also know that scepticism is only useful in situations where it may contribute to generating knowledge.
Oh, I have no doubt that such people exist. But no such established religion exists. And it is ultimately meaningless for such a person to describe themselves as part of any establishment, when such beliefs are the tenets of innumerable belief systems.
The established religions that we do have, however, are not defined by such irresolvable claims that are at the heart of all religions everywhere, but rather by the slew of metaphysical claims they make and their heinous results. That God judges us based on our thoughts and actions, such as depicting his prophet, and that thus such an act is blasphemous. This is the kind of belief that should be met with more than skepticism - it should be met with scorn and ridicule, not unwarranted respect!
On January 13 2011 07:17 Electric.Jesus wrote: Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing").
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Einstein He used the word God to refer to the mechanics that the universe is governed by, not an actual omnipotent deity.
That is a very sympathic religious belief. I guess there is no harm in sharing it.
On January 13 2011 07:17 Electric.Jesus wrote: I know a guys who considers himself Christian and who pretty much beliefs what I just wrote. Is that sufficient? Also, I am pretty sure, that is what Einstein believed (at least the "god created the universe thing"). If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I did not base my claim on a whole religion (if you can even clearly define it as a cohesive entity). My original post was about repecting individuals or their religious beliefs. I merely chose monotheistic so I would not have to write god/gods all the time.
Hm, maybe a bad choice of word on my part caused a misunderstanding. What is the opposite of respecting? Scepticism is something typical for scientific minds. Maybe it is even the equivalent to a relgious persons' believing. I pretty much encounter everything with scpeticism but I also know that scepticism is only useful in situations where it may contribute to generating knowledge.
Oh, I have no doubt that such people exist. But no such established religion exists. And it is ultimately meaningless for such a person to describe themselves as part of any establishment, when such beliefs are the tenets of innumerable belief systems.
The established religions that we do have, however, are not defined by such irresolvable claims that are at the heart of all religions everywhere, but rather by the slew of metaphysical claims they make and their heinous results. That God judges us based on our thoughts and actions, such as depicting his prophet, and that thus such an act is blasphemous. This is the kind of belief that should be met with more than skepticism - it should be met with scorn and ridicule, not unwarranted respect!
Then what about Bhuddism. As far as I know the Dalai Lama specifically said that a central requirement of Bhuddism must be that its teachings do not contradict the current state of scientific knowledge. In fact, he and other high ranking representatives of Bhuddism actively partitipate in neuroimaging studies to help scientists understand the neurobiological correlates of spiritual experiences. I guess you could respect that religion, right?
On December 13 2010 18:36 Lightswarm wrote: Why can people not stand up to their right to express freedom of speech. Of course the images drawn by Mr. Vilks is degrading to Islamic people and he should be rightfully punished but he is not at all deserving of the death threats and whatnot he is getting.
One of the drawings by Lars Vilks.
If any government puts the opinions and expressions of any radicals over the freedom of speech of their own people, it is clear that government is not fit to take care of its people. Any country faced with threats of this nature should stand up against it and not cower before the demands radicals like the extremists
How should he punished? So what if it's insulting to Islam.
We have plenty of cartoons drawn of Christianity in the US, which is a predominantly Christian nation.
The terrorists need to realize that blowing themselves up will not get them anywhere. There religions is no more special than anyone else's.
Why can't I just have my religion, and they just have theirs? I don't care what they believe, as long as they don't attack others. Although the US kind of got itself overinvolved in the middle east and partially instigated the attacks.
On January 13 2011 09:53 jorge_the_awesome wrote: Why can't I just have my religion, and they just have theirs?.
Because monotheist religions like Christianity and Islam cannot both be right. If Islam is right then Christianity is wrong and vice verse. The very existence of a competing religion is viewed as an attack.
On January 13 2011 09:53 jorge_the_awesome wrote: Why can't I just have my religion, and they just have theirs?.
Because monotheist religions like Christianity and Islam cannot both be right. If Islam is right then Christianity is wrong and vice verse. The very existence of a competing religion is viewed as an attack.
More reasonably because both promulgate different views of what is right/the way society ought to be.
People who believe that owning slaves is a right that should be protected, and people who believe that slavery is wrong do not inhabit the same space well.
On January 13 2011 08:26 Electric.Jesus wrote: Then what about Bhuddism. As far as I know the Dalai Lama specifically said that a central requirement of Bhuddism must be that its teachings do not contradict the current state of scientific knowledge. In fact, he and other high ranking representatives of Bhuddism actively partitipate in neuroimaging studies to help scientists understand the neurobiological correlates of spiritual experiences. I guess you could respect that religion, right?
That's a nice start but not quite enough. A truly rational person wouldn't say: "This is what I believe and will continue to do so until experience proves my beliefs wrong". They would say: "These are my experiences, so lets see what set of beliefs fit them the best."
Apparently Buddhist texts contain examples of people creating objects with their minds (observable by onlookers) while meditating. Any truly rational person would say that the "holy texts" are wrong and these things either never happened or these people experienced some sort of shared illusion. While you can't absolutely rule it out I wouldn't even take the idea seriously until someone actually did it in a controlled experiment and got the whole thing on tape.
Even if you do allow your holy texts to be proven wrong, just the fact that you treat them as your main hypothesis is a form of extreme bias. Indeed, a truly enlightened Buddhist would see it as attachment and an example of "wrong view".
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. To categorise those who bombed America in the same category as the rest is ridiculous. America has done a lot of negative things to muslims (supporting corrupt dictators, unqualified support for israel and causing conflict), but the majority of muslims frankly dont give a shit and just want to live peaceful lives.
Drawing pictures of Muhammad (any kind, even showing a little bit of face) is likened to a cardinal sin in Islam and is deeply offensive to the majority of muslims. It is similar to how western society views paedophilia (abhorrent but you know the classical greeks did it!).
With this perspective in mind, the cartoon didnt just deeply offend muslims, they actually took the piss out of him showing him as a bomber and terrorist. Why on earth would hundreds of thousands of people give up money so they can protest against this? Its because they are so goddam offensive to them.
SO to those who say no surrender to terrorist please stfu. Its a minuscule minority of muslims that did bad things and they also happen to have been directly supported (money and arms) by the USA in the past (See osama bin laden wikipedia).
The pictures are goddam offensive to a lot of people. It may not mean much to the western folk except for some cheap laughs, but get real and stop deeply insulting muslims.
Drawing pictures of Muhammad (any kind, even showing a little bit of face) is likened to a cardinal sin in Islam and is deeply offensive to the majority of muslims. It is similar to how western society views paedophilia (abhorrent but you know the classical greeks did it!).
Sure, we see paedophilia as abhorrent. We also used to see homosexuality as abhorrent and disgusting. The reason why we continue to see paedophilia as wrong is that it involves hurting children.
Cultural taboos aren't all equivalent. They do have to be questioned and dispensed with if they prove to be unfounded. So yes, hurting children is wrong, drawing Muhammed isn't.
This is really upsetting. Its good to be passionate about religion but its going to far to threat with violence. Ofc there are people who will never learn and respect that mind. I'm personal against all forms of religion and so I think it sucks that we have to be controlled based on others beliefs.
Drawing pictures of Muhammad (any kind, even showing a little bit of face) is likened to a cardinal sin in Islam and is deeply offensive to the majority of muslims. It is similar to how western society views paedophilia (abhorrent but you know the classical greeks did it!).
Sure, we see paedophilia as abhorrent. We also used to see homosexuality as abhorrent and disgusting. The reason why we continue to see paedophilia as wrong is that it involves hurting children.
Cultural taboos aren't all equivalent. They do have to be questioned and dispensed with if they prove to be unfounded. So yes, hurting children is wrong, drawing Muhammed isn't.
You have a valid point. But it isnt merely cultural, it is religious.
Its more like telling jewish people not to eat kosher food.
Coming from a muslim upbringing, I can tell you people believe the Quran and base their whole life around it. The cartoons also took the piss out of muslims. This is why they dont just get silently irritated at people shitting on their beliefs, but visibly upset.
Would catholics get annoyed if someone showed the Pope having cartoon sex with jesus in the anus? I would think most adherent catholics would.
The western world is shitting on the muslim world. "Intervention" in the form of middle east wars has needlessly killed millions of people. Justifying intervention with the notion of freedom is bullshit. The west supports corrupt dictators in the middle east who suppress their subjects. Democracy? Iran is very democratic (with the caveat that it is a theocracy(but iranians wanted it) but the west wants "regime change". The palestinians elected a government in hamas. The west didnt like them so is now treaing Gaza as a prison. Overthrowing democratically elected government of iran twice via the CIA? Supporting the crazy terrorists in Afghanistan when the were fighting the russians that were the ones which actually caused 9/11?
The view of western nations in the muslim world is quite terrible to be honest. The notion of fairness and liberty as western ideals are ridiculous. Saying freedom of speech is a right is bullshit. Look whats happening to Bradly Manning who exposed the deceit? 23 hrs in solitary confinement. The wikileaks guy "deserves to be hunted like a terrorist"?
The muslim people have being seeing through the bullshit for a while but dont do anything because the Quran tells them the afterlife is where they will be rewarded. Those crazies who bombed america are just that. Crazy. They ignored bits of the Quran about peace just like you are telling people to in terms of the cartoons. They do represent the sentiment that america deserves retribution for its double standards and interference. But the Quran tells people not to do anything (be non-violent). If you take away this strict interpretation of the Quran all hell will break loose.
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote: Its more like telling jewish people not to eat kosher food.
It`s not like that at all. It's more like eating non-kosher food even though you know jews don't. No one is forcing muslims to draw muhammad.
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote: Would catholics get annoyed if someone showed the Pope having cartoon sex with jesus in the anus? I would think most adherent catholics would.
Of course they would be annoyed but being "annoyed" isnt a valid reason for limiting free speech. I'm annoyed every time someone says the earth is little more than 6000 years old but I wouldn't want it to be illegal for them to say that. (I might not want them teaching that in schools but that's a different issue)
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote: The western world is shitting on the muslim world. "Intervention" in the form of middle east wars has needlessly killed millions of people. Justifying intervention with the notion of freedom is bullshit. The west supports corrupt dictators in the middle east who suppress their subjects. Democracy? Iran is very democratic (with the caveat that it is a theocracy(but iranians wanted it) but the west wants "regime change". The palestinians elected a government in hamas. The west didnt like them so is now treaing Gaza as a prison. Overthrowing democratically elected government of iran twice via the CIA? Supporting the crazy terrorists in Afghanistan when the were fighting the russians that were the ones which actually caused 9/11?
No one in this thread has advocated for this.... It's very possible (maybe even likely) that muslims are being demonized by the west but that's not what this thread is about.
Edit: i found more stuff in this post that bothered me.
Drawing pictures of Muhammad (any kind, even showing a little bit of face) is likened to a cardinal sin in Islam and is deeply offensive to the majority of muslims. It is similar to how western society views paedophilia (abhorrent but you know the classical greeks did it!).
Sure, we see paedophilia as abhorrent. We also used to see homosexuality as abhorrent and disgusting. The reason why we continue to see paedophilia as wrong is that it involves hurting children.
Cultural taboos aren't all equivalent. They do have to be questioned and dispensed with if they prove to be unfounded. So yes, hurting children is wrong, drawing Muhammed isn't.
You have a valid point. But it isnt merely cultural, it is religious.
Its more like telling jewish people not to eat kosher food.
Coming from a muslim upbringing, I can tell you people believe the Quran and base their whole life around it. The cartoons also took the piss out of muslims. This is why they dont just get silently irritated at people shitting on their beliefs, but visibly upset.
Would catholics get annoyed if someone showed the Pope having cartoon sex with jesus in the anus? I would think most adherent catholics would.
The western world is shitting on the muslim world. "Intervention" in the form of middle east wars has needlessly killed millions of people. Justifying intervention with the notion of freedom is bullshit. The west supports corrupt dictators in the middle east who suppress their subjects. Democracy? Iran is very democratic (with the caveat that it is a theocracy(but iranians wanted it) but the west wants "regime change". The palestinians elected a government in hamas. The west didnt like them so is now treaing Gaza as a prison. Overthrowing democratically elected government of iran twice via the CIA? Supporting the crazy terrorists in Afghanistan when the were fighting the russians that were the ones which actually caused 9/11?
The view of western nations in the muslim world is quite terrible to be honest. The notion of fairness and liberty as western ideals are ridiculous. Saying freedom of speech is a right is bullshit. Look whats happening to Bradly Manning who exposed the deceit? 23 hrs in solitary confinement. The wikileaks guy "deserves to be hunted like a terrorist"?
The muslim people have being seeing through the bullshit for a while but dont do anything because the Quran tells them the afterlife is where they will be rewarded. Those crazies who bombed america are just that. Crazy. They ignored bits of the Quran about peace just like you are telling people to in terms of the cartoons. They do represent the sentiment that america deserves retribution for its double standards and interference. But the Quran tells people not to do anything (be non-violent). If you take away this strict interpretation of the Quran all hell will break loose.
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote: Would catholics get annoyed if someone showed the Pope having cartoon sex with jesus in the anus? I would think most adherent catholics would.
Of course they would be annoyed but being "annoyed" isnt a valid reason for limiting free speech. I'm annoyed every time someone says the earth is little more than 6000 years old but I wouldn't want it to be illegal for them to say that. (I might not want them teaching that in schools but that's a different issue)
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote: The western world is shitting on the muslim world. "Intervention" in the form of middle east wars has needlessly killed millions of people. Justifying intervention with the notion of freedom is bullshit. The west supports corrupt dictators in the middle east who suppress their subjects. Democracy? Iran is very democratic (with the caveat that it is a theocracy(but iranians wanted it) but the west wants "regime change". The palestinians elected a government in hamas. The west didnt like them so is now treaing Gaza as a prison. Overthrowing democratically elected government of iran twice via the CIA? Supporting the crazy terrorists in Afghanistan when the were fighting the russians that were the ones which actually caused 9/11?
No one in this thread has advocated for this.... It's very possible (maybe even likely) that muslims are being demonized by the west but that's not what this thread is about.
Edit: i found more stuff in this post that bothered me.
I got the first bit wrong. I meant non-kosher food. Another analogy. Its like making making jokes about the holocaust (esp to jewish people). Very distasteful. There are concrete religous reasons why his face is never shown.
Secondly, I was explaining why muslims peacefully protested as is their right. Only a few crazies went all jihad but I talk about that later in the opinion (they are essentially funded by the Saudis who are US allies). I bet you would get some extremist fundamentalist Christian doing some explosive stuff if you offended and humiliated them enough (see Ireland)
The third point was to point out the injustice that muslims feel westerners have brought to their doorstep and the built up resentment that muslims feel. The examples were not about demonisation as such but are to be treated as the facts which support the feelings of injustice and anti-western values (Western values I think in principle are awesome, but not the way the government are currently doing so)
On January 13 2011 12:28 UberThing wrote: You have a valid point. But it isnt merely cultural, it is religious.
Its more like telling jewish people not to eat kosher food.
Coming from a muslim upbringing, I can tell you people believe the Quran and base their whole life around it. The cartoons also took the piss out of muslims. This is why they dont just get silently irritated at people shitting on their beliefs, but visibly upset.
Would catholics get annoyed if someone showed the Pope having cartoon sex with jesus in the anus? I would think most adherent catholics would.
The western world is shitting on the muslim world. "Intervention" in the form of middle east wars has needlessly killed millions of people. Justifying intervention with the notion of freedom is bullshit. The west supports corrupt dictators in the middle east who suppress their subjects. Democracy? Iran is very democratic (with the caveat that it is a theocracy(but iranians wanted it) but the west wants "regime change". The palestinians elected a government in hamas. The west didnt like them so is now treaing Gaza as a prison. Overthrowing democratically elected government of iran twice via the CIA? Supporting the crazy terrorists in Afghanistan when the were fighting the russians that were the ones which actually caused 9/11?
The view of western nations in the muslim world is quite terrible to be honest. The notion of fairness and liberty as western ideals are ridiculous. Saying freedom of speech is a right is bullshit. Look whats happening to Bradly Manning who exposed the deceit? 23 hrs in solitary confinement. The wikileaks guy "deserves to be hunted like a terrorist"?
The muslim people have being seeing through the bullshit for a while but dont do anything because the Quran tells them the afterlife is where they will be rewarded. Those crazies who bombed america are just that. Crazy. They ignored bits of the Quran about peace just like you are telling people to in terms of the cartoons. They do represent the sentiment that america deserves retribution for its double standards and interference. But the Quran tells people not to do anything (be non-violent). If you take away this strict interpretation of the Quran all hell will break loose.
There's no such thing as the "Western World" in this context. Different countries have different policies. Some of these policies enjoy wide support, some are controversial even within individual countries. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the complexity and variety of opinions and philosophies isn't seeing through the bullshit. He's just switching one simplistic worldview to another.
You see American imperialism, Palestine and the Muhammed comics as part of the same story. That is the west hurting, exploiting and insulting the Muslim world.
My viewpoint is a little different. I find similarities between lying about WMDs in Iraq, trying to suppress wikileaks and banning drawings of Muhammed. All of them are about defending authority from legitimate criticism.
I don't think complete freedom of speech is essential. However the right to question authority is. Both political and religious authority. Because if we don't, there are people who are more than willing to abuse that authority.
I do understand that this is important and upsetting for many Muslims. But frankly, I don't see a solution that makes everyone happy. The conclusion, for me personally, is that if there's enough reason for this ban than we should strive to undermine Islam and weaken people's faith to the point where they no longer care. Of course I think that's something we should be doing with all religions anyway, so I'm a little biased obviously
On January 13 2011 11:24 UberThing wrote: People are losing perspective here.
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. To categorise those who bombed America in the same category as the west is ridiculous.
As long as muslims - even moderate muslims - keep saying things like "these drawings/these statements/these actions are an insult to 1 billion muslims world wide" it makes perfect sense to view them all as one, sheep-minded group.
“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs… As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” -Mahatma Gandhi 1938
They respond with aggression against Lars Vilks in Sweden... violent, violent people... had there been no police around, they'd have beaten him... what happened to all the supposed peace that their religion advocates...
On January 13 2011 11:24 UberThing wrote: People are losing perspective here.
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. To categorise those who bombed America in the same category as the west is ridiculous.
As long as muslims - even moderate muslims - keep saying things like "these drawings/these statements/these actions are an insult to 1 billion muslims world wide" it makes perfect sense to view them all as one, sheep-minded group.
I meant to rest not west. I have edited my post
The majority of protests against it were peaceful which by any standard is a legitimate right. The strength of feeling is and still is very strong against all depictions of Muhammad (even good ones).
People are bound by religion. Insulting the Pope enough would inevitably lead to some of the 1 billion catholics getting angry. SOme may go "crazy" and do extreme things. Its called touching a raw nerve The cultural difference is that it would take paedophillic images (no pun intended) to do this whereas the prevailing culture (lets forget that it tells u not to draw him in the Quran) in Muslim countries tells people not to depict his face.
The guys who do the crazy stuff like explosives and killing are not muslims, yet your opinion above says all 1 billion people should be classified under the same umbrella as these crazy people. This is just the kind of thinking and rhetoric that the government of US + allies used to get us into Iraq when we essentially had no business there.
The guy Saddam hated these guys (the crazies) but somehow we got persuaded by the argument that these he somehow supported the extremists. The US has supported them more than him (CIA afghan-russia war) war ! I aint defending him. He did some quite bad things. But with over 1 million war deaths (mostly civilian) I dont think that is a worthwhile price. We came in saying we wanted to free them from a dictatorship and oppression. We did that (with all those inevitable deaths in war) biut we replaced it with fear and death. Corruption is huge in Iraq as the dollars are pumped in. The country has gone backwards except now we have a decent oil supply. I like the oil cause it makes our countries good but I find it hard to sleep at night realising the unnecessary deaths that occured by this unnecessary war.
Courtesy] should dictate not to publish these images. I do not advocate a law banning this like paedophilia or Holocaust denial which are heineous crimes etc.
On January 13 2011 18:34 nalgene wrote: “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs… As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” -Mahatma Gandhi 1938
They respond with aggression against Lars Vilks in Sweden... violent, violent people... had there been no police around, they'd have beaten him... what happened to all the supposed peace that their religion advocates...
These are the fundamentalists/extremists. How can you tarnish the many with the actions of a few? These guys are not true muslims as they resort to these tactic to express their feelings. Islam is about peace. SOmetimes I see this as a bad thing because people and countries take advantage of the peaceful muslim nature and do terrible things. A few muslims get sooo pissed off they do things which make them not muslim, yet the media represent them as muslim spokespeople. You have to see the bigger picture. Muslim fundamentalism is a result of people shitting on muslim countries because they can with no real consequences. Its called blowback fuelled by frustration at unfairness
Looking what has happened to the Palestine people, they have been treated goddam unfairly. How can any country which supports their oppression and containment take the moral high ground?
They were forcibly removed from their land and homes (at gun-point/ war refugee) by foreign people who settled in their old homes. Other countries had their own agendas and couldnt care less. I know what happened to the Jews is very very bad but shouldnt those who know unfairness first hand know better? The politics of the matter obscures the reality on the ground. Look at the facts. Look at UN mandates.
Why does no media outlet report in a fair and unbiased manner? Militant palestinians take hostage 1 Israeli soldier during a war. Big thing in the world media. Israel army breaks into a civilian mans house and kills him in his bed in front of his wife and children in the middle of the night. The guy was an average joe. Who lost their life? WHy do palestinians become militant? Incidents like this. Morally indefensible
So you're saying we should not even bother putting forth the effort to learning why we should not respect a belief and simply assume they're all bad (including Atheist beliefs because unless you're a Nihilist, you believe in something)?
Atheism isnt a belief, it is a disbelief. Theism->Religion, atheism is simply a lack of belief, thus not a belief system, and it lacks dogmas of any kind.
Religion is given all too much unearnead respect as it is, they have zero proof for their claims and we are supposed to respect this? give me a break.
It's your right to be offended, and mine to not care if you are.
That kind of insensitivity gets people hurt. Not everyone will react violently to offense but some will whether it's insulting your mom, your wife, your religion etc - insults which attack the heart , and should banned IMO because idiots can not control themselves on both sides. Loud mouths and violent people.
If you like violence then carry on. Might as well get rid of all your speech laws including those on Nazism, race, sex and be consistent. You can say whatever you want legally, anywhere, none has a right to be offended. You know this won't work tho.
Yes, if you get a confirmation stating that you are Jewish, signed by a rabbi residing outside Israel. There is no difference between born Jews and converted Jews, all qualify for Mahal IDF programs. The confirmation must have a detailed letterhead with name of the Jewish community, address, phone, fax and email. The exact name of the rabbi must be clearly readable.
Mahal-IDF-Volunteers.org does not check the validity of conversions. If you want to check the validity your conversion for the purpose of Israeli immigration, send the rabbi's confirmation to the Jewish Agency Aliya Representative for your country.
You don't need to be born to any true israelites from the tribes to become part of the IDF provided that you can speak hebrew/convert to judaism/signed by rabbi outside of Israel.
They could come from anywhere before joining the IDF if they can fulfill those requirements...
"Ever since King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago, the city has played a central role in Jewish existence. The Western Wall in the Old City — the last remaining wall of the ancient Jewish Temple, the holiest site in Judaism — is the object of Jewish veneration and the focus of Jewish prayer. Three times a day for thousands of years Jews have prayed, “To Jerusalem, thy city, shall we return with joy,” and have repeated the Psalmist's oath: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.”"
"The Islamic conquest of Palestine, which began in 633, was the beginning of a 1,300-year span during which more than ten different empires, governments, and dynasties were to rule in the Holy Land prior to the British occupation after World War I.
In 638, the Jews in Palestine assisted the Muslim forces in defeating the Persians who had reneged on an agreement to protect them and allow them to resettle in Jerusalem. As a reward for their assistance, the Muslims permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem and to guard the Temple Mount.
The Muslims fended off their rivals until the end of the 11th century. In 1095, Pope Urban II called for Crusades to regain Palestine from the infidels. They succeeded in 1099 and celebrated by herding all the Jews into a synagogue and burning them alive. Non-Christians were subsequently barred from the city.
Saladin succeeded in expelling the Crusaders and recaptured Jerusalem for the Muslims in 1187. Two years later, the Christians mounted the Third Crusade to retake Jerusalem, but Saladin's forces repelled them."
muslims from 638-1099 took the lands from the israelites... christianity comes into play at 1099+ with the crusades...
israelites took back their own home by 1948/ 67... which it had always been theirs for 3000 years... but got driven away by other powers... the muslims were occupying their lands for a thousand years...
the oil exports from all other countries to the USA dropped in 2000 / 2001/ / 2002 while Canada increased the exports to USA in that same time and then 2003 happened...
On January 14 2011 10:02 nalgene wrote: israelites took back their own home by 1948/ 67... which it had always been theirs for 3000 years... but got driven away by other powers... the muslims were occupying their lands for a thousand years...
Hm, by that reasoing, can we have back France now please? Or can the frenc have us back? Don't know who gets to keep whom here, since its all so confusing.
Don't you think if your people lived in a place for 1000 years it is quite difficult for you to understand why you should suddenly leave? People get used to stuff if it belongs to their families for a few generations. not saying that is the basis for legal decisions but every sane person can anticipate that this is going to cause trouble.
israelites took back their own home by 1948/ 67... which it had always been theirs for 3000 years... but got driven away by other powers... the muslims were occupying their lands for a thousand years...
the oil exports from all other countries to the USA dropped in 2000 / 2001/ / 2002 while Canada increased the exports to USA in that same time and then 2003 happened...
Occupation is when "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army".
Sorry this reasoning doesnt stack up. How can land be yours for 3000 years? You rebelled against the romans and lost. This is like The UK claiming brittany in france as their territory because the anglo-saxon rulers were once (a very long time ago) from that area and used to rule both. The UK claiming the Americas? Wishful thinking perhaps on part? The jewish claim to land west of the river jordan that people lawfully already owned and lived on for countless generations was absurd and still is. Not to mention the way in which muslims and christians were "removed" to make way. I understand that Jews were treated very badly 2-3000 years ago but how can this justify treating another group just as badly in the same manner in the modern world through no fault of their own. Uncivilised? Barbaric?
There was never a muslim occupation of lands. To call it that is unjustified and a perversion of the truth. If anything isnt this bigoted? Muslims allowed Jews sanctity when they were being persecuted elsewhere. Jews had religous freedom under the Ottoman empire and were free to worship at the temple and own land. How do you justify how you treated the palestinians and how you still treat them?
Not all Jewish people share the view you expressed. I believe you expressed Zionism and I am totally unconvinced of the merits of its arguments. Some guys in the late 19th century thought that it would be good to kick people off their land to make way so they could have their own "homeland". Using the holocaust as a catalyst for this? This is emotional blackmail.
Secondly, what exactly are you trying to say? War stimulates the economy?
If Israel didn't exist, they'd shift their efforts elsewhere...towards other countries... there's also 6 arab nations that are against Israel's existence... but you'd just cause more grief/sorrow to the people in that land if you took apart that country right now...
" In addition to goods and businesses, many Arab states refuse to allow entrance to anyone who uses an Israeli passport or who has any Israeli stamp in his or her passport. The stamp may be a visa stamp, or a stamp on entry or departure. It can also include a stamp of another country which indicates that the person has entered Israel. For example, if an Egyptian departure stamp is used in any passport at the Taba Crossing, that is an indication that the person entered Israel. * Algeria * Bangladesh * Brunei * Djibouti * Iran * Kuwait * Lebanon * Libya * Malaysia (Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Internal Security). * Pakistan * Saudi Arabia * Sudan * Syria * United Arab Emirates * Yemen Arab boycotts of Zionist institutions and Jewish businesses began before Israel's founding as a state. An official boycott was adopted by the Arab League almost immediately after the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, but is not fully implemented in practice. "
On January 13 2011 11:24 UberThing wrote: People are losing perspective here.
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. To categorise those who bombed America in the same category as the west is ridiculous.
As long as muslims - even moderate muslims - keep saying things like "these drawings/these statements/these actions are an insult to 1 billion muslims world wide" it makes perfect sense to view them all as one, sheep-minded group.
The only sheep-minded person here is you son, adhering to American media and blindly following the masses is exactly what you're doing by criticizing Islam so much. Not to mention religion in general. Go suck up to your little friends and leave minorities alone you dirty racist little man.
On January 14 2011 19:41 nalgene wrote: The Americans send 3 billion USD annually to Israel to keep them at bay... and they frequently cross train each others
They do have American corporations extracting the oil from arab lands...
If Israel didn't exist, they'd shift their efforts elsewhere...towards other countries... there's also 6 arab nations that are against Israel's existence... but you'd just cause more grief/sorrow to the people in that land if you took apart that country right now...
" In addition to goods and businesses, many Arab states refuse to allow entrance to anyone who uses an Israeli passport or who has any Israeli stamp in his or her passport. The stamp may be a visa stamp, or a stamp on entry or departure. It can also include a stamp of another country which indicates that the person has entered Israel. For example, if an Egyptian departure stamp is used in any passport at the Taba Crossing, that is an indication that the person entered Israel. * Algeria * Bangladesh * Brunei * Djibouti * Iran * Kuwait * Lebanon * Libya * Malaysia (Clearance permit needed from the Ministry of Internal Security). * Pakistan * Saudi Arabia * Sudan * Syria * United Arab Emirates * Yemen Arab boycotts of Zionist institutions and Jewish businesses began before Israel's founding as a state. An official boycott was adopted by the Arab League almost immediately after the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, but is not fully implemented in practice. "
Well, if Israel didn't bully the shit out of women and children, I wouldn't mind Israel either. Arab nations have every right to be pissed with Israel. They don't even follow their own laws.
On January 13 2011 11:24 UberThing wrote: People are losing perspective here.
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. To categorise those who bombed America in the same category as the west is ridiculous.
As long as muslims - even moderate muslims - keep saying things like "these drawings/these statements/these actions are an insult to 1 billion muslims world wide" it makes perfect sense to view them all as one, sheep-minded group.
The only sheep-minded person here is you son, adhering to American media and blindly following the masses is exactly what you're doing by criticizing Islam so much. Not to mention religion in general. Go suck up to your little friends and leave minorities alone you dirty racist little man.
Yea good post. I don't understand the religion hate in general. Many people are just religious because it was tradition or how they were raised or offers a semblance of structure much like man made laws do. I know some people who don't even really 100% believe in men in the sky perse but they are still Muslim.Cristian etc. If you are atheist or agnostic even you think these laws were man made, so hows that different than today? It's not if one thinks about it. Its really silly to hate people for religion not to mention bigoted. And then clumping everyone as a radical is just as crazy as it gets.
BTW all America Media is not fox news channel so be careful about generalizing too,.
On January 14 2011 22:45 tdt wrote: Yea good post. I don't understand the religion hate in general. Many people are just religious because it was tradition or how they were raised or offers a semblance of structure much like man made laws do. I know some people who don't even really 100% believe in men in the sky perse but they are still Muslim.Cristian etc. If you are atheist or agnostic even you think these laws were man made, so hows that different than today? It's not if one thinks about it. Its really silly to hate people for religion not to mention bigoted. And then clumping everyone as a radical is just as crazy as it gets.
BTW all America Media is not fox news channel so be careful about generalizing too,.
I think the hate is towards churches more than against religions, or in other way, people that oppse religion are mostly opposing institutionalized religion. There resons for that are quite simple, for example:
- not abiding by the rules of their holy book but at the same time claiming moral high grounds - abuse of relgious authority for political/personal benefit - war in the name of faith (so much for "though shalt not kill") - claining to know "god's will" (god hates fags, god hates libearls, god wants us to invade Iraq, etc.) - backwards rules (prohibition of condomes in africa, women can't become priests)
I could go on but I guess you get the point. If people considered religion as something private to spend solcae, give moral guidance or motivate them to be a better person, that is excellent and I guess, most people would not have a problem with that.
In general Islam it is prohibited for even imaging the faces of the Prophets or Imams. It is not however prohibited for Christians to imagine the face of Jesus (if it is please correct me). This is the major difference between the two religions. Those who believe that drawing these cartoons or depictions of Prophet Muhammad is completely okay then those people are the ignorant ones for not understanding this difference. Why should Islam cope, adapt, and follow these cultural differences not within their own country if those producing these drawings do not follow the rules of Islam. Muslims have the same right to protest as much as these people draw these pictures. In Islam it is also accepted that "the tongue is sharper than the sword." Which would you rather choose in front of the public? To be ridiculed and humiliated by all you know or simply be punched in the face. Do not be ignorant and think for less than 2 seconds before making this judgement. To those who believe that these drawings are okay: Do you honestly believe that these drawings have been rightfully produced? Is it 100% okay to draw these pictures? If your answer is yes without any implications, I sincerely feel sorry for your complete ignorance and lack of thought.
Islam follows a set of laws. If you do not follow their laws they have as much of a right to not follow yours.
I am an opened minded person who try's to think for both sides. But I felt there was a lack of insight for Islamic rights.
On January 15 2011 00:26 nihoh wrote: Can I draw a picture of a person PRETENDING to be Muhammad?
You will be ignorant for drawing it if you think it does not hurt anyone. Read my post. If you hurt people they have as much of a right to hurt you. Hence, do not do things that will hurt others.
Everyone can do what he wants, however my question is more or else directed at Christians. I don't care about atheists/agnostics/etc. How can you make fun of Jesus when you claim he is the son of god? or all the other messengers of god such as Abraham, lot, Joseph, etc? They're the picked and chosen messengers of god yet you have no shame in ridiculing them?
On January 15 2011 00:26 nihoh wrote: Can I draw a picture of a person PRETENDING to be Muhammad?
You will be ignorant for drawing it if you think it does not hurt anyone. Read my post. If you hurt people they have as much of a right to hurt you. Hence, do not do things that will hurt others.
So if Idra hurts a Korean's feelings by not GGing at the end of a game, do they have a right to hurt him? Your logic seems way off to me. I don't see why people should have to waste their time learning about every religion in the world to know how not to offend each religion. If people want to draw funny pictures of Mohammed feel free.
On January 15 2011 00:22 MoLite wrote: Islam follows a set of laws. If you do not follow their laws they have as much of a right to not follow yours.
Except for the fact that there is a difference between the laws of a country and those of a religion. If you do not follow the laws of the country you reside in, then you should be punished accordingly. Religion is something very personal and something very subjective. Should people unwillingly be subjugated to the laws of beliefs other than their own? And how would you justify punishing people based on religion when it conflicts with the laws of a country or even human rights?
To protest against something is one thing, but to bend the rules or incite violence is too much, in my opinion.
This shouldn't be a reflection on a government, artist, cartoon, but of religious fanatics who instead of actually following the advice of their religious text go out and attack others. When people draw Jesus or Buddah, make fun of the US or England, trash talk about Democracy or Communism nobody instantly rises up to attack. We simply accept that they have differing views even if we argue over a point nobody rushes to an attack. Where as these extremists are brainwashed morons. When the faction leaders of groups like the KKK, Nazis, Al Queda, ect ect ect are all dealt with there will be nobody left to misdirect and brainwash new recruits. Hopefully then all this ignorance and hate will be wiped away.
On January 13 2011 11:24 UberThing wrote: People are losing perspective here.
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. To categorise those who bombed America in the same category as the west is ridiculous.
As long as muslims - even moderate muslims - keep saying things like "these drawings/these statements/these actions are an insult to 1 billion muslims world wide" it makes perfect sense to view them all as one, sheep-minded group.
The only sheep-minded person here is you son, adhering to American media and blindly following the masses is exactly what you're doing by criticizing Islam so much. Not to mention religion in general. Go suck up to your little friends and leave minorities alone you dirty racist little man.
I really don't know why this still comes up when it's been mentioned countless times in this thread by myself and others. Islam is not a race nor is any other religion. Criticizing islam is not racist. To believe in a religion is a choice, race isn't. Beliefs should never be above reproach. If i sincerely believed that all muslims should be exterminated should that belief be respected? Perhaps it should be "respected" in so far as, I should be allowed to hold that opinion, but I would deserve every bit of criticism that came my way.
On January 15 2011 00:22 MoLite wrote: Muslims have the same right to protest as much as these people draw these pictures. In Islam it is also accepted that "the tongue is sharper than the sword."
Correct, muslims have every right to protest these drawings. What they don't have however, is the right to make it illegal to make these drawings. To me, religion in general is an insult to human dignity but you will never hear me say that it should be illegal to be religious.
If you allowed them to force their beliefs onto whatever country in which they are dwelling, they would probably have killed off a lot of businesses by banning usury and all institutions that are based on usury/printing money on which is backed by nothing...
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
On January 13 2011 11:24 UberThing wrote: People are losing perspective here.
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world. To categorise those who bombed America in the same category as the west is ridiculous.
As long as muslims - even moderate muslims - keep saying things like "these drawings/these statements/these actions are an insult to 1 billion muslims world wide" it makes perfect sense to view them all as one, sheep-minded group.
The only sheep-minded person here is you son, adhering to American media and blindly following the masses is exactly what you're doing by criticizing Islam so much. Not to mention religion in general. Go suck up to your little friends and leave minorities alone you dirty racist little man.
Don't make it so easy...
As it's been said already, religious adherence does not constitute race, and critizing a religion does not make one a racist. For instance, I have the largest amount of disrespect for norwegian women who convert to islam and voluntarely wear a hidjab or even worse a niqab. These women are, in a disgusting fashion, betraying what their mothers worked for in order to create something that is getting very close to gender equality in norwegian society. But racially, they're still ethnically norwegian.
I came to the realization that islam is bogus all by myself, through the simple act of reading and dialogue with some sudanese friends of mine who are vehemently ex-muslim. And being norwegian, I don't see what the american media has to do with it. We don't get Fox news over here...
I leave "minorities" alone, in so far as they leave me alone or don't threaten my liberties, but when swedish or norwegian muslim "spokesmen" (note, 99% of the time they are men) use the 1-billion-muslims-agrument when faced with criticism, it's pretty clear that they don't consider themselves part of scandinavian society. And 1 billion muslims easily outnumber the population of scandinavia. So I don't know.. who's really the minority here?
Maybe the Europeans converting have a very different view what constitutes respect and gender equality for women. I've heard it said it's not respectful and equality to prostrate women bodies turn them into sexual commodities etc. Many girls commit suicide, have eating disorders and such trying to fit in western culture and maybe find niqab helpful. Good for them. It's their choice, no one held a gun to their head so I respect their choices. That you don't is just more proof of bigotry.
This cuts both ways as everyone is a bigot to some degree and Muslim girls are ostracized as well for leaving. In effect you are the same as what you deride by having issue with conversion.
On January 14 2011 22:45 tdt wrote: Yea good post. I don't understand the religion hate in general. Many people are just religious because it was tradition or how they were raised or offers a semblance of structure much like man made laws do. I know some people who don't even really 100% believe in men in the sky perse but they are still Muslim.Cristian etc. If you are atheist or agnostic even you think these laws were man made, so hows that different than today? It's not if one thinks about it. Its really silly to hate people for religion not to mention bigoted. And then clumping everyone as a radical is just as crazy as it gets.
BTW all America Media is not fox news channel so be careful about generalizing too,.
I think the hate is towards churches more than against religions, or in other way, people that oppse religion are mostly opposing institutionalized religion. There resons for that are quite simple, for example:
- not abiding by the rules of their holy book but at the same time claiming moral high grounds - abuse of relgious authority for political/personal benefit - war in the name of faith (so much for "though shalt not kill") - claining to know "god's will" (god hates fags, god hates libearls, god wants us to invade Iraq, etc.) - backwards rules (prohibition of condomes in africa, women can't become priests)
I could go on but I guess you get the point. If people considered religion as something private to spend solcae, give moral guidance or motivate them to be a better person, that is excellent and I guess, most people would not have a problem with that.
Good points men corrupt and twist laws and rules in any system to promote their own bigotry (see free speech) but I prefer to judge people as individuals not say xyz religion is bad as I'm sure we have all meet wonderful people from religious backgrounds and generalizing anything is retarded and offensive usually..
On January 15 2011 02:53 nalgene wrote: If you allowed them to force their beliefs onto whatever country in which they are dwelling, they would probably have killed off a lot of businesses by banning usury and all institutions that are based on usury/printing money on which is backed by nothing...
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
Are you saying there was no business before usury and no business exists in Saudi Arabia? Not so. usury and fractional reserve just allows business to grow faster but has it's own issues too. Like Busts, like can't ever be paid back without perpetually loaning more and more, like inflation so your saved money is always fleeting and you must invest properly to save it, and like paying people for doing nothing but having control of printing presses.
On January 15 2011 07:18 tdt wrote: Maybe the Europeans converting have a very different view what constitutes respect and gender equality for women. I've heard it said it's not respectful and equality to prostrate women bodies turn them into sexual commodities etc. Many girls commit suicide, have eating disorders and such trying to fit in western culture and maybe find niqab helpful. Good for them. It's their choice, no one held a gun to their head so I respect their choices. That you don't is just more proof of bigotry.
This cuts both ways as everyone is a bigot to some degree and Muslim girls are ostracized as well for leaving. In effect you are the same as what you deride by having issue with conversion.
I don't hold a gun to anyone's head either, one way or the other. People are free to do as they please as long as they stay within the confines of the law (not sharia, not god's) of the country they've chosen to live in. That doesn't mean I can't express my opinion that I find norwegian women forsaking their birthright to the massive scam that is islam repulsive.
If anything, I find muslim's cultural need to cover up women equally or more offensive to men than anything else. The notion that men will not be able to control themselves if they see an "exposed" female is repulsive and says quite a lot about islam's view on humanity as a whole.
The most telling thing is you see very few ethnic swedes or norwegians going to mosques or muslim gatherings to protest, but you do see muslims comming in droves when Lars Vilks is going to hold a lecture - just to get riled up and act crazy. There is a very real cultural divide and it's not going to be crossed when one part acts civil, the other part insists on violence.
In 1992 Sinead O'Connor criticized the pope and linked him to child abuse. She did this live on SNL without telling anybody before hand so it was aired all over the states. This coursed a massive uproar and Sinead was widely criticized. Demonstrations were held where her records were ceremoniously bulldozed. Some 20 years later we now know that a large number of innocent boys have been molested and abused since then by catholic priests.
My point with this is twofold. First, allowing criticism of authorities is extremely important. History shows us time and time again that power corrupts. Hence the freedom to criticize authoritarian figures is perhaps the single most important rule in a society. Second, no other mainstream religion currently reacts as violently to criticism and dogma violations as islam. Sinead might have experienced widespread critique but she didn't suffer any physical harm. This is in contrast with the very tangible threat of violence and even death that meets those who critique islam. I challenge anyone to make an empirical argument against this statement!
IMO a society should not give in to those who seek to subdue others by means of violence.
On December 13 2010 20:17 Hadron. wrote: A being that is omniscient and omnipotent, how do you explain that? I am at least being honest and saying that I don't know where the universe comes from.
"The complexity of an omniscient and omnipotent God is highly improbable and requires some immense proof."
I'm not claiming to try and explain anything. I'm just saying that it's not nearly as complex and difficult to fit God into the universe as you'd imagine; if you're willing to take the time to look into why it's feasible. And really, it doesn't require any more proof than anything else.
And then of course you can always toss the Problem of Induction onto the heap and then we're all fucked. xD
...to this day, I'm still not sure where I stand on David Hume.
I guess really, I just dislike the intellectually dismissive tone that a lot of atheists give to Theists and people of religion in general. There are just as many intelligent people who believe in God as there are who disbelieve, and not all of us are antagonistic cunts who shout from our pulpits at the tops of our lungs that you're going to hell and that we should kill non-believers. There are rational reasons to believe in a God. And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there...
Edit: And as for the omnipotence, if he created the universe, and is the only one to fully understand it's machinations, then for all intensive purposes, he's omnipotent, or as close as you're going to get.
Omiscient=see determinism and make God the Watchmaker.
Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument.
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
Surely an omniscient being would be able to tell that you are full of it and send you to hell accordingly.
Also, having an omniscient and omnipotent being is a logical fallacy. If god has the power to see into the future (omniscience), then he cannot be omnipotent as he cannot change his actions in the future. However if he is omnipotent, then he cannot be omniscient because the future which he saw is no longer true.
But to address OP, freedom of speech must be protected. I don't have to respect your views any more than you have to respect mine, but that doesn't give you or myself the right to go around taking the lives of others.
You (plural) can believe anything you want, that is your right to do so. However, the second your beliefs start to interfere with society at large, then we have a problem. You can believe in god, allah and whatnot, but the second you start killing people because you believe that it is a sin against allah to publish his picture, it is not we who have to curtail our freedom of expression to extinguish your blood lust.
On December 13 2010 20:17 Hadron. wrote: A being that is omniscient and omnipotent, how do you explain that? I am at least being honest and saying that I don't know where the universe comes from.
"The complexity of an omniscient and omnipotent God is highly improbable and requires some immense proof."
I'm not claiming to try and explain anything. I'm just saying that it's not nearly as complex and difficult to fit God into the universe as you'd imagine; if you're willing to take the time to look into why it's feasible. And really, it doesn't require any more proof than anything else.
And then of course you can always toss the Problem of Induction onto the heap and then we're all fucked. xD
...to this day, I'm still not sure where I stand on David Hume.
I guess really, I just dislike the intellectually dismissive tone that a lot of atheists give to Theists and people of religion in general. There are just as many intelligent people who believe in God as there are who disbelieve, and not all of us are antagonistic cunts who shout from our pulpits at the tops of our lungs that you're going to hell and that we should kill non-believers. There are rational reasons to believe in a God. And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there...
Edit: And as for the omnipotence, if he created the universe, and is the only one to fully understand it's machinations, then for all intensive purposes, he's omnipotent, or as close as you're going to get.
Omiscient=see determinism and make God the Watchmaker.
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
Surely an omniscient being would be able to tell that you are full of it and send you to hell accordingly.
Also, having an omniscient and omnipotent being is a logical fallacy. If god has the power to see into the future (omniscience), then he cannot be omnipotent as he cannot change his actions in the future. However if he is omnipotent, then he cannot be omniscient because the future which he saw is no longer true.
But to address OP, freedom of speech must be protected. I don't have to respect your views any more than you have to respect mine, but that doesn't give you or myself the right to go around taking the lives of others.
You (plural) can believe anything you want, that is your right to do so. However, the second your beliefs start to interfere with society at large, then we have a problem. You can believe in god, allah and whatnot, but the second you start killing people because you believe that it is a sin against allah to publish his picture, it is not we who have to curtail our freedom of expression to extinguish your blood lust.
Just because you know what you are going to do doesn't mean you aren't going to decide to do it. An omniscient God could defintely be omnipotent because 1. He would also know everything that Could have been 2. Since he is omnipotent everything that he saw would line up with everything that he had decided.
He would have no need to change the course of time because he laid out the whole thing. (a God that can see into the future could certainly act into the future as well)
An omniscient/omnipotent God couldn't change his decision making process... indeed he wouldn't even think in the way we think (we come up with new ideas, god would have had all the ideas and all the connections between them fully formed in his mind at all time.)
An omniscient/omnipotent being wouldn''t be truly changable (ie they wouldn't truly change their goals and directions, since their goals and directions would always be what they already wanted their goals and directions to be.)
So it definitely not a logical fallacy, there may be empirical evidence for/against claims about things an omni-type God might have actually done. The existence of such is Logically sound/not flawed (not logically necessary,,that;s a bad argument).
On December 13 2010 18:35 NearPerfection wrote: They need to understand that their Religion is not special. Their culture is not special, and Allah is not special. Western nations do not care about Sharia Law. Western Nations believe in gender equality, freedom of (and from) religion, freedom of speech etc.
If its a problem for extremists then they shouldn't go to a Western nation in the first place.
this. Why does their religion get exempted.
South Park did a great job, imo, on raising that point in that one episode
IMO a society should not give in to those who seek to subdue others by means of violence.
Tell this to Israeli government
The threat of overwhelming violence faces palestinians every day. Peaceful demonstrations get tear gassed, get arrested and put in jail for months on end.
On December 13 2010 20:17 Hadron. wrote: A being that is omniscient and omnipotent, how do you explain that? I am at least being honest and saying that I don't know where the universe comes from.
"The complexity of an omniscient and omnipotent God is highly improbable and requires some immense proof."
I'm not claiming to try and explain anything. I'm just saying that it's not nearly as complex and difficult to fit God into the universe as you'd imagine; if you're willing to take the time to look into why it's feasible. And really, it doesn't require any more proof than anything else.
And then of course you can always toss the Problem of Induction onto the heap and then we're all fucked. xD
...to this day, I'm still not sure where I stand on David Hume.
I guess really, I just dislike the intellectually dismissive tone that a lot of atheists give to Theists and people of religion in general. There are just as many intelligent people who believe in God as there are who disbelieve, and not all of us are antagonistic cunts who shout from our pulpits at the tops of our lungs that you're going to hell and that we should kill non-believers. There are rational reasons to believe in a God. And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there...
Edit: And as for the omnipotence, if he created the universe, and is the only one to fully understand it's machinations, then for all intensive purposes, he's omnipotent, or as close as you're going to get.
Omiscient=see determinism and make God the Watchmaker.
Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument.
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
Surely an omniscient being would be able to tell that you are full of it and send you to hell accordingly.
Also, having an omniscient and omnipotent being is a logical fallacy. If god has the power to see into the future (omniscience), then he cannot be omnipotent as he cannot change his actions in the future. However if he is omnipotent, then he cannot be omniscient because the future which he saw is no longer true.
But to address OP, freedom of speech must be protected. I don't have to respect your views any more than you have to respect mine, but that doesn't give you or myself the right to go around taking the lives of others.
You (plural) can believe anything you want, that is your right to do so. However, the second your beliefs start to interfere with society at large, then we have a problem. You can believe in god, allah and whatnot, but the second you start killing people because you believe that it is a sin against allah to publish his picture, it is not we who have to curtail our freedom of expression to extinguish your blood lust.
Just because you know what you are going to do doesn't mean you aren't going to decide to do it. An omniscient God could defintely be omnipotent because 1. He would also know everything that Could have been 2. Since he is omnipotent everything that he saw would line up with everything that he had decided.
He would have no need to change the course of time because he laid out the whole thing. (a God that can see into the future could certainly act into the future as well)
An omniscient/omnipotent God couldn't change his decision making process... indeed he wouldn't even think in the way we think (we come up with new ideas, god would have had all the ideas and all the connections between them fully formed in his mind at all time.)
An omniscient/omnipotent being wouldn''t be truly changable (ie they wouldn't truly change their goals and directions, since their goals and directions would always be what they already wanted their goals and directions to be.)
So it definitely not a logical fallacy, there may be empirical evidence for/against claims about things an omni-type God might have actually done. The existence of such is Logically sound/not flawed (not logically necessary,,that;s a bad argument).
You're mistaking what god 'knows' he will do, with what he has seen in the future. The two are very different. You also bring up the 'god works in mysterious ways argument' where again there is no proof for your beliefs; neither in scripture or real evidence. It's just something you want to believe, which is fine, but doesn't help your argument.
I feel that a prohibition of Muhammed comics is a bad idea. As I Muslim I don't like the comics, but I agree that it's not something to kill over. Protest, sure. Boycott, absolutely. Or better yet, don't read them. I feel that the Muslims who take things that far just give the rest of us a bad rap. Then again they wouldn't call me a true believer, according to their warped terms of it. That being said, I think the cartoons and cartoonists are pretty stupid. I have yet to see a single Muhammed cartoon done well. None have actually been funny or thought provoking. Just simply offensive. Since they are made purely to offend(in my opinion) the Muslims who carry this out are playing right into the hands of the cartoonists.
On January 15 2011 00:37 sekritzzz wrote: Everyone can do what he wants, however my question is more or else directed at Christians. I don't care about atheists/agnostics/etc. How can you make fun of Jesus when you claim he is the son of god? or all the other messengers of god such as Abraham, lot, Joseph, etc? They're the picked and chosen messengers of god yet you have no shame in ridiculing them?
To answer this.
As a Christian I avoid "making fun of" God, but...
I may joke about him in the same way I might joke about a friend.. particularly with those who understand that disrespect is not intended. (some jokes about someone can be in good taste)
As for the other humans in the bible besides Christ, they are Only human, worthy of some respect because God did things through them, but most of them had some tremendous screwups that are worth mocking (I'm afraid they'll kill me because my wife is hot... maybe if I say she's my sister I'll be OK.. Abraham.. now admittedly I don't live in the violence of the Bronze Age,, but seriously??)
and much more importantly
I believe that the defense of His good name is far to important to be entrusted to human governments (or human vigilantes). All violations will eventually be punished by Him (whether on the violator on on Christ as a substitution). Human governments (and vigiliantes) just mess it up (as seen by the Middle Ages when non-heretics would be deemed as heretic by a corrupt government and evil would be rewarded and good punished)
Human governments (although not vigilantes) are suitable for handling evils like violence and fraud. They are not good for handling evils like blasphemy and heresy and sins of the mind and heart. (history has shown us that)
God can handle that Himself. (otherwise .. well the Koran is blasphemy.. as is the Book of Mormon, etc. and I don't trust any human institution to not eliminate Truth in the attempt to eliminate falsehood)
Now, I do agree Christian culture has a potentially unique perspective on this because 1. Governments didn't start claiming to rule in the name of Christ for a few hundred years after Christ came 2. All specifically governmental advice is from the Old Testament and to the Jewish government 3. There exists the idea of a separation between God's government and man's government
Sorry guys but muslim traditions are completely polar opposite of Western values , they have no place in our society.Beware this video is highly disturbing.(55% of UK Muslims marry their 1st cousins leading to a 13 times more likely chance for disabled children)
It is a violation of the intellectual property of Allah. As perverse as your neighbour taking a smelly dump on your clean toilet, so should desecration of God's tales be under the utmost taboo
This video... they display all the signs and they won't even deny it...they even admit it... and the young children are all doing it too...
Do you realise this is the lunatic fringe of crazy people?
How can you seriously draw that those conclusions?
The mainstream muslim community in no way supports these eccentrics. This is like tainting all americans with the views of that crazy pastor guy who wanted to burn Qurans or all Jews or French with the openly racist far right. I dont think you would even see Al Jazeera show something as blatantly bias and anti-islamic. How can any fair newsworthy organisation show a piece like this without giving a balanced picture. Is CNN impartial? no
These fringe idiots give the majority of muslims a bad name granted. Their views are small-minded and laughable. Giving them the right to publicize their views unnopposed without a counterbalance view of the majority is down right unfair and inflammatory. Would this count as anti-islamic propaganda? yes
On January 16 2011 11:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Sorry guys but muslim traditions are completely polar opposite of Western values , they have no place in our society.Beware this video is highly disturbing.(55% of UK Muslims marry their 1st cousins leading to a 13 times more likely chance for disabled children)
This is a cultural tradition originating from the indian subcontinent. It is just that a high number of british muslims come from this area. It is not exclusive to muslims at all.
Yes this is a problem and communities are working to change ideas and perceptions, but this takes time.
Calling this a generic "muslim" problem is unfair and not well though. Other cultures have and still practice this behaviour. If anything it is islamaphobic. Unfortunately you have been suckered into believing this propaganda and think badly of all muslims as a result.
Ask the british royal family about their heritage. Your disgust at this problem seems limited in perspective and anti-islamic.
On January 16 2011 03:19 FezTheCaliph wrote: I feel that a prohibition of Muhammed comics is a bad idea. As I Muslim I don't like the comics, but I agree that it's not something to kill over. Protest, sure. Boycott, absolutely. Or better yet, don't read them. I feel that the Muslims who take things that far just give the rest of us a bad rap. Then again they wouldn't call me a true believer, according to their warped terms of it. That being said, I think the cartoons and cartoonists are pretty stupid. I have yet to see a single Muhammed cartoon done well. None have actually been funny or thought provoking. Just simply offensive. Since they are made purely to offend(in my opinion) the Muslims who carry this out are playing right into the hands of the cartoonists.
I share your thoughts. I would add it is insensitive of the cartoonist to draw them knowing the offense they cause to some muslims. I didnt think he knew that at the time, but I think he would now.
Personally I dont care about them. They shouldnt be banned at all. Freedom of expression is damnimportant. Just out of courtesy and avoiding offense they shouldnt be publicized.
Are you a muslim or something...? you defend them at every opportunity...
It's not just the adults who display those traits, they're raising their spawn to do the same...
While I may/may not share the same views of those cartoonist, I support their rights to express what so ever...
This guy betrayed his own people to help the Israelites arrest some of his own kin Converted to Christianity
He realized his own people were...
"This is not my father's will, this is his God's will"
" targets civilians " " their goal to target civilians " - these are coming from the Son of the founding father of the Evil Hamas of the Gaza... " arrested for throwing stones at settlers " - when he was young
Does being a muslim really matter? It is irrelevant to the points I am making. Would it matter if I was? How would that change your opinion? I have appraised the videos objectively and the posts and raised issue with them.
Using the same logic as your posts, I could post videos of israeli soldiers abusing palestinians (to show you that "muslims" are supressed) freedom fighters perhaps? What happened in South Africa not so long ago?. But, this is a distraction from the main issue of the topic
You have not really contested any of the points I have made in my posts and replies. Islamaphobia? Your opinions are not well thought out and are essentially based on "propaganda". I have tried to be objective, yet all I see from yourself and are responses are thoroughly biased opinion and videos which are generally islamaphobic.
I have stated my view
Personally I dont care about them. They shouldnt be banned at all. Freedom of expression is damnimportant. Just out of courtesy and avoiding offense they shouldnt be publicized.
This is probably the mainstream view. I have been told courtesy is something which is big in England compared to other countries round the world.
Open a new thread if you want to debate the israeli/palestinian crisis or how islam is bad. I would be happy to hear your arguments and objectively show you the facts and realities of the matter.
Personally I dont care about them. They shouldnt be banned at all. Freedom of expression is damnimportant. Just out of courtesy and avoiding offense they shouldnt be publicized.
What you seem to be advocating is a de facto ban on these depictions. We typically don't pull any punches "out of courtesy" regarding anything else, why should religion be any different?
You don't have a right to not be offended. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ill paraphrase one of my earlier posts in this thread:
To me, religion in general is an insult to human dignity. It deeply offends me in many ways. But you will never hear me say that all religion should be banned, nor will you hear me say that people should be non-religious out of courtesy as to not offend my delicate sensibilities. Because you don't have a right to not be offended.
On December 13 2010 20:17 Hadron. wrote: A being that is omniscient and omnipotent, how do you explain that? I am at least being honest and saying that I don't know where the universe comes from.
"The complexity of an omniscient and omnipotent God is highly improbable and requires some immense proof."
I'm not claiming to try and explain anything. I'm just saying that it's not nearly as complex and difficult to fit God into the universe as you'd imagine; if you're willing to take the time to look into why it's feasible. And really, it doesn't require any more proof than anything else.
And then of course you can always toss the Problem of Induction onto the heap and then we're all fucked. xD
...to this day, I'm still not sure where I stand on David Hume.
I guess really, I just dislike the intellectually dismissive tone that a lot of atheists give to Theists and people of religion in general. There are just as many intelligent people who believe in God as there are who disbelieve, and not all of us are antagonistic cunts who shout from our pulpits at the tops of our lungs that you're going to hell and that we should kill non-believers. There are rational reasons to believe in a God. And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there...
Edit: And as for the omnipotence, if he created the universe, and is the only one to fully understand it's machinations, then for all intensive purposes, he's omnipotent, or as close as you're going to get.
Omiscient=see determinism and make God the Watchmaker.
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
Surely an omniscient being would be able to tell that you are full of it and send you to hell accordingly.
Also, having an omniscient and omnipotent being is a logical fallacy. If god has the power to see into the future (omniscience), then he cannot be omnipotent as he cannot change his actions in the future. However if he is omnipotent, then he cannot be omniscient because the future which he saw is no longer true.
But to address OP, freedom of speech must be protected. I don't have to respect your views any more than you have to respect mine, but that doesn't give you or myself the right to go around taking the lives of others.
You (plural) can believe anything you want, that is your right to do so. However, the second your beliefs start to interfere with society at large, then we have a problem. You can believe in god, allah and whatnot, but the second you start killing people because you believe that it is a sin against allah to publish his picture, it is not we who have to curtail our freedom of expression to extinguish your blood lust.
Sweet Jesus...you're like the fifth person to point this out...
"And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there..."
I am an atheist (for the sake of this argument I say this, in actuality I am closer to agnostic). I don't follow any religious pretexts, while originally being a confirmed Catholic, I do not in any way directly believe in God. Every day I try my hardest to be considerate to others. I try to share whenever possible, I donate to people that I feel are doing positive things in the world, I try to help others whenever possible, I try my hardest to be courteous, whether it be opening the door for someone caring something heavy, letting someone in in front of me on the freeway, or listening to the ramblings of extremists in the most respectful way I can. I don't always succeed, but I never cease to try. According to most religious doctrines I will go to hell.
Who is a better person, a religious individual who does the 'right thing' because they want to go to heaven, or the atheist who does the right thing because they understand the importance of respecting others? As a whole, many religious individuals, especially extremists, do the 'right thing' completely in self interest, every 'good' action they take is in an attempt to better their own position with God and in life. Which person is the more morally enlightened individual, the atheist attempting to be selfless, or the fanatic that only helps others to secure his own success and love from the creator he so deeply believes in?
I am damn tired of the deeply religious sitting on their throne of perfect morality while they condemn other individuals for their self interest. Believe what you want, but don't think that just because you praise and worship some unfathomable being that you are better than others who don't. Whether you're a Muslim committing acts of terrorism or a Christian oppressing homosexuals you harm all that is good in human nature. It disgusts me.
On January 17 2011 02:35 UberThing wrote: I have stated my view
Personally I dont care about them. They shouldnt be banned at all. Freedom of expression is damnimportant. Just out of courtesy and avoiding offense they shouldnt be publicized.
What you seem to be advocating is a de facto ban on these depictions. We typically don't pull any punches "out of courtesy" regarding anything else, why should religion be any different?
You don't have a right to not be offended. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ill paraphrase one of my earlier posts in this thread:
To me, religion in general is an insult to human dignity. It deeply offends me in many ways. But you will never hear me say that all religion should be banned, nor will you hear me say that people should be non-religious out of courtesy as to not offend my delicate sensibilities. Because you don't have a right to not be offended.
Fair enough. I agree that people do not have a right to not be offended.
I am not advocating any kind of ban. As humans, shouldnt we try and avoid offending others for no purpose? I can see why people would get annoyed about about something they care very dearly about.
It is the cartoonists right to draw whatever he wants. But I think you are mistaken if you think there is no self-censorship. Say if a cartoonist draws cartoons which take the piss out of the victims of genocide or terror attacks. He has the right to offend. There would be outrage in the Western world and rightly so with similarities to the islamic reaction.
Remember holocaust denial (as insulting as it is) is a crime in several european countries and you get jail time. Delicate sensitivities? We already do not have the freedom to express some views. David Irving (a historian) was tried in Austria for his book on holocaust denial. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709012.stm Death threats? Can you see the similarities? Isnt this worse as it is law? Shouldnt you be showing the same outrage against these law?
I agree we have the right to offend others But we shouldnt out of courtesy (unless we are purposely trying to prove something)
On January 17 2011 02:35 UberThing wrote: I have stated my view
Personally I dont care about them. They shouldnt be banned at all. Freedom of expression is damnimportant. Just out of courtesy and avoiding offense they shouldnt be publicized.
What you seem to be advocating is a de facto ban on these depictions. We typically don't pull any punches "out of courtesy" regarding anything else, why should religion be any different?
You don't have a right to not be offended. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, ill paraphrase one of my earlier posts in this thread:
To me, religion in general is an insult to human dignity. It deeply offends me in many ways. But you will never hear me say that all religion should be banned, nor will you hear me say that people should be non-religious out of courtesy as to not offend my delicate sensibilities. Because you don't have a right to not be offended.
Fair enough. I agree that people do not have a right to not be offended.
I am not advocating any kind of ban. As humans, shouldnt we try and avoid offending others for no purpose? I can see why people would get annoyed about about something they care very dearly about.
It is the cartoonists right to draw whatever he wants. But I think you are mistaken if you think there is no self-censorship. Say if a cartoonist draws cartoons which take the piss out of the victims of genocide or terror attacks. He has the right to offend. There would be outrage in the Western world and rightly so with similarities to the islamic reaction.
Remember holocaust denial (as insulting as it is) is a crime in several european countries and you get jail time. Delicate sensitivities? We already do not have the freedom to express some views. David Irving (a historian) was tried in Austria for his book on holocaust denial. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709012.stm Death threats? Can you see the similarities? Isnt this worse as it is law? Shouldnt you be showing the same outrage against these law?
I agree we have the right to offend others But we shouldnt out of courtesy
Sometimes we need to offend others for a greater good (truth is always offensive to someone, and often more important).
I agree that European holocaust denier laws are an excellent example of hypocrisy in this department.
On January 15 2011 00:37 sekritzzz wrote: Everyone can do what he wants, however my question is more or else directed at Christians. I don't care about atheists/agnostics/etc. How can you make fun of Jesus when you claim he is the son of god? or all the other messengers of god such as Abraham, lot, Joseph, etc? They're the picked and chosen messengers of god yet you have no shame in ridiculing them?
To answer this.
As a Christian I avoid "making fun of" God, but...
I may joke about him in the same way I might joke about a friend.. particularly with those who understand that disrespect is not intended. (some jokes about someone can be in good taste)
As for the other humans in the bible besides Christ, they are Only human, worthy of some respect because God did things through them, but most of them had some tremendous screwups that are worth mocking (I'm afraid they'll kill me because my wife is hot... maybe if I say she's my sister I'll be OK.. Abraham.. now admittedly I don't live in the violence of the Bronze Age,, but seriously??)
and much more importantly
I believe that the defense of His good name is far to important to be entrusted to human governments (or human vigilantes). All violations will eventually be punished by Him (whether on the violator on on Christ as a substitution). Human governments (and vigiliantes) just mess it up (as seen by the Middle Ages when non-heretics would be deemed as heretic by a corrupt government and evil would be rewarded and good punished)
Human governments (although not vigilantes) are suitable for handling evils like violence and fraud. They are not good for handling evils like blasphemy and heresy and sins of the mind and heart. (history has shown us that)
God can handle that Himself. (otherwise .. well the Koran is blasphemy.. as is the Book of Mormon, etc. and I don't trust any human institution to not eliminate Truth in the attempt to eliminate falsehood)
Now, I do agree Christian culture has a potentially unique perspective on this because 1. Governments didn't start claiming to rule in the name of Christ for a few hundred years after Christ came 2. All specifically governmental advice is from the Old Testament and to the Jewish government 3. There exists the idea of a separation between God's government and man's government
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar render unto God that which is God". The New Testament is very clear that Politics and Government is not the realm of religion and the two are separate. Separation of Church and state is not only an American principle but a Biblically sound one as well. As far as I know Islam does not have such a probation and may even promote theocratic governments.
"And if nothing else, Pascal's Wager is a pretty good argument. Though I suppose "argument" is the wrong word there..."
On January 15 2011 00:37 sekritzzz wrote: Everyone can do what he wants, however my question is more or else directed at Christians. I don't care about atheists/agnostics/etc. How can you make fun of Jesus when you claim he is the son of god? or all the other messengers of god such as Abraham, lot, Joseph, etc? They're the picked and chosen messengers of god yet you have no shame in ridiculing them?
To answer this.
As a Christian I avoid "making fun of" God, but...
I may joke about him in the same way I might joke about a friend.. particularly with those who understand that disrespect is not intended. (some jokes about someone can be in good taste)
As for the other humans in the bible besides Christ, they are Only human, worthy of some respect because God did things through them, but most of them had some tremendous screwups that are worth mocking (I'm afraid they'll kill me because my wife is hot... maybe if I say she's my sister I'll be OK.. Abraham.. now admittedly I don't live in the violence of the Bronze Age,, but seriously??)
and much more importantly
I believe that the defense of His good name is far to important to be entrusted to human governments (or human vigilantes). All violations will eventually be punished by Him (whether on the violator on on Christ as a substitution). Human governments (and vigiliantes) just mess it up (as seen by the Middle Ages when non-heretics would be deemed as heretic by a corrupt government and evil would be rewarded and good punished)
Human governments (although not vigilantes) are suitable for handling evils like violence and fraud. They are not good for handling evils like blasphemy and heresy and sins of the mind and heart. (history has shown us that)
God can handle that Himself. (otherwise .. well the Koran is blasphemy.. as is the Book of Mormon, etc. and I don't trust any human institution to not eliminate Truth in the attempt to eliminate falsehood)
Now, I do agree Christian culture has a potentially unique perspective on this because 1. Governments didn't start claiming to rule in the name of Christ for a few hundred years after Christ came 2. All specifically governmental advice is from the Old Testament and to the Jewish government 3. There exists the idea of a separation between God's government and man's government
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar render unto God that which is God". The New Testament is very clear that Politics and Government is not the realm of religion and the two are separate. Separation of Church and state is not only an American principle but a Biblically sound one as well. As far as I know Islam does not have such a probation and may even promote theocratic governments.
That may be a modern interpretation, but it was not practiced that way in Europe for hundreds of years. Here's an article you can read about the concept of Divine Right. Also, please avoid citing "as far as I know" as an authoritative source, since it doesn't really mean anything.
i look at it this way. legally, there should be no issues with depicting images of muhammad. but if you piss off some muslims, you just created a problem for yourself and people around you.
its not just about laws or restrictions, its sometimes just about what other people will do in response, in any way. same goes for everything you do and say, people will not always respond as you expect, and that factor must always be considered.
On January 17 2011 01:16 UberThing wrote: This is a cultural tradition originating from the indian subcontinent.
I don't care what it is , they should have banned marriages between 1st cousins long ago to prevent this sort of this happening.It is a tragedy to see , and these fools continue to deny that marrying family relations has anything to do with it.
As for the royal family remark you are talking about hundreds of years ago , not the 21st century.It is time to start living in that century , especially for these backwards muslims.
On January 15 2011 00:37 sekritzzz wrote: Everyone can do what he wants, however my question is more or else directed at Christians. I don't care about atheists/agnostics/etc. How can you make fun of Jesus when you claim he is the son of god? or all the other messengers of god such as Abraham, lot, Joseph, etc? They're the picked and chosen messengers of god yet you have no shame in ridiculing them?
To answer this.
As a Christian I avoid "making fun of" God, but...
I may joke about him in the same way I might joke about a friend.. particularly with those who understand that disrespect is not intended. (some jokes about someone can be in good taste)
As for the other humans in the bible besides Christ, they are Only human, worthy of some respect because God did things through them, but most of them had some tremendous screwups that are worth mocking (I'm afraid they'll kill me because my wife is hot... maybe if I say she's my sister I'll be OK.. Abraham.. now admittedly I don't live in the violence of the Bronze Age,, but seriously??)
and much more importantly
I believe that the defense of His good name is far to important to be entrusted to human governments (or human vigilantes). All violations will eventually be punished by Him (whether on the violator on on Christ as a substitution). Human governments (and vigiliantes) just mess it up (as seen by the Middle Ages when non-heretics would be deemed as heretic by a corrupt government and evil would be rewarded and good punished)
Human governments (although not vigilantes) are suitable for handling evils like violence and fraud. They are not good for handling evils like blasphemy and heresy and sins of the mind and heart. (history has shown us that)
God can handle that Himself. (otherwise .. well the Koran is blasphemy.. as is the Book of Mormon, etc. and I don't trust any human institution to not eliminate Truth in the attempt to eliminate falsehood)
Now, I do agree Christian culture has a potentially unique perspective on this because 1. Governments didn't start claiming to rule in the name of Christ for a few hundred years after Christ came 2. All specifically governmental advice is from the Old Testament and to the Jewish government 3. There exists the idea of a separation between God's government and man's government
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar render unto God that which is God". The New Testament is very clear that Politics and Government is not the realm of religion and the two are separate. Separation of Church and state is not only an American principle but a Biblically sound one as well. As far as I know Islam does not have such a probation and may even promote theocratic governments.
Also, please avoid citing "as far as I know" as an authoritative source, since it doesn't really mean anything.
Actually that was meant to be more of a question or inquiry. As I would like someone more familiar with Islam to answer it.
Also Divine Right was only accepted in a time when the majority of people were illiterate and could not read the Bible for themselves and instead had to accept the interpretation of clergy who were themselves mostly the sons of Aristocracy and had an agenda in promoting the concept of Divine right.
Also my personal thoughts on the matter are that: None of the 3 monotheistic religions can exist in full with our western liberal societies.
Nalgene when you use the word "Spawn" to talk of a groups offspring, and counter someones criticisms by saying "are you muslim or something" you make it very difficult for anyone to take your ignorant biggotry as anything but that.
People willing (and eager) to kill themselves and countless innocent others aren't exactly what I would call reasonable. If you agree to one demand, they will find others, or at least other reasons to want to do what they do. Unfortunately radicals of every religion/belief often take things too far.
While I certainly don't see the point in purposely riling an individual/group for the sole reason of making them them mad, I also don't agree with rolling over to extreme demands restricting freedom of speech.
On January 17 2011 01:16 UberThing wrote: This is a cultural tradition originating from the indian subcontinent.
I don't care what it is , they should have banned marriages between 1st cousins long ago to prevent this sort of this happening.It is a tragedy to see , and these fools continue to deny that marrying family relations has anything to do with it.
As for the royal family remark you are talking about hundreds of years ago , not the 21st century.It is time to start living in that century , especially for these backwards muslims.
Queen Victoria (24 May 1819 – 22 January 1901) married her 1st cousin Albert. This is not some prehistoric thing and it was very common until not more than 100 years ago.
It is a tragedy about the children but these asian families usually have absolutely no idea about the risks. Better education is needed in asian communities (muslim, hindu and sikh).
I take issue with your original implication that this is a strictly muslim thing, because it is not. Research the issue before you say such flippant islamaphobic things.
same rules should apply for all religious figures imo. If you make fun of Jesus in arts/media, go ahead and do the same to Mohammed/Buddha/spaghetti monster.
Last thing they should do is refrain from any publishing out of fear. Fear is the mind killer
On January 17 2011 08:19 Banger wrote: You do not have the right to not be offended in Western countries. If you don't like the rules then move.
Yes you do have the right to be offended. The majority of the protests were all over the muslim world because they were the ones who were most offended. There wasnt much support in the UK.
On January 17 2011 08:10 Vei wrote: I detest all religions but Islam and Muslims seriously just take the cake in unnecessary violence. What a joke our world is.
Islamaphobia? Sorry ignorance. Watch the viewpoint of Al Jazeera.net on corruption and immorality in the western world.
Who started these Middle Eastern Wars? Who invaded Iraq and exactly why? unneccesary?
Here is an interesting article on textbooks supplied by Saudi Arabia for children (as young as 6) of British Muslims. These books include instructions for amputations and stonings, anti-Semitism, and some more interesting practices. The entire documentary is on the BBC website. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/europe/23britain.html?_r=1
On January 17 2011 08:10 Vei wrote: I detest all religions but Islam and Muslims seriously just take the cake in unnecessary violence. What a joke our world is.
Islamaphobia? Sorry ignorance. Watch the viewpoint of Al Jazeera.net on corruption and immorality in the western world.
Who started these Middle Eastern Wars? Who invaded Iraq and exactly why? unneccesary?
But yes allot of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq is a racket and want to back out. At the time most felt the war was justifiable and believed that Iraq had WMDs and also a terrorist training ground. Members of our government lied to use and only latter has the truth came out. Democracy is like that it only works if the citizens are well informed unfortunately most American's would rather play video games and watch sex in the city then read the news or read up on the world events.
Here is an interesting article on textbooks supplied by Saudi Arabia for children (as young as 6) of British Muslims. These books include instructions for amputations and stonings, anti-Semitism, and some more interesting practices. The entire documentary is on the BBC website. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/europe/23britain.html?_r=1
Haha! I found that funny. You have to remember it is the lunatic fringe that threatened to do violent things. Most muslims who did care peacefully protested.
Funny how the USA supports Saudi Arabia fully even though Saudi citizens are the prime financiers of terrorism. Also Saudi is where the really crazy strict (I mean next level) islam ideology is coming from. Wahabiism (the strict stuff) is a relatively modern invention and it is what inspires the terrorist activities.
Because they have the money they can spread this crazy strict islam. The USA needs to stop supporting them.
UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
On January 17 2011 09:16 Leviathen1 wrote: UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
Are you past puberty?
And do you know anything about...well, anything?
Read your post again and really, truly try to think about the extreme level of ignorance you have exhibited.
On January 17 2011 08:10 Vei wrote: I detest all religions but Islam and Muslims seriously just take the cake in unnecessary violence. What a joke our world is.
Islamaphobia? Sorry ignorance. Watch the viewpoint of Al Jazeera.net on corruption and immorality in the western world.
Its called propaganda and you have been suckered.
There is no such thing as Islamaphobia, you're the one who have been owned by propaganda. Phobia is an irrational fear of something. Fearing Islam who wants to push for Sharia in the western world is not an irrational fear, it's real fear.
I have no problem with muslims, most of them are good people, Islam however is another thing.
Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
On January 17 2011 09:16 Leviathen1 wrote: UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
Are you past puberty?
And do you know anything about...well, anything?
Read your post again and really, truly try to think about the extreme level of ignorance you have exhibited.
ignorance you say MY brother is in the military this shit isn't a joke they WANT to kill you they don't fucking care who you are or what you do they will kill you based on the sole fact that is what all muslims do when they take the koran literally and these people ARE innocent people and it isn't funny what happens and now i must explain this freedom thing but to be honest i don't want to stfu read the post understand the post then comment also i always write very brief summarys trying to get across alot of stuff as in this post is as long or longer then the first but only explains 1 detail
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion's ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
On January 17 2011 09:12 UberThing wrote: Haha! I found that funny. You have to remember it is the lunatic fringe that threatened to do violent things. Most muslims who did care peacefully protested.
Funny how the USA supports Saudi Arabia fully even though Saudi citizens are the prime financiers of terrorism. Also Saudi is where the really crazy strict (I mean next level) islam ideology is coming from. Wahabiism (the strict stuff) is a relatively modern invention and it is what inspires the terrorist activities.
Because they have the money they can spread this crazy strict islam. The USA needs to stop supporting them.
SOURCE: Most moderate muslims in the UK
Not only threatened, but this "lunatic fringe" actually have, and continue to do violent things. Are their reprehensible actions justifiable due to a (assumingly majority) moderate base? Why aren't moderates more outspoken against this extremism?
I agree with you 100% on Saudi Arabia. However I always assumed the ideology discussed stemmed from Sharia law, the archaic religious laws from the 7th century which still governs the various theocracies (including Saudia Arabia and "moderate" Malaysia). As you know, Britain now has a Sharia court system (and similar rudimentaries of such sprang up in the USA) which systematically promotes values such as gender inequality. A specific example of rulings in these non-Muslim Western states include permittance of sexual abuse in marriage (UK). Would this be considered moderate?
On January 17 2011 09:16 Leviathen1 wrote: UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
Are you past puberty?
And do you know anything about...well, anything?
Read your post again and really, truly try to think about the extreme level of ignorance you have exhibited.
ignorance you say MY brother is in the military this shit isn't a joke they WANT to kill you they don't fucking care who you are or what you do they will kill you based on the sole fact that is what all muslims do when they take the koran literally and these people ARE innocent people and it isn't funny what happens and now i must explain this freedom thing but to be honest i don't want to stfu read the post understand the post then comment also i always write very brief summarys trying to get across alot of stuff as in this post is as long or longer then the first but only explains 1 detail
Your EXTREME generalizations aside and ignoring your pathetic attempt at anecdotal evidence...
Sure, fundamentalist Islam isn't something that should be promoted.
i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts)
Nice two options you offer, extermination of 1.5 billion people or moderation. I like it.
A very, very very small minority of Muslims believe in violence to achieve ends. Likewise, a small minority of Christians, militant Jews, and members of other faiths all exhibit extremist tendencies.
Your post implies that all or at least a substantial majority of Muslims will kill you if you don't practice their faith. Read this post:
Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
And then try to understand it in the context of your post.
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
On January 17 2011 08:10 Vei wrote: I detest all religions but Islam and Muslims seriously just take the cake in unnecessary violence. What a joke our world is.
Islamaphobia? Sorry ignorance. Watch the viewpoint of Al Jazeera.net on corruption and immorality in the western world.
Who started these Middle Eastern Wars? Who invaded Iraq and exactly why? unneccesary?
But yes allot of American's now believe that the war in Iraq is a racket and want to back out. At the time most felt the war was justifiable and believed that Iraq was in position of WMDs and also a terrorist training ground. Members of our government lied to use and only latter has the truth came out. Democracy is like that it only works if the citizens are well informed unfortunately most American's would rather play video games and watch sex and the city then read the news or read up on the world events.
The American role in the Middle East You have to remember that the Middle Eastern countries are relatively new and most only came into existence post WWI or WW2 after independence from their colonial masters. Wars are inevitable as people fight fro their own cultural identity (this applies more to Africa)
Post WW2 Iran The USA has been involved twice in "changing the regime" in Iran post WW2 through the CIA. Understandably many Iranians chant "death to america" because of this. After the majority of the population revolted against the imposed king the popular senitiment established a theocracy with democratic principles. All people elect their representatives and they do have power similar to any western nation.
The USA was instrumental in causing Iraq to invade Iran shortly thereafter. They provided material support (guns n all that), money and chemical weapons. A war in which nobody won and decimated both countries.
Afghan resistance Meanwhile, USA supported with guns, money and everything else the Afghan resistance, an important part of whom was Osama Bin Laden. They defeated the bad guy Russians, but sadly, when you give this minority of crazy extreme islamic people the means to do bad things, bad things happen. We all know what happened next.
Back to Iraq Afterwards, one Gulf war later, America fought Iraq and this time overthrew the regime and caused over a million deaths, most of whom were civilians. Who do Iraqis blame for these? The USA because they destroyed the security and law agencies whilst not replacing them. So the crazy people came into the country who blew everyone up and everything up. Bear in mind Iraq was a secular safe country before and very anti-islam extremists. Saddam was not the kindest, but he wasnt the monster he was made out to be.
Corrupt dictators The USA has supported and countinues to support a number of the corrupt dictators of a number of countries ("King" Saud for one). They give them legitimacy and military and financial backing. Shouldnt the "free world" take a stand against these corrupt undemocratic dictators? It happened in Libya but on the whole ... no because they suppress the population and keep them under control. Saudi Arabian royalty especially use their own extreme interpretation of religion as a means to control the populace. Did you know women are. not allowed outside their homes unless accompanied by a male family member of their husbands
The champion of freedom and Liberty? The notion that america is a promoter of democracy and freedom throughout the world is blatantly untrue. They are acting in your own best interests at the end of the day. But dont kid yourself that they have some moral superiority over other cultures when really they are just as bad if not worse, but in their own way.
WMDs Btw it is almost 100% the CIA knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the reason they invaded, because if Iraq did have them, the US probably wouldve stayed at home so the mass destruction didnt happen on their armies. This is why they are so anti-Iran at the moment. The only way you could use nuclear in the modern world is if someone invaded you. Iran with nuclear missile means the USA cant do "regime change" there to get oil when Iraq runs dry.
Why do people support these actions? It is amazing how some propaganda works, especially when you have no idea you are being suckered in. Sometimes you have to be critical and find out information for yourself. The media organisations in the western world are generally owned by rich individuals who own interest is in these unjustifiable actions. I challenge whoever want to, to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today instead of your usual news programs for a week. You will look more critically at what you are being fed.
Sorry about rant. This sums up another perspective of US actions in the middle east
A rule of thumb, if you see a wall of text without any structure, such as paragraph or sentence, it is most likely that person doesn't have rational thinking.
On January 17 2011 08:10 Vei wrote: I detest all religions but Islam and Muslims seriously just take the cake in unnecessary violence. What a joke our world is.
Islamaphobia? Sorry ignorance. Watch the viewpoint of Al Jazeera.net on corruption and immorality in the western world.
Who started these Middle Eastern Wars? Who invaded Iraq and exactly why? unneccesary?
But yes allot of American's now believe that the war in Iraq is a racket and want to back out. At the time most felt the war was justifiable and believed that Iraq was in position of WMDs and also a terrorist training ground. Members of our government lied to use and only latter has the truth came out. Democracy is like that it only works if the citizens are well informed unfortunately most American's would rather play video games and watch sex and the city then read the news or read up on the world events.
You have to remember that the Middle Eastern countries are relatively new and most only came into existence post WWI or WW2 after independence from their colonial masters. Wars are inevitable as people fight fro their own cultural identity (this applies more to Africa)
The USA has been involved twice in "changing the regime" in Iran post WW2 through the CIA. Understandably many Iranians chant "death to america" because of this. After the majority of the population revolted against the imposed king the popular senitiment established a theocracy with democratic principles. All people elect their representatives and they do have power similar to any western nation.
The USA was instrumental in causing Iraq to invade Iran shortly thereafter. They provided material support (guns n all that), money and chemical weapons. A war in which nobody won and decimated both countries.
Meanwhile, USA supported with guns, money and everything else the Afghan resistance, an important part of whom was Osama Bin Laden. They defeated the Russians, but sadly, when you give this minority of crazy extreme islamic people the means to do bad things, bad things happen. We all know what happened next.
Afterwards, one Gulf war later, America fought Iraq and this time overthrew the regime and caused over a million deaths, most of whom were civilians. Who do Iraqis blame for these? The USA because they destroyed the security and law agencies whilst not replacing them. So the crazy people came into the country who blew everyone up and everything up. Bear in mind Iraq was a secular safe country before and very anti-islam extremists. Saddam was not the kindest, but he wasnt the monster he was made out to be.
The USA has supported and countinues to support a number of the corrupt dictators of a number of countries ("King" Saud for one). They give them legitimacy and military and financial backing. Shouldnt the "free world" take a stand against these corrupt undemocratic dictators? It happened in Libya but on the whole ... no because they suppress the population and keep them under control. Saudi Arabian royalty especially use their own extreme interpretation of religion as a means to control the populace. Did you know women are. not allowed outside their homes unless accompanied by a male family member of their husbands
The notion that america is a promoter of democracy and freedom throughout the world is blatantly untrue. They are acting in your own best interests at the end of the day. But dont kid yourself that they have some moral superiority over other cultures when really they are just as bad if not worse, but in their own way.
Btw it is almost 100% the CIA knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the reason they invaded, because if Iraq did have them, the US probably wouldve stayed at home so the mass destruction didnt happen on their armies. This is why they are so anti-Iran at the moment. The only way you could use nuclear in the modern world is if someone invaded you. Iran with nuclear missile means the USA cant do "regime change" there to get oil when Iraq runs dry.
It is amazing how some propaganda works, especially when you have no idea you are being suckered in. Sometimes you have to be critical and find out information for yourself. The media organisations in the western world are generally owned by rich individuals who own interest is in these unjustifiable actions. I challenge whoever want to, to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today instead of your usual news programs for a week. You will look more critically at what you are being fed.
Sorry about rant. This sums up another perspective of US actions in the middle east
The problem is that it is easy as hell to lobby politicians in the US. As a matter of fact most lobbyist are well connected former government employees.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
On January 17 2011 09:16 Leviathen1 wrote: UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
Are you past puberty?
And do you know anything about...well, anything?
Count the commas and periods and I believe your questions will be answered.
I havnt seen that before actually. An insightful read. Quaker Oats are nice too
What I was trying to understand is why some middle eastern countries are anti-american. I looked at the historical evidence (its on wikipedia.) and it was quite a compelling case. This also applies to other areas such as South and Central America!
I hadnt really looked pre WW2, but thanks for the insight
On January 17 2011 09:16 Leviathen1 wrote: UMMMM is this about that one suicide bombing that like killed himself only(HILARIOUS) but to be honest if it is it isnt a big deal and shouldn't be worried about also to be honest i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts) but to be honest it is like this and very well put IF safety takes away freedom ALWAYS pick freedom over safety which has the general idea of i can always die but if i can't do something in my life based on a certain rule the rule isn't worth it
Are you past puberty?
And do you know anything about...well, anything?
Read your post again and really, truly try to think about the extreme level of ignorance you have exhibited.
ignorance you say MY brother is in the military this shit isn't a joke they WANT to kill you they don't fucking care who you are or what you do they will kill you based on the sole fact that is what all muslims do when they take the koran literally and these people ARE innocent people and it isn't funny what happens and now i must explain this freedom thing but to be honest i don't want to stfu read the post understand the post then comment also i always write very brief summarys trying to get across alot of stuff as in this post is as long or longer then the first but only explains 1 detail
Your EXTREME generalizations aside and ignoring your pathetic attempt at anecdotal evidence...
Sure, fundamentalist Islam isn't something that should be promoted.
i think every muslim should die OR not take their religion to the 100 percent degree as in they dont fucking try to kill every other person that isn't muslim (really what the religion depicts)
Nice two options you offer, extermination of 1.5 billion people or moderation. I like it.
A very, very very small minority of Muslims believe in violence to achieve ends. Likewise, a small minority of Christians, militant Jews, and members of other faiths all exhibit extremist tendencies.
Your post implies that all or at least a substantial majority of Muslims will kill you if you don't practice their faith. Read this post:
Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
And then try to understand it in the context of your post.
your so stupid its ridiculous my post means this and ih ate to point it out to you that if your an extreme muslim you should die likewise if your a muslim and dont want to kill people ect im cool with you what exactly is wrong with my post? what if 1.57 billion people tried to kill off everyone else? what just let the rest of the 4.43 billion people jsut die? that is in essence what i meant and i stand by that also you just basically said what i meant so go suck a dick?
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
we shall agree to disagree then
Its funny because the more you post the more ignorant you prove yourself to be. Keep posting without paragraphs it's clearly working!
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
we shall agree to disagree then
Its funny because the more you post the more ignorant you prove yourself to be. Keep posting without paragraphs it's clearly working!
ummm im confused was that to me or the dude who replied to me?
On January 17 2011 09:32 potatomash3r wrote: Is this thread filled with bigots? There are 1.57 billion muslims in the world and hating an entire population just because a few crazies go ape shit on this is ridiculous.
On the stance of prohibition, well I think Sweden should sack up and do whatever they please and if they choose to allow it - just be prepared to face the consequences if there are any.
Who said anything about hating Muslims? Most of the people in this thread have stated that they respect human rights and Muslims. However Islam and every other monotheistic religion ideologies clash with the ideas and values of a free thinking western society.
i do not agree with this statement for three reasons 1. in a free western society you are allowed to be whatever religion you are as long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom 2. not all religion take away the freedom of people but just warns you of the consequences of certain actions 3. most people who think religion is bad ect do not understand it and should look into all religions in order to be able to make a statement like that
I would have to disagree with ever single one of your points
we shall agree to disagree then
Its funny because the more you post the more ignorant you prove yourself to be. Keep posting without paragraphs it's clearly working!
ummm im confused was that to me or the dude who replied to me?
On January 17 2011 09:12 UberThing wrote: Haha! I found that funny. You have to remember it is the lunatic fringe that threatened to do violent things. Most muslims who did care peacefully protested.
Funny how the USA supports Saudi Arabia fully even though Saudi citizens are the prime financiers of terrorism. Also Saudi is where the really crazy strict (I mean next level) islam ideology is coming from. Wahabiism (the strict stuff) is a relatively modern invention and it is what inspires the terrorist activities.
Because they have the money they can spread this crazy strict islam. The USA needs to stop supporting them.
SOURCE: Most moderate muslims in the UK
Not only threatened, but this "lunatic fringe" actually have, and continue to do violent things. Are their reprehensible actions justifiable due to a (assumingly majority) moderate base? Why aren't moderates more outspoken against this extremism?
I agree with you 100% on Saudi Arabia. However I always assumed the ideology discussed stemmed from Sharia law, the archaic religious laws from the 7th century which still governs the various theocracies (including Saudia Arabia and "moderate" Malaysia). As you know, Britain now has a Sharia court system (and similar rudimentaries of such sprang up in the USA) which systematically promotes values such as gender inequality. A specific example of rulings in these non-Muslim Western states include permittance of sexual abuse in marriage (UK). Would this be considered moderate?
No their actions are totally unacceptable. most religious muslims are passive. When things are bad they pray to god and when theyre good they thank god. The silent majority are timid pacifists. Moderate imams do speak out all the time, but it doesnt make good evening news unfortunately. For reasons I still cant understand, "impartial" news organisations give these small number of idiots a platform to say their stupid things, but rarely do they interview a mainstream imam to give a balanced picture. An unfair portrayal in the media? most certainly.
Most moderate muslim (the silent peaceful majority) do not support the superceeding of the law of the land with Sharia Law. British law is good as it is (maybe except the 4 week detention times ) The Saudis are financing the training of imams who spout this harsh backwards religious rhetoric. They are infiltrating the mosques and giving shitty nonsensical sermons. They are in the ears of government ministers and they probably influenced the decision for these courts. They are definately good buyers of military hardware (see al-yamamah corruptionhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/bae).
Sharia Law in the historical sense was used at a time when there was no proper laws. It superceeded the rule of the strongest and was fair for its time in history pre-industrial. It served a fantastic purpose then contributing to law and order. Times have changed and values have evolved.
The Saudi royal family fully support the clerics who spout this nonsense. They essentially use it to subjugate and suppress their own people so they are unable to challenge their authority. To add legitimacy, they fund its export to other countries like Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan and now the UK + others. Because of the historical significance of Saudia (it was where islam was founded) they have perceived moral authority, even though it is just a corrupt regime. +They are causing this extremism, but no western news organisation even touches the subject.
Other muslim countries are quite mild in comparison. Turkey for example even allows drinking alcohol. Iran has the biggest population of Jews outside of Israel in the middle east.
I am annoyed because the US, who should support the freedom and liberty values watches on and invades secular arab countries (iraq) for their economic benefit instead of realising the real ideological threat and their tacit support for something they should be ideologically opposed to. They pick a fight with iran, even though the country which really exports the terror is their oil ally.
The peaceful majority of british muslims love living in britain for the especially british values of tolerance, fairplay and courtesy. Its just the small-minded saudi-indoctrinated minority who give us all a shit rep.
On January 17 2011 08:46 UberThing wrote: Queen Victoria (24 May 1819 – 22 January 1901) married her 1st cousin Albert. This is not some prehistoric thing and it was very common until not more than 100 years ago.
It is a tragedy about the children but these asian families usually have absolutely no idea about the risks. Better education is needed in asian communities (muslim, hindu and sikh).
I take issue with your original implication that this is a strictly muslim thing, because it is not. Research the issue before you say such flippant islamaphobic things.
I don't see what a marriage that occured over 100 years ago (Science is a little more advanced than it was 110 years ago) has to do with 55% of british muslim TODAY getting married to their first cousins.The number was even higher (75%) for Bradford if you watched the video.
There again i don't like in the UK anymore so i don't have to pay the ever increasing NHS costs that caring for these disabled kids brings.You should be outraged , unless you are unemployed/living off the state yourself.
Why do people support these actions? It is amazing how some propaganda works, especially when you have no idea you are being suckered in. Sometimes you have to be critical and find out information for yourself. The media organisations in the western world are generally owned by rich individuals who own interest is in these unjustifiable actions. I challenge whoever want to, to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today instead of your usual news programs for a week. You will look more critically at what you are being fed.
What a strange thing to say. Where were you when 3 million people protested against the Iraq war in London? We are at a stage now where the leaders do what they wish regardless of what the public wants.
Why do people support these actions? It is amazing how some propaganda works, especially when you have no idea you are being suckered in. Sometimes you have to be critical and find out information for yourself. The media organisations in the western world are generally owned by rich individuals who own interest is in these unjustifiable actions. I challenge whoever want to, to watch Al Jazeera or Russia Today instead of your usual news programs for a week. You will look more critically at what you are being fed.
What a strange thing to say. Where were you when 3 million people protested against the Iraq war in London? We are at a stage now where the leaders do what they wish regardless of what the public wants.
I am just speaking from personal experience and from what others have said. I was talking about the many more british people who trust these news organisations
btw I was sitting my bloody medical exams so I couldnt go.
On January 17 2011 08:46 UberThing wrote: Queen Victoria (24 May 1819 – 22 January 1901) married her 1st cousin Albert. This is not some prehistoric thing and it was very common until not more than 100 years ago.
It is a tragedy about the children but these asian families usually have absolutely no idea about the risks. Better education is needed in asian communities (muslim, hindu and sikh).
I take issue with your original implication that this is a strictly muslim thing, because it is not. Research the issue before you say such flippant islamaphobic things.
I don't see what a marriage that occured over 100 years ago (Science is a little more advanced than it was 110 years ago) has to do with 55% of british muslim TODAY getting married to their first cousins.The number was even higher (75%) for Bradford if you watched the video.
There again i don't like in the UK anymore so i don't have to pay the ever increasing NHS costs that caring for these disabled kids brings.You should be outraged , unless you are unemployed/living off the state yourself.
I will say it again.
The majority of these families have no idea about the risks They are from the lower socio-economic classes and have little education. Yes I got taught in med school about it but how would you expect some immigrant parents generation to know? They are the ones arranging who arrange the marriage for their kid. There is the issue of arranged marriages though. I dont even understand why it still happens today.
But, this is why the government has started education classes to increase awareness.
Things are changing. On victoria, I was refering to how when before society knew the risks, it was common. This came about through education.
Put differently, first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30.[180] Critics argue that banning first-cousin marriages would make as much sense as trying to ban childbearing by older women.
It does lead to problems and it is unhealthy. But you cannot stigmatise people who do this and alienate them You have to engage, so by education you will show them why it is not desirable. This are british values of tolerance and engagement unlike some other western nations.
I think many people have a mistaken belief that a majority of Muslims world wide condemn the attacks that have come to symbolize extremist islam. This is not the case, the vast majority of Muslims are of the Sunni set of beliefs. Sunni Muslims typically will tacitly condone, though maybe not out right participate in, terrorist acts. It is no coincidence that most of the members of the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian, Saudi Arabia is by far the most populous and wealthiest Islamic State, and a vast majority of Saudi's are of the Sunni belief set.
So to claim that even muslims do not support terrorism is a fallacy, they support it whole heartedly both in propaganda and money. Every Islamic state in the world today aids in funding Hezbollah, though typically through their "humanitarian" wing. Osama Bin Ladin is the eldest son of the Saudi royal family, though they claim to have disowned him, he is the eldest son in a very patriarchal society, I refuse to believe that they have totally cut him off.
All in all though most of the Muslim world isn't outspoken in their support of terrorism, they are decidedly NOT outspoken in criticizing it. Also, to a large extent they will secretly support with money, and believe that terrorists are doing the right thing. We are not dealing with a religion, who like most of the others in the world, that can take a joke. Yes there are Christian extremists, but the percentage of the population is far, far, less than that of Muslim extremists. Islam is a religion that is violently opposed to anything other than itself, and as such a religion there is no "middle ground" either you fight them, join them, or they will kill you.
On January 18 2011 02:42 innoby wrote: I think many people have a mistaken belief that a majority of Muslims world wide condemn the attacks that have come to symbolize extremist islam. This is not the case, the vast majority of Muslims are of the Sunni set of beliefs. Sunni Muslims typically will tacitly condone, though maybe not out right participate in, terrorist acts. It is no coincidence that most of the members of the 9/11 attacks were Saudi Arabian, Saudi Arabia is by far the most populous and wealthiest Islamic State, and a vast majority of Saudi's are of the Sunni belief set.
So to claim that even muslims do not support terrorism is a fallacy, they support it whole heartedly both in propaganda and money. Every Islamic state in the world today aids in funding Hezbollah, though typically through their "humanitarian" wing. Osama Bin Ladin is the eldest son of the Saudi royal family, though they claim to have disowned him, he is the eldest son in a very patriarchal society, I refuse to believe that they have totally cut him off.
All in all though most of the Muslim world isn't outspoken in their support of terrorism, they are decidedly NOT outspoken in criticizing it. Also, to a large extent they will secretly support with money, and believe that terrorists are doing the right thing. We are not dealing with a religion, who like most of the others in the world, that can take a joke. Yes there are Christian extremists, but the percentage of the population is far, far, less than that of Muslim extremists. Islam is a religion that is violently opposed to anything other than itself, and as such a religion there is no "middle ground" either you fight them, join them, or they will kill you.
Very good post. This sums up the whole muslim issue perfectly. Sadly the majority of westerners rather keep their eyes closed and pretend like everything is well and that 99% of muslims enjoy the company of other religions.
January 16 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired three mortar shells at Israel, all of which exploded in an open area near a kibbutz in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported. The Color Red siren did not sound.
2011 ( 12 attacks in one month so far )
Israel became a state in 1312 b.c., two millennia before Islam
Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood
After conquering the land in 1272 b.c., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years
The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years
For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. it was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. even under Jordanian rule, (east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it
Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an ( not directly )
King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it
Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. if they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem
it's like, they don't acknowledge the existence of a jewish homeland in the qu'ran
there was enough material to get a 20% purity in iraq... good enough for weapons
there was also a wikileaks article that did eventually "prove" something that was already proven...
I know these thoughts have been expressed here already.. but I'm a plus one.
Someone ACTUALLY thinks that we should police freedom of speech instead of violent crime and acts of war against people who speak their mind? If it bothers you, don't read/view the media. If you want to blow up a building because someone made fun of something important to you... the person who exercised freedom of speech isn't the problem here...
[QUOTE]On January 17 2011 09:53 UberThing wrote: [QUOTE]On January 17 2011 09:09 Jswizzy wrote: [QUOTE]On January 17 2011 08:52 UberThing wrote:.
Back to Iraq Afterwards, one Gulf war later, America fought Iraq and this time overthrew the regime and caused over a million deaths, most of whom were civilians. Who do Iraqis blame for these? The USA because they destroyed the security and law agencies whilst not replacing them. So the crazy people came into the country who blew everyone up and everything up. Bear in mind Iraq was a secular safe country before and very anti-islam extremists. Saddam was not the kindest, but he wasnt the monster he was made out to be.
WMDs Btw it is almost 100% the CIA knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the reason they invaded, because if Iraq did have them, the US probably wouldve stayed at home so the mass destruction didnt happen on their armies. This is why they are so anti-Iran at the moment. The only way you could use nuclear in the modern world is if someone invaded you. Iran with nuclear missile means the USA cant do "regime change" there to get oil when Iraq runs dry. [/QUOTE]
This is a silly thing to say. You say we GAVE Iraq chemical weapons (this is accurate)
Then you say we knew they DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction. News flash: a weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction is a weapon in one of four categories: Biological, CHEMICAL, radiological, or Nuclear. The term actually was originally coined with ONLY chemical weapons in mind.......
Has it been determined that we were mostly certain they didn't have operational nuclear weapons? Yes. Is your second statement accurate? very very much no. They had WMD... we gave it to them. Hussein used it to chem bomb 200,000 Kurds.... To say otherwise is ignorant.
[QUOTE]On January 18 2011 06:00 Crushgroove wrote: [QUOTE]On January 17 2011 09:53 UberThing wrote: [QUOTE]On January 17 2011 09:09 Jswizzy wrote: [QUOTE]On January 17 2011 08:52 UberThing wrote:.
Back to Iraq Afterwards, one Gulf war later, America fought Iraq and this time overthrew the regime and caused over a million deaths, most of whom were civilians. Who do Iraqis blame for these? The USA because they destroyed the security and law agencies whilst not replacing them. So the crazy people came into the country who blew everyone up and everything up. Bear in mind Iraq was a secular safe country before and very anti-islam extremists. Saddam was not the kindest, but he wasnt the monster he was made out to be.
WMDs Btw it is almost 100% the CIA knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. That is the reason they invaded, because if Iraq did have them, the US probably wouldve stayed at home so the mass destruction didnt happen on their armies. This is why they are so anti-Iran at the moment. The only way you could use nuclear in the modern world is if someone invaded you. Iran with nuclear missile means the USA cant do "regime change" there to get oil when Iraq runs dry. [/QUOTE]
This is a silly thing to say. You say we GAVE Iraq chemical weapons (this is accurate)
Then you say we knew they DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction. News flash: a weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction is a weapon in one of four categories: Biological, CHEMICAL, radiological, or Nuclear. The term actually was originally coined with ONLY chemical weapons in mind.......
Has it been determined that we were mostly certain they didn't have operational nuclear weapons? Yes. Is your second statement accurate? very very much no. They had WMD... we gave it to them. Hussein used it to chem bomb 200,000 Kurds.... To say otherwise is ignorant. [/QUOTE]
[quote]As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manufacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[27][/quote] from wikipedia
The Iraqi obviously destroyed the stuff sometime before the Iraq Invasion. None were found and the CIA intelligence (it is really extensive and can infiltrate most things) knew this. The second sentence is my claim because I wouldnt think for one minute the US president would send his soldiers to a place where they would face smallpox/mustard gas etc. If sadddam had WMDs, dont you think he would have used it if he was being invaded? It was used in the Iran/Iraq war (started by Iraq) by Iraq, but they did destroy the stuff after the 1st gulf war.
The Iraqi obviously destroyed the stuff sometime before the Iraq Invasion. None were found and the CIA intelligence (it is really extensive and can infiltrate most things) knew this. The second sentence is my claim because I wouldnt think for one minute the US president would send his soldiers to a place where they would face smallpox/mustard gas etc. If sadddam had WMDs, dont you think he would have used it if he was being invaded? It was used in the Iran/Iraq war (started by Iraq) by Iraq, but they did destroy the stuff after the 1st gulf war.
Actually Saddam did try and use mustard gas against US forces but the weapons were so old that they failed. Good thing for me because my dad was in the 3rd ID at the time and they were the force that captured Baghdad. Also I was in the Navy and the US military is vaccinated against small poxs and trained in chemical warfare. I have a scar from my shoulder from a small pox vaccination from when I visited Brazil. The only chemical weapons that the US troops can not deal with effectively are blood agents.
King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it
Yes he did. Qur'anic verse (17:1). Muhammed goes there
You have made some factually innaccurate claims. I do not want to go into some kind of ancient history lesson because by its nature it is subjective and is inherently bias. Ancient history as a justification for the creation of a modern state? No This is not the issue. What is preventing Jews living in the area with others no problem like they did before the creation of Israel? Racism
But there is no justification for the internationally illegal acts which Israel has commited on the "Palestinian" people
Why can their not be a single state where jews and people of other faiths can live freely?
The way in which Israel conducts itself in the treatment of Palestinian people (who are of Arabs origin) is shocking. btw, there was no need for the "palestinian" label before the state of israel. They were know as arabs. Its because these people were forced to leave their homes that they are called such and it is synonymous with oppression and injustice. They are forced to live as economic and social prisoners in lands which their parents lived freely.
Jews have suffered injustice in the past. But conveniently, you do not even touch upon the subject that forcing people to flee their homes and being "racist" towards them is abhorrent. Jews did live peacefully in coexistence with Arabs there before the creation of israel and still could. Its just that the hardline far right (the Zionists) have made Israel into a Jewish state (with the appropriate state instruments) that is inherently and openly racist against arabs and denies them job opportunities and any equality, even though they or their parents were born in those lands.
Does zionism=racism? Well yes. Even other peaceful non-racially indoctrinated jews feel strongly about this. Feeling the jewish race is "superior" to others is incompatible with modern values. Does this remind you of the "aryan" race of WW2? The racial discrimination, which permeates the Israeli regime is disgusting.
There is nothing preventing there being a single state in the area where they can all live without fear of discrimination or injustice. But those who wish to preserve the Jewish identity through racial policies are preventing this.
Those Palestinians who resort to violence are desperate. It is bad but in reality they do very little damage. Do you remember how apartheid was overcome in South Africa? The blacks had to use violence against the whites when they were denied the right to protest. Israel closes down peaceful demonstrations by Palestinians with tear gas and rubber bullets. Youngsters have no jobs because they are economically benign (through no fault of their own). They are angry and protest. So do the women, so do the men. The support that the palestinians showed for Hamas is symptomatic of their desperation. Who is going to stand up for them? Why do they not recognose the jewish state of israel? Because they believe the land should not be divided up into areas for different religions.
The Iraqi obviously destroyed the stuff sometime before the Iraq Invasion. None were found and the CIA intelligence (it is really extensive and can infiltrate most things) knew this. The second sentence is my claim because I wouldnt think for one minute the US president would send his soldiers to a place where they would face smallpox/mustard gas etc. If sadddam had WMDs, dont you think he would have used it if he was being invaded? It was used in the Iran/Iraq war (started by Iraq) by Iraq, but they did destroy the stuff after the 1st gulf war.
Actually Saddam did try and use mustard gas against US forces but the weapons were so old that they failed. Good thing for me because my dad was in the 3rd ID at the time and they were the force that captured Baghdad. Also I was in the Navy and the US military is vaccinated against small poxs and trained in chemical warfare. I have a scar from my shoulder from a small pox vaccination from when I visited Brazil. The only chemical weapons that the US troops can not deal with effectively are blood agents.
Fair enough. I meant at first to talk about the nuclear WMDs but I overlooked the other types.
Freedom of speech is an absolute right granted to every human being except by legal contract. That is to say unless they sign documents that wave their right to share certain information.
People should not be punished for speaking ill of something so horrible as Islamic fundamentalism. I think all Religious zealots should be kept in check. if you speak out against Christianity in America you will get the same treatment from Christian fundamentalists.
The best way to deal with shit like this is to punish the retribution and be brave enough to keep doing it.
On January 18 2011 10:08 Spiegel wrote: Freedom of speech is an absolute right granted to every human being except by legal contract. That is to say unless they sign documents that wave their right to share certain information.
People should not be punished for speaking ill of something so horrible as Islamic fundamentalism. I think all Religious zealots should be kept in check. if you speak out against Christianity in America you will get the same treatment from Christian fundamentalists.
The best way to deal with shit like this is to punish the retribution and be brave enough to keep doing it.
Um, you wouldn't get targeted for death by Christian fundamentalists for speaking out against Christianty.
You might get boycotted/voted out/protested.. but that happens whenever you speak out against anything a large group strongly believes in (tax cuts, racial integration, environmental protection, etc.) And that is what should be done.
However, the general principle is correct, punish any form of illegal retribution (death threats but not boycotts) and be brave enough to keep doing it.
I just found something that made me doubt Christians are any better than Muslims when it comes to being offended. Apparently, religious humor is only funny if your religion is not the target. ^^
Remmeber Brian Cohen? From the Life of Brian? Seems that this movie provoked reactions that can be compared to the outrage in the muslim world over the comics.
To quote from wikipedia:
The alleged representation of Christ proved controversial. Protests against the film were organised based on its perceived blasphemy. On its initial release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils – some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film for themselves. A member of Harrogate council, one of those that banned the film, revealed during a television interview that the council had not seen the film, and had based their opinion on what they had been told by the Nationwide Festival of Light, of which they knew nothing.
In New York, screenings were picketed by both rabbis and nuns ("Nuns with banners!" observed Michael Palin). It was also banned for eight years in the Republic of Ireland and for a year in Norway (it was marketed in Sweden as '"The film so funny that it was banned in Norway")
They weren't targeted for speaking against Christianity. That is a lot more similar to the terrorist threats from animal rights groups, or terrorist attacks over a country's foreign policies. (they believe the unborn are as valuable as other humans, so killing the murderers/torturers is quite reasonable from a 'defense of others' point of view).
And the other examples all show the standard, picketing, voting, etc. that accomplishes anything in a democracy. (even bad things, but still different from violence to accomplish it.)
And of course being a member in a group is going to make you dislike ridicule of the group... especially if you deeply identify with the group.
On January 19 2011 01:38 Krikkitone wrote: And of course being a member in a group is going to make you dislike ridicule of the group... especially if you deeply identify with the group.
Yeah, that in-group/out-group stuff seems to be hardwired into us humans. Just think how far we could go as a species if we could get rid of that.
Why can their not be a single state where jews and people of other faiths can live freely?
The way in which Israel conducts itself in the treatment of Palestinian people (who are of Arabs origin) is shocking. btw, there was no need for the "palestinian" label before the state of israel. They were know as arabs. Its because these people were forced to leave their homes that they are called such and it is synonymous with oppression and injustice. They are forced to live as economic and social prisoners in lands which their parents lived freely.
Those Palestinians who resort to violence are desperate. It is bad but in reality they do very little damage. Do you remember how apartheid was overcome in South Africa? The blacks had to use violence against the whites when they were denied the right to protest. Israel closes down peaceful demonstrations by Palestinians with tear gas and rubber bullets. Youngsters have no jobs because they are economically benign (through no fault of their own). They are angry and protest. So do the women, so do the men. The support that the palestinians showed for Hamas is symptomatic of their desperation. Who is going to stand up for them? Why do they not recognose the jewish state of israel? Because they believe the land should not be divided up into areas for different religions.
I think you are forgetting one major fact here sir. Isreal did not by any stretch of the imagination start this conflict. They were attacked by 5 countries, and they won the war. Six years later they were attacked again, and again they repulsed the invasion. Immediately following the wars Israel attempted to begin semi-friendly diplomatic ties, what they got in response was overt hostility. Shortly after Israel began to see terrorist attacks, having done nothing in the first place to instigate them. THIS is why the Arabs in Israeli controlled lands are treated so harshly, every time in the prior four decades that Israel attempted to make diplomatic concessions, they were bitten.
Their treatment of the Arabs is NOT, I repeat, NOT in anyway similar to apartheid, that is unless the Dutch in South Africa had to deal with decades of suicide bombers and attacks aimed at civilians by the black population in South Africa.
Israel has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, earned the right to treat the Palestinians anyway they so choose. Considering how the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, have treated Israel I would say that they are remarkably restrained.
On January 19 2011 13:01 innoby wrote: Their treatment of the Arabs is NOT, I repeat, NOT in anyway similar to apartheid, that is unless the Dutch in South Africa had to deal with decades of suicide bombers and attacks aimed at civilians by the black population in South Africa.
Israel has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, earned the right to treat the Palestinians anyway they so choose. Considering how the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, have treated Israel I would say that they are remarkably restrained.
Wow, that must be the most ignorant post I have ever read!!
You just justified racism and violation of human rights using the reasoning of a 4-year old. Must I remind you of the declaration of human rights in 1948? Just so you know, tat was a UN declaration, meaning that most countires inclusing Israel subscribed to it. Let me quote:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Would you like to see a stranger come in your house, claim it's his house because of his own interpretation of a book?
Al Qaeda is doing the same thing than Israel and other extremists, they are using excuses to get power and abuse it. Read the Qran, the Bible, the Vedas, the Gathas, the Zohar, from those books (wich share the same philosophy), extremists are all criminals, all prophets were fighting egoism. Jesus wasn't fighting the Jews but the corruption of Men, religion didn't mean solidarity anymore at those times, some guys had to remind them the purpose of religion.
Satan is hatred according to judaism/islam yet their speeches are full of hatred.
On January 20 2011 00:15 woowoo wrote: Would you like to see a stranger come in your house, claim it's his house because of his own interpretation of a book?
Al Qaeda is doing the same thing than Israel and other extremists, they are using excuses to get power and abuse it. Read the Qran, the Bible, the Vedas, the Gathas, the Zohar, from those books (wich share the same philosophy), extremists are all criminals, all prophets were fighting egoism. Jesus wasn't fighting the Jews but the corruption of Men, religion didn't mean solidarity anymore at those times, some guys had to remind them the purpose of religion.
Satan is hatred according to judaism/islam yet their speeches are full of hatred.
Um, a stranger Can do that if the "book" is a legal document. (make sure your analogies aren't over analogized or they fall apart)
On January 20 2011 00:15 woowoo wrote: Would you like to see a stranger come in your house, claim it's his house because of his own interpretation of a book?
Al Qaeda is doing the same thing than Israel and other extremists, they are using excuses to get power and abuse it. Read the Qran, the Bible, the Vedas, the Gathas, the Zohar, from those books (wich share the same philosophy), extremists are all criminals, all prophets were fighting egoism. Jesus wasn't fighting the Jews but the corruption of Men, religion didn't mean solidarity anymore at those times, some guys had to remind them the purpose of religion.
Satan is hatred according to judaism/islam yet their speeches are full of hatred.
Um, a stranger Can do that if the "book" is a legal document. (make sure your analogies aren't over analogized or they fall apart)
It could also be the "stranger's" house and you suffer from amnesia due to which you do not recognize that is it his. Bla bla. You can lead every analogy ad absurdum if you try hard enough. It was clear that he was referring to the bible/torah/quran and he has a fair point.
Why can their not be a single state where jews and people of other faiths can live freely?
The way in which Israel conducts itself in the treatment of Palestinian people (who are of Arabs origin) is shocking. btw, there was no need for the "palestinian" label before the state of israel. They were know as arabs. Its because these people were forced to leave their homes that they are called such and it is synonymous with oppression and injustice. They are forced to live as economic and social prisoners in lands which their parents lived freely.
Those Palestinians who resort to violence are desperate. It is bad but in reality they do very little damage. Do you remember how apartheid was overcome in South Africa? The blacks had to use violence against the whites when they were denied the right to protest. Israel closes down peaceful demonstrations by Palestinians with tear gas and rubber bullets. Youngsters have no jobs because they are economically benign (through no fault of their own). They are angry and protest. So do the women, so do the men. The support that the palestinians showed for Hamas is symptomatic of their desperation. Who is going to stand up for them? Why do they not recognose the jewish state of israel? Because they believe the land should not be divided up into areas for different religions.
I think you are forgetting one major fact here sir. Isreal did not by any stretch of the imagination start this conflict. They were attacked by 5 countries, and they won the war. Six years later they were attacked again, and again they repulsed the invasion. Immediately following the wars Israel attempted to begin semi-friendly diplomatic ties, what they got in response was overt hostility. Shortly after Israel began to see terrorist attacks, having done nothing in the first place to instigate them. THIS is why the Arabs in Israeli controlled lands are treated so harshly, every time in the prior four decades that Israel attempted to make diplomatic concessions, they were bitten.
Their treatment of the Arabs is NOT, I repeat, NOT in anyway similar to apartheid, that is unless the Dutch in South Africa had to deal with decades of suicide bombers and attacks aimed at civilians by the black population in South Africa.
Israel has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, earned the right to treat the Palestinians anyway they so choose. Considering how the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, have treated Israel I would say that they are remarkably restrained.
Haha.
This is like reading a kid's textbook on American colonial history, everything was perfectly rosy between people with a few random disputes with natives that were settled via the exchange of gifts and food.
Hell, I'd be surprised if Israeli politicians themselves still actually buy the complete victim argument, I don't think anyone's taken that card seriously since the 90s. Put it back in the deck, kid.
On that note, only a fool would honestly believe that quasi-Biblical claims to land would justify forced immigration and subjugation of native peoples (who, like Gandhi said, cannot be faulted for resisting in any way) and that those claims translate in any way to modern day property rights or provide sufficient moral justification.
the Arabs are on the offensive right now...
The Arabs got destroyed in 67 in just a mere 6 days, but Israel didn't take a ton of land from them and they even gave most of it back to Egypt.
Nalgene, what's your point? Who are "The Arabs"? Does that blanket generalization cross state boundaries? Are the Syrians on the offensive? Egyptians? Saudis? Who? Blanket generalizations do much more harm than good, especially when it comes to that particular region of the world.
I mean, really?:
On January 18 2011 05:43 nalgene wrote: January 16 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired three mortar shells at Israel, all of which exploded in an open area near a kibbutz in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported. The Color Red siren did not sound.
2011 ( 12 attacks in one month so far )
Israel became a state in 1312 b.c., two millennia before Islam
Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood
After conquering the land in 1272 b.c., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years
The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years
For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. it was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. even under Jordanian rule, (east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it
Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an ( not directly )
King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it
Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. if they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem
it's like, they don't acknowledge the existence of a jewish homeland in the qu'ran
there was enough material to get a 20% purity in iraq... good enough for weapons
there was also a wikileaks article that did eventually "prove" something that was already proven...
According to you, Israelites conquered that region and made it their homeland for thousands of years. Does length of time determine proper ownership now? Muslims have controlled that land since the 7th century, how can you possibly think that length of ownership means anything at all? Muslims "conquered" that region and made it an integral part of their lands, how is that ANY different than what the ancient Israelites had done?
I guess Greece should control much of Turkey then, as the Eastern Roman Empire ruled over those lands for...well, about a thousand years. A thousand years of legal, religious, and cultural kinship that puts the ancient Israeli kingdoms to shame in its complexity. The entire map of Europe would have to be redrawn and the Americas...wow, I wouldn't even want to tackle that.
I just don't understand how people can use this argument like it actually means anything; that historical ties to a land necessitates moral justification of modern-day property rights, that one's homeland as prescribed by religious teaching does not, in any way, really mean anything at all when it comes to reality. Repeating the idiocy behind many of the Zionist arguments and justifications without giving it critical thought and without thinking about how well that belief structure functions in the modern world is the height of ignorance.
Lastly:
The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years
Did you actually think before writing this? Palestine has been controlled by Islamic powers from 634 AD until ~1918. The Ottomans weren't Arab by ethnicity, granted, but what a foolish thing to say.
Oh, except for the Crusades. So that land has only been Arab for about 1200 years.
Why can their not be a single state where jews and people of other faiths can live freely?
The way in which Israel conducts itself in the treatment of Palestinian people (who are of Arabs origin) is shocking. btw, there was no need for the "palestinian" label before the state of israel. They were know as arabs. Its because these people were forced to leave their homes that they are called such and it is synonymous with oppression and injustice. They are forced to live as economic and social prisoners in lands which their parents lived freely.
Those Palestinians who resort to violence are desperate. It is bad but in reality they do very little damage. Do you remember how apartheid was overcome in South Africa? The blacks had to use violence against the whites when they were denied the right to protest. Israel closes down peaceful demonstrations by Palestinians with tear gas and rubber bullets. Youngsters have no jobs because they are economically benign (through no fault of their own). They are angry and protest. So do the women, so do the men. The support that the palestinians showed for Hamas is symptomatic of their desperation. Who is going to stand up for them? Why do they not recognose the jewish state of israel? Because they believe the land should not be divided up into areas for different religions.
I think you are forgetting one major fact here sir. Isreal did not by any stretch of the imagination start this conflict. They were attacked by 5 countries, and they won the war. Six years later they were attacked again, and again they repulsed the invasion. Immediately following the wars Israel attempted to begin semi-friendly diplomatic ties, what they got in response was overt hostility. Shortly after Israel began to see terrorist attacks, having done nothing in the first place to instigate them. THIS is why the Arabs in Israeli controlled lands are treated so harshly, every time in the prior four decades that Israel attempted to make diplomatic concessions, they were bitten.
Their treatment of the Arabs is NOT, I repeat, NOT in anyway similar to apartheid, that is unless the Dutch in South Africa had to deal with decades of suicide bombers and attacks aimed at civilians by the black population in South Africa.
Israel has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, earned the right to treat the Palestinians anyway they so choose. Considering how the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, have treated Israel I would say that they are remarkably restrained.
Haha.
This is like reading a kid's textbook on American colonial history, everything was perfectly rosy between people with a few random disputes with natives that were settled via the exchange of gifts and food.
Hell, I'd be surprised if Israeli politicians themselves still actually buy the complete victim argument, I don't think anyone's taken that card seriously since the 90s. Put it back in the deck, kid.
On that note, only a fool would honestly believe that quasi-Biblical claims to land would justify forced immigration and subjugation of native peoples (who, like Gandhi said, cannot be faulted for resisting in any way) and that those claims translate in any way to modern day property rights or provide sufficient moral justification.
The Arabs got destroyed in 67 in just a mere 6 days, but Israel didn't take a ton of land from them and they even gave most of it back to Egypt.
Nalgene, what's your point? Who are "The Arabs"? Does that blanket generalization cross state boundaries? Are the Syrians on the offensive? Egyptians? Saudis? Who? Blanket generalizations do much more harm than good, especially when it comes to that particular region of the world.
On January 18 2011 05:43 nalgene wrote: January 16 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired three mortar shells at Israel, all of which exploded in an open area near a kibbutz in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported. The Color Red siren did not sound.
2011 ( 12 attacks in one month so far )
Israel became a state in 1312 b.c., two millennia before Islam
Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood
After conquering the land in 1272 b.c., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years
The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years
For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. it was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. even under Jordanian rule, (east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it
Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an ( not directly )
King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it
Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. if they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem
it's like, they don't acknowledge the existence of a jewish homeland in the qu'ran
there was enough material to get a 20% purity in iraq... good enough for weapons
there was also a wikileaks article that did eventually "prove" something that was already proven...
According to you, Israelites conquered that region and made it their homeland for thousands of years. Does length of time determine proper ownership now? Muslims have controlled that land since the 7th century, how can you possibly think that length of ownership means anything at all? Muslims "conquered" that region and made it an integral part of their lands, how is that ANY different than what the ancient Israelites had done?
I guess Greece should control much of Turkey then, as the Eastern Roman Empire ruled over those lands for...well, about a thousand years. A thousand years of legal, religious, and cultural kinship that puts the ancient Israeli kingdoms to shame in its complexity. The entire map of Europe would have to be redrawn and the Americas...wow, I wouldn't even want to tackle that.
I just don't understand how people can use this argument like it actually means anything; that historical ties to a land necessitates moral justification of modern-day property rights, that one's homeland as prescribed by religious teaching does not, in any way, really mean anything at all when it comes to reality. Repeating the idiocy behind many of the Zionist arguments and justifications without giving it critical thought and without thinking about how well that belief structure functions in the modern world is the height of ignorance.
The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years
Did you actually think before writing this? Palestine has been controlled by Islamic powers from 634 AD until ~1918. The Ottomans weren't Arab by ethnicity, granted, but what a foolish thing to say.
Oh, except for the Crusades. So that land has only been Arab for about 1200 years.
Great let me remind you that Isreal has claims to the land predating Islam as a whole. If you want to argue that they had control of the land for longer fine, I'd win that argument... Unless that is you try to use UNESCO's revisionist claims that Ruth's tomb (even though it has been genetically shown that 95% of ALL known Jews share certain genetic markers that show that they are related to the person buried there.) is actually an ancient Islamic Mosque. You'll probably ignore this simple fact too, claiming that I am using religious statements to prove a point.
Now if we want to accuse Isreal of human rights violations, then more blame falls on the Arab world than on Israel. It is against most UN rulings to use "humanitarian aid" to conceal weapons shipments. Which Arab "humanitarian organizations" have been doing for decades.
So I have a question for you, why do you defend the Islamic world when they have stated that they want Jews exterminated? Where have I heard that before, Oh, that's right Hitler. I don't hear any of you "peace and goodwill" people decrying Isreal's treatment of Palestinians arguing that it was wrong of us to charge most of Germany's military with warcrimes Post WWII. The difference here is that instead of having the short end of the stick, the Jews now have the upperhand.
All in all, no matter what you try to claim to back up your stance that Isreal is wrong, every shred of evidence you have, is taken out of context. Palistine had control of the land prior to Isreal, true, but they drove the Jews out many centuries before. Isreal limits the movements of all Palistinians, true but they didn't at first until the Palistinians showed an intent to kill any Jew that was readily available for them to attack. Isreal was just arbitrarially created to appease europe's guilty conscience. True, but not before an indepth study to determine a fair border to a land that is their anscestral home. Isreal is an agressor in the region, now yes, but they weren't when they got there, they were attacked first, and they won, then they were attacked again, so now yes they do take agressive action to protect their citizens.
Anyone that claims that Isreal is the sole country to blame in the middle east is wearing blinders to the Violence done to them with out any provokation from them. How easily you people forget who the agressors really were, yes it's 40 years later but in all honesty every concession Isreal has been willing to make has been turned down by the poor opressed palistinian. Hell they even killed their own well respected leader when he got close to a real honest peace treaty that would restore palistinian lands. Or have you forgotten that too.
Why can their not be a single state where jews and people of other faiths can live freely?
The way in which Israel conducts itself in the treatment of Palestinian people (who are of Arabs origin) is shocking. btw, there was no need for the "palestinian" label before the state of israel. They were know as arabs. Its because these people were forced to leave their homes that they are called such and it is synonymous with oppression and injustice. They are forced to live as economic and social prisoners in lands which their parents lived freely.
Those Palestinians who resort to violence are desperate. It is bad but in reality they do very little damage. Do you remember how apartheid was overcome in South Africa? The blacks had to use violence against the whites when they were denied the right to protest. Israel closes down peaceful demonstrations by Palestinians with tear gas and rubber bullets. Youngsters have no jobs because they are economically benign (through no fault of their own). They are angry and protest. So do the women, so do the men. The support that the palestinians showed for Hamas is symptomatic of their desperation. Who is going to stand up for them? Why do they not recognose the jewish state of israel? Because they believe the land should not be divided up into areas for different religions.
I think you are forgetting one major fact here sir. Isreal did not by any stretch of the imagination start this conflict. They were attacked by 5 countries, and they won the war. Six years later they were attacked again, and again they repulsed the invasion. Immediately following the wars Israel attempted to begin semi-friendly diplomatic ties, what they got in response was overt hostility. Shortly after Israel began to see terrorist attacks, having done nothing in the first place to instigate them. THIS is why the Arabs in Israeli controlled lands are treated so harshly, every time in the prior four decades that Israel attempted to make diplomatic concessions, they were bitten.
Their treatment of the Arabs is NOT, I repeat, NOT in anyway similar to apartheid, that is unless the Dutch in South Africa had to deal with decades of suicide bombers and attacks aimed at civilians by the black population in South Africa.
Israel has, beyond any shadow of a doubt, earned the right to treat the Palestinians anyway they so choose. Considering how the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, have treated Israel I would say that they are remarkably restrained.
Haha.
This is like reading a kid's textbook on American colonial history, everything was perfectly rosy between people with a few random disputes with natives that were settled via the exchange of gifts and food.
Hell, I'd be surprised if Israeli politicians themselves still actually buy the complete victim argument, I don't think anyone's taken that card seriously since the 90s. Put it back in the deck, kid.
On that note, only a fool would honestly believe that quasi-Biblical claims to land would justify forced immigration and subjugation of native peoples (who, like Gandhi said, cannot be faulted for resisting in any way) and that those claims translate in any way to modern day property rights or provide sufficient moral justification.
The Arabs got destroyed in 67 in just a mere 6 days, but Israel didn't take a ton of land from them and they even gave most of it back to Egypt.
Nalgene, what's your point? Who are "The Arabs"? Does that blanket generalization cross state boundaries? Are the Syrians on the offensive? Egyptians? Saudis? Who? Blanket generalizations do much more harm than good, especially when it comes to that particular region of the world.
On January 18 2011 05:43 nalgene wrote: January 16 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip fired three mortar shells at Israel, all of which exploded in an open area near a kibbutz in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported. The Color Red siren did not sound.
2011 ( 12 attacks in one month so far )
Israel became a state in 1312 b.c., two millennia before Islam
Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood
After conquering the land in 1272 b.c., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years
The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years
For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. it was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. even under Jordanian rule, (east) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it
Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the Bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur'an ( not directly )
King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it
Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. if they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem
it's like, they don't acknowledge the existence of a jewish homeland in the qu'ran
there was enough material to get a 20% purity in iraq... good enough for weapons
there was also a wikileaks article that did eventually "prove" something that was already proven...
According to you, Israelites conquered that region and made it their homeland for thousands of years. Does length of time determine proper ownership now? Muslims have controlled that land since the 7th century, how can you possibly think that length of ownership means anything at all? Muslims "conquered" that region and made it an integral part of their lands, how is that ANY different than what the ancient Israelites had done?
I guess Greece should control much of Turkey then, as the Eastern Roman Empire ruled over those lands for...well, about a thousand years. A thousand years of legal, religious, and cultural kinship that puts the ancient Israeli kingdoms to shame in its complexity. The entire map of Europe would have to be redrawn and the Americas...wow, I wouldn't even want to tackle that.
I just don't understand how people can use this argument like it actually means anything; that historical ties to a land necessitates moral justification of modern-day property rights, that one's homeland as prescribed by religious teaching does not, in any way, really mean anything at all when it comes to reality. Repeating the idiocy behind many of the Zionist arguments and justifications without giving it critical thought and without thinking about how well that belief structure functions in the modern world is the height of ignorance.
The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 a.d. lasted just 22 years
Did you actually think before writing this? Palestine has been controlled by Islamic powers from 634 AD until ~1918. The Ottomans weren't Arab by ethnicity, granted, but what a foolish thing to say.
Oh, except for the Crusades. So that land has only been Arab for about 1200 years.
Great let me remind you that Isreal has claims to the land predating Islam as a whole. If you want to argue that they had control of the land for longer fine, I'd win that argument... Unless that is you try to use UNESCO's revisionist claims that Ruth's tomb (even though it has been genetically shown that 95% of ALL known Jews share certain genetic markers that show that they are related to the person buried there.) is actually an ancient Islamic Mosque. You'll probably ignore this simple fact too, claiming that I am using religious statements to prove a point.
Now if we want to accuse Isreal of human rights violations, then more blame falls on the Arab world than on Israel. It is against most UN rulings to use "humanitarian aid" to conceal weapons shipments. Which Arab "humanitarian organizations" have been doing for decades.
So I have a question for you, why do you defend the Islamic world when they have stated that they want Jews exterminated? Where have I heard that before, Oh, that's right Hitler. I don't hear any of you "peace and goodwill" people decrying Isreal's treatment of Palestinians arguing that it was wrong of us to charge most of Germany's military with warcrimes Post WWII. The difference here is that instead of having the short end of the stick, the Jews now have the upperhand.
All in all, no matter what you try to claim to back up your stance that Isreal is wrong, every shred of evidence you have, is taken out of context. Palistine had control of the land prior to Isreal, true, but they drove the Jews out many centuries before. Isreal limits the movements of all Palistinians, true but they didn't at first until the Palistinians showed an intent to kill any Jew that was readily available for them to attack. Isreal was just arbitrarially created to appease europe's guilty conscience. True, but not before an indepth study to determine a fair border to a land that is their anscestral home. Isreal is an agressor in the region, now yes, but they weren't when they got there, they were attacked first, and they won, then they were attacked again, so now yes they do take agressive action to protect their citizens.
Anyone that claims that Isreal is the sole country to blame in the middle east is wearing blinders to the Violence done to them with out any provokation from them. How easily you people forget who the agressors really were, yes it's 40 years later but in all honesty every concession Isreal has been willing to make has been turned down by the poor opressed palistinian. Hell they even killed their own well respected leader when he got close to a real honest peace treaty that would restore palistinian lands. Or have you forgotten that too.
Ok. Let's try again.
You can't claim that the land in Palestine is the "ancestral homeland" of the Jews when it was a result of conquest and when the Arab Muslims can claim the exact same legitimacy as a result of their conquest. Both groups are, like most contemporary nations, foreign to the land and claim legitimacy built solely on conquest. If you afford the Jews the "right" to live in that land based on their ancestral ties (from conquest), the Arab Muslims are afforded the exact same rights based on THEIR own conquest in the 7th century. There's no difference. Length of time doesn't mean anything. Why would it?
You can't possibly claim that the Jews have "MORE" of a right to occupy the land when both claims are founded on brutal conquest and subjugation of native peoples. You have to exclude religious justifications as a matter of course, thus the conquest of the Caanites and the subsequent evolution of Israelite kingdoms is the sole moral justification of the establishment of a Jewish "homeland". Likewise, the Arab Muslim conquest of the very same region has the exact same amount of "quantifiable" moral justification.
Now if we want to accuse Isreal of human rights violations, then more blame falls on the Arab world than on Israel. It is against most UN rulings to use "humanitarian aid" to conceal weapons shipments. Which Arab "humanitarian organizations" have been doing for decades.
And likewise, Israeli settlements breachresolutions passed by the Security Council and the subsequent legality of settlements. Moreover, claiming that Arab nations have much worse human rights records is logically irrelevant as the state in question is Israeli, which is a prosperous modern democracy and must be held accountable for its actions. Arab nations must be held accountable as well, but the issue here is Israel, not her neighbors.
So I have a question for you, why do you defend the Islamic world when they have stated that they want Jews exterminated? Where have I heard that before, Oh, that's right Hitler. I don't hear any of you "peace and goodwill" people decrying Isreal's treatment of Palestinians arguing that it was wrong of us to charge most of Germany's military with warcrimes Post WWII. The difference here is that instead of having the short end of the stick, the Jews now have the upperhand.
I love these generalizations.
The ISLAMIC WORLD? huh? Man, that's a pretty big place. 1.57 billion Muslims (the Muslim world) have stated they want the Jews exterminated? I'd love a source (preferably several) where the entire ISLAMIC WORLD (Caps are needed because big places need big letters) have unanimously affirmed the universal desire for the full extermination of the Jewish ethnoreligious group.
The later parts of the snippet I quoted above just doesn't make sense at all, I don't even understand what you're saying. Are you comparing Palestinian resistance to Israeli advancements to German warcrimes??? I don't even know, maybe you can clarify this point.
All in all, no matter what you try to claim to back up your stance that Isreal is wrong, every shred of evidence you have, is taken out of context. Palistine had control of the land prior to Isreal, true, but they drove the Jews out many centuries before.
You say "Palestine" had control of the land prior to Israel, I assume you mean when the Ottomans and later British controlled that area? You then say they, again assuming the Arabs? drove the Jews out "many centuries before" When was this? 7th century conquest? Where the Caliphate conquered Palestine and Syria from...the Christian Roman Empire? Oh, this was also when the Muslims adopted a policy of religious toleration, which resulted in goodwill towards the Arabs from minority groups given the severity of Byzantine persecution? Likewise, the later Umayyad dynasty and even later the Ottoman Empire were some of the safest places in the world for the Jewish people, given the severity of Christian persecution. Funny.
Isreal limits the movements of all Palistinians, true but they didn't at first until the Palistinians showed an intent to kill any Jew that was readily available for them to attack. Isreal was just arbitrarially created to appease europe's guilty conscience. True, but not before an indepth study to determine a fair border to a land that is their anscestral home. Isreal is an agressor in the region, now yes, but they weren't when they got there, they were attacked first, and they won, then they were attacked again, so now yes they do take agressive action to protect their citizens.
Of course, atrocities were committed by both sides. Then again, if you come into my house and tell me that you're taking it over, I'm going to hit you. Even more so if you tell me that thousands of years ago, the land I now occupy belonged to your members of your ethnic group and that now justifies the seizure of my land.
Anyone that claims that Isreal is the sole country to blame in the middle east is wearing blinders to the Violence done to them with out any provokation from them. How easily you people forget who the agressors really were, yes it's 40 years later but in all honesty every concession Isreal has been willing to make has been turned down by the poor opressed palistinian. Hell they even killed their own well respected leader when he got close to a real honest peace treaty that would restore palistinian lands. Or have you forgotten that too.
Who the aggressors really were? If the UN decreed that a portion of Europe was to become a Muslim state for the Muslim people where the indigenous population is largely non-Muslim, you'd guarantee there would be violence and rightfully so!
I absolutely hate quoting famous people in arguments, it's really pretentious and reflects badly, but I'll do it anyway. Gandhi:
Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French.
And...
And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart.
The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart... They will find the world opinion in their favor in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.
Moreover, Israel has yet to offer a peace deal to the Palestinians that would produce a truly viable state. In addition, Israel's refusal to acquiesce to the demands of the Palestinians to halt settlement construction isn't comparable to Palestinian attacks-- Palestinian rocket attacks are decentralized as there does not exist a strong authority in the Palestinian regions to hem them in.
I think we should keep doing stuff like this. We have to fight terrorism, and humor can be a good way of doing that. But altho we shouldn't step over the line imho. Islamic culture deserves respect, however islamic extremists does not deserve it.
Im glad to see that people are starting to critically evaluate the flimsy arguments that underpin Zionism. The justifications of Zionism remind me of those who tried to justify apartheid in South Africa. The arguments fall down after some scrutiny.
To add further to the points already made, the issue should not be seen as Jewish vs Islam. Not all Palestinians are muslim
Muslims lived in peace with other arabs (ethnically) of different religions in the land (christians and druze and jews as well) in that area. Although it may have been part of an empire, there was no religious homogeneity as some people would like believe to make their conscious clear and there was religious freedom. Arab Jews /Palestinian Jews Christian Palestinian
Those who try to justify a jewish "claim" to the land because it predated Islam are confounding the issue and misleading others into believing the palestinians are all muslims (which they are not). There is no justification for claiming or allocating land based on religion. In addition, how can you justify "removing" people from their homes to make this happen. This is a travesty
Take religion away from the equation The issue is violently forcing a large number of people to leave their homes, livelihood and property so those who subscribe to an ideology can establish a state under which those they displaced are discriminated against in favour of those who hold certain beliefs. This is against international law on many levels and is cannot be justified unless using "God told me to" line of thought which is absurd in this day and age. Thus the case for Zionism in this form (A Jewish state) is ridiculous. The more palatable alternatives are peaceful jewish immigration into the area and a "homeland" formed by demographic means.
You must remember that for the Palestinian people, to see their homes and livelihoods forcibly taken away by people from foreign lands (the majority of jews were immigrants to the area or their primary descendants), which no compensation is utterly devastating. Look at the stereotypes of immigrants in the West; they are either taking your jobs or being lazy and scrounging off the state. Now look at these perceived attitudes (which are on the whole not true- they do jobs nobody wants to do and there are laws preventing the second) and take a look at what the zionist immigrants have done to the Palestinians. They took their homes, land and freedom. Palestinians are forced to live in restricted areas which serve as an economic prison.
There should be a one-state secular solution. Religion can co-exist very well with a strong secular state. Take a look at Turkey, the state is proudly secular and it has lots of people who are religious. The religious state of Israel only exists because of the financial backers in the USA who can influence the government. A large proportion of the world have recognised Palestine to show solidarity and prevent further humiliation. Yet the USA does not so it can further aid the zionists and grab even more land grab. It seems the "prison" will get more overcrowded if Israel annexes the "settlements" (towns and large suburbs) in the West Bank. If Israel cant become a single secular state for all in the area, they should at least give the Palestinians their state.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://striderweb.com/blog/images/dogbody.jpg)
that poor fellow have been pretty much everything except publicly raped with a piece of heavy mining equipment.. and no christian fundamentalist wacko have blown up anything yet.. as far as the world know.. 
![[image loading]](http://ichbin.1on.de/uploads/jesus.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg)
what do you mean "people of your kind"? We are all humans! maybe if you stopped being an ignorant racist jerk and done some research you would understand! but like I said I'm easily out numbered here so yeah...
![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/1735f8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/04/23/alg_south_park_censor.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Bwtu5.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/1435/antisemeticcartoon.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.freethunk.net/articles/images_articles/southpark_jesus.gif)
![[image loading]](http://thetodaynews.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/South-Park-SuperBestFriends.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Wu5b0.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/LaZmQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.nearlyfreespeech.net/jandmstatic/strips/2011-01-10.png)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.nearlyfreespeech.net/jandmstatic/strips/2010-01-08.jpg)
