Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on May 20, 2012, 03:14:35 pm
-
o-/-<
^
|
Mohamed
-
Still kind of miffed that South Park chickened out on this.
-
they didn't comedy central did.
-
Ohhhh.
-
We need a draw Dukat day
-
Not really sure whether this thread is serving any purpose whatsoever. Won't lock it just yet, Freedom of Speech and all that, but it's more likely to be locked for merely being completely without point.
-
you mean like the rest of this board?
-
Then what, exactly, are we discussing in this General Discussion topic then? What is there to debate? At least most topics are stating a point of view and allowing people to discuss it, this just seems to be something posted for the sake of posting it.
-
The 'point' is it's draw Mohamed day.
Incidentally Pakistan has already blocked twitter, as that is supposedly this years epicenter, due to the whole 'guy getting detained and deported to Saudi Arabia to face a possible death sentence for saying things such as ~I would shake (Mohamed's) hand as an equal~ and "Saudi women won't go to hell because it's impossible to go there twice" on twitter.
-
Finally, a point.
So, what was wrong with making that as your first post instead of a stick figure? There's a growing attitude that the best way to deal with anything that offends people's sensibilities is to poke it with a stick. When you're all trapped on the same planet with no way off, that's not really a smart way of approaching it.
-
What is there to debate?
Wait............ what? Does there have to be something to debate in every Gen. Disc. thread? It looks to me like bob just wanted to point out to HLP that it's Draw Mohammed Day, and see what the community at large had to say about it, if anything. If no one really want to discuss it, then the thread gets no replies and gets pushed down into obscurity like every other thread. I can understand wanting to lock threads that are total nonsense, but I think locking a thread that only seems to be about you know.... discussing some general topic, just because it doesn't have a ready-made debate prompt is dumb.
-
Finally, a point.
So, what was wrong with making that as your first post instead of a stick figure?
eh..err... that is in the title?
ah, so after an unwarranted lock threat, and specious speculation as to 'the point of this thread', you finally start to make YOUR point, you don't like this thing, do you? you think that the appropriate response to someone throwing a temper tantrum is to give them what they want. I'm not Muslim, so I am not subject to their taboos, if they are offended they are free to *****, I imagine most won't on either count.
I find it interesting that for hundreds of years no one was offended by the depiction of Mohamed, until 7 years ago.
-
bob just wanted to point out to HLP that it's Draw Mohammed Day, and see what the community at large had to say about it, if anything. If no one really want to discuss it, then the thread gets no replies and gets pushed down into obscurity like every other thread.
^this^
-
Then, once again, why wasn't that the content of the first post instead of a stick figure.
I think David Mitchell demonstrates my concern best, though he was talking about a slightly different subject...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2u4dlZBHE
-
Then, once again, why wasn't that the content of the first post instead of a stick figure.
because, once again, it was in the title.
-
I think David Mitchell demonstrates my concern best, though he was talking about a slightly different subject...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2u4dlZBHE
ok, so you think we should not 'annoy' them because then they will 'come'? I think they already came, and that was when we were not actively annoying them. further, what is your criteria for 'annoy' if someone is being unreasonable about what they claim offends them then I think it is totally appropriate to annoy the **** out of them (hence 0-/-< ). what happens when they start getting more vocal about their already present 'annoyance' with how we 'allow' our women to dress?
Perhaps the subject would be more easily addressed if we look at it from a slightly different perspective. It 'annoyed' a lot of white southerners in my country to see black people voting and intermarrying with white people. It 'annoys' a lot of people all over my country right now to see gays have the full legal protection as straight people. it 'annoys' a lot of people right now that a woman can end a pregnancy. in all three of these cases I think the people who are annoyed by these things deserve to live in a constant state of annoyance until they just ****ing get over it. Likewise any person who would be offended by a drawing needs to learn to just ignore it, and those who would fly into a homicidal rage need to be found and locked up. WE live in a free and open society, and we cannot allow fear of some ass hole idiot's temper tantrum to whittle us down.
-
For the amount of hubbub centered around draw Mohammed Day, we need to specify a certain date to Draw Richard Dawkins Day, then a day to Draw Einstein Day, and perhaps a Draw Daffy Duck Day.
Then while we're at it, let's have a Draw a Sentimental Truth Day as well.
Ignorance aside, I just find Draw Mohammed Day junk as bad as those retarded American Athiest bus and billboards for celebrating reason. At the end of any day, it's just fluff and someone will find my coffee stains an insult to their ideological ponies.
Edit: Me fixin' some spellin' and grammer, huck huck.
-
I think David Mitchell demonstrates my concern best, though he was talking about a slightly different subject...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt2u4dlZBHE
ok, so you think we should not 'annoy' them because then they will 'come'? I think they already came, and that was when we were not actively annoying them. further, what is your criteria for 'annoy' if someone is being unreasonable about what they claim offends them then I think it is totally appropriate to annoy the **** out of them (hence 0-/-< ). what happens when they start getting more vocal about their already present 'annoyance' with how we 'allow' our women to dress?
Perhaps the subject would be more easily addressed if we look at it from a slightly different perspective. It 'annoyed' a lot of white southerners in my country to see black people voting and intermarrying with white people. It 'annoys' a lot of people all over my country right now to see gays have the full legal protection as straight people. it 'annoys' a lot of people right now that a woman can end a pregnancy. in all three of these cases I think the people who are annoyed by these things deserve to live in a constant state of annoyance until they just ****ing get over it. Likewise any person who would be offended by a drawing needs to learn to just ignore it, and those who would fly into a homicidal rage need to be found and locked up. WE live in a free and open society, and we cannot allow fear of some ass hole idiot's temper tantrum to whittle us down.
If you think my annoyance is one-way then you are sorely mistaken, I stopped going to any kind of Church, not because I'm not spiritual, but because Church became more and more polarised in its opinions of other cultures and people.
Do you genuinely think that every Muslim in the world has fundamental beliefs? Do you honestly think that anyone who would take offence at images of Mohammed wanted to overthrow the West. It's things like this that generate the cultural wall between even moderate Muslims and other cultures in the West, because whether you agree with fundamentalism or not, something like 'Draw Mohammed Day' is going to an offensive and hurtful thing, not because of what it says in the Koran, but because the images are being made because they are forbidden.
That's the difference that people seem to ignore, this isn't someone expressing Freedom of Speech that may have the side effect of offending certain people, it's someone expressing Freedom of Speech designed to insult and anger its target, be they moderate, passive, extreme or undecided, and it's mostly for the 'thrill' of watching them get annoyed at it.
The point of that video is to highlight the fact that we're all stuck here together, and the worst way of solving the problem is to poke an entire culture with a stick and then wonder why they are annoyed.
-
Imagine the reaction of the West if the Muslim world had a "Draw Jesus taking a ****" day.
-
Imagine the reaction of the West if the Muslim world had a "Draw Jesus taking a ****" day.
:rolleyes: pretty much sums it up.
-
Imagine the reaction of the West if the Muslim world had a "Draw Jesus taking a ****" day.
Meh?
-
Thing is, the whole reason people in these countries burn American flags is because they know it annoys people, if no-one cared, they wouldn't do it. Something like this is precisely the same mentality, there's no moral high-ground here whatsoever.
People may argue that Pakistan banning Twitter is a violation of human rights, but where lays the origin of that violation? There would be riots in a Muslim country over a day like this, people know that, in fact, it's a large percentage of the reason it exists, it doesn't strike me as very noble to say 'You're violating human rights by not letting us piss off most of your population and cause public unrest'.
The source of that censorship is a joint mixture of the Pakistani government and the people creating the drawings. In the UK we jail people for encouraging rioting over Twitter or Facebook, now, you may consider that 'wrong', but why the double standards? Why is encouraging rioting in your own country criminal, yet encouraging rioting in someone else's country considered "Freedom of Speech"?
-
Well, it's not Draw Mohammed Taking **** Day, it's just Draw Mohammed Day. The point sort of being that getting as outraged over ANY portrayal of your prophet as some people would only get over a portrayal of their prophet defecating, is ridiculous.
-
It's one thing to say "Freedom of Speech," and just dealing with ol' plain sensible.
While the original purpose may have been to challenge conventions of how religious ideas are seen and what values they hold, it pretty much went to hell with both the participants and the outrage against it.
Due to my love of art history, I could take a long winded speech to talk about "this is not a pipe," while a little applicable, it just goes to show that the idea of the religious figure is sacred to that particular culture, good or bad.
But I can be honest and say that the entire movement for "Draw Mohammed Day!" went from being a protest to a farce.
-
Thing is with regards to drawing Jesus is that there are no explicit instructions not to do so. Jesus has been cropping up in images for thousands of years.
Now, the truth of the matter is that there are Islamic texts with drawings of Mohammed in them, there are far less inflammatory ways of approaching the situation, but as long as we allow ourselves to get caught in a cycle of escalation of aggression and abuse, where we are doing things not because we believe we are 'right' but because we believe we are insulting people, there is no way out whatsoever, it will simply get more and more confrontational until something snaps.
-
Well, it's not Draw Mohammed Taking **** Day, it's just Draw Mohammed Day.
Do you honestly believe that there won't be a substantial minority (if not majority) of people who take part in this who won't draw something more offensive than a simple portrait picture?
-
Imagine the reaction of the West if the Muslim world had a "Draw Jesus taking a ****" day.
doubt that would happen because it's sure to piss them off as much.
-
If you think my annoyance is one-way then you are sorely mistaken, I stopped going to any kind of Church, not because I'm not spiritual, but because Church became more and more polarised in its opinions of other cultures and people.
ah, so Christianity is the only religion that we should criticize.
Do you genuinely think that every...
not going to even read the rest of the paragraph before responding, I'll see how well I did after typing it up.
I like how you assume I'm viewing the Muslim community as a monolithic whole, in spite of the fact that I have said exactly which subset of that community I am referring to at least more than once, lets see how many times I did that.
if they are offended they are free to *****, I imagine most won't on either count.
person who would be offended by a drawing
those who would fly into a homicidal rage
ass hole idiot
and that is from just two substantive posts. I like how you assumed I had a bigoted position and ignored evidence that contradicted your preconception.
you see that is the beauty of this protest. it only hits those who need to be hit, the people who cannot stand it when non-muslums don't follow muslim rules. all of the chill muslims would be like 'ok. fine. knock yourself out. here you can even barrow my pencil because I'm done drawing the picture of all the ****s I give'.
now let me see if anything else in that paragraph will make me have to eat any of those words...
...Muslim in the world has fundamental beliefs? Do you honestly think that anyone who would take offence at images of Mohammed wanted to overthrow the West. It's things like this that generate the cultural wall between even moderate Muslims and other cultures in the West, because whether you agree with fundamentalism or not, something like 'Draw Mohammed Day' is going to an offensive and hurtful thing, not because of what it says in the Koran, but because the images are being made because they are forbidden.
hmmm... nope. though I will add, 'they are forbidden' for muslims. of which I am not one and therefor the forbid...ment prohibition does not apply to me. Though I will extend an especially warm welcome any muslim who is awesome enough to see how that is a bull**** rule and ignore it like most christians do with most rules in their book and join in on the art project.
That's the difference that people seem to ignore, this isn't someone expressing Freedom of Speech that may have the side effect of offending certain people, it's someone expressing Freedom of Speech designed to insult and anger its target, be they moderate, passive, extreme or undecided, and it's mostly for the 'thrill' of watching them get annoyed at it.
yes, it is expressly intended to insult and anger, as well as mock, the subset of muslims who cannot cope with the idea of humans existing on this planet who are not subject to their religious laws. personally I think that subset deserves all the grief it gets after the way it has acted.
The point of that video is to highlight the fact that we're all stuck here together, and the worst way of solving the problem is to poke an entire culture with a stick and then wonder why they are annoyed.
yes, we are stuck here. and I for one will not be stuck on a planet with a bunch of humorless assholes who are going to throw a violent tantrum every time they don't get what they want, I refuse to tolerate that kind of behavior. I will call such persons on it and I will do the opposite of what they want and laugh as they impotently flail about on the floor crying because I like things they don't like. like all emotionally stunted persons they will eventually learn to get the **** over it or try to kill me and end up in jail making their compatriots look worse in the process.
and on a related note, to all:
I hereby proclaim I will suck a dick, just to piss off Fred Phelps. seriously, just give me like a two day notice and tell me where in the NYC area he will be present and you get a free blow job. I'm serious, I will do this if you call me on it.
-
Warning - while you were typing 9 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
:ha:
and you thought there was not 'point' or 'debate' in this thread. :D
-
Imagine the reaction of the West if the Muslim world had a "Draw Jesus taking a ****" day.
fund it! make it happen!
your problem is you have made an overly complex requirement, so I doubt it will catch on, try something offensive but easily drawn, see if you can make an ASCII art depiction.
Thing is, the whole reason people in these countries burn American flags is because they know it annoys people
except, it' doesn't really bother us that much. we DON'T really care. the most they get out of us is ":rolleyes: whatever..."
The source of that censorship is a joint mixture of the Pakistani government and the people creating the drawings. In the UK we jail people for encouraging rioting over Twitter or Facebook, now, you may consider that 'wrong', but why the double standards? Why is encouraging rioting in your own country criminal, yet encouraging rioting in someone else's country considered "Freedom of Speech"?
no muslims in my country? and I don't think flaunting your countries deteriorating standards for personal liberty is really the right position to take here.
-
BTW, relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Virgin_Mary
-
ah, so Christianity is the only religion that we should criticize.
And would you be offended if I started to depict controversial pictures of atheists swinging reason and science like a cheap two cent whore?
Personally, such a measure is both in-adequate, and, a waste of time.
Attempting to attack an idea in the sense is both futile and stupid. Rather than finding specific elements, such as social issues such as gender or social gaps between Muslims, or even racial prejudices of Saudis against Muslims of East Asian origins, etc this a such a broad topic you might as well aim to hit the entirety of the universe. Criticism best works when concentrated and tactfully deployed, not a shotgun.
-
I would actually find that quite funny, actually, I'm going to check rule34 right now and see if Dawkins exists.
[edit]surprisingly, only one. but it does involve bestiality with a Parasaurolophus[/edit]
yes, as I mentioned this is quite precise, people should be able to say or write or make any expressive work. no one is making you look at it. and even if they were they can't make you pay attention.
-
As I said in my post, the idea of jailing someone for inciting a riot may be considered 'wrong' by some people, I did not state a personal opinion on the matter, but that doesn't change the fact that posting deliberately inflammatory commentary in both the UK and the US is becoming harder and harder, and yet stuff like this is fine, which is a double standard.
Secondly, with regards to the American flag, the most they get out of you is :rolleyes:, but you know as well as I do that there are people in your country who take the matter far more personally.
With regards to the 'point' of this thread, once again, it was a picture of a stick man, the whole reason I initiated this debate was because there needed to be more to it than that.
Next, you are not stuck on a planet with 'humorless assholes', you are stuck on a planet with people who take their religion far more seriously than you do, this isn't about what is 'right' or 'wrong', it's about what 'is' and how you deal with it. Once again, poking them with a stick is not the answer. Yes, there are Muslims in your own country, and no doubt many of them took offence at the actions of those who drew Mohammed, but they won't say anything about it because of the repercussions, because American Freedom of Speech is not as 'Free' as it likes to believe, criticizing minorities, such as Gays, girls who have abortions, Atheists or Muslims is fine, but there is genuine danger in criticizing majorities particularly in certain areas of the US.
The fact is, whether you view the Muslim community as a Monolithic whole or not, the pictures are designed and intended to insult all Muslims, it's just that some keep quiet about it because they know what the outcome of speaking out about it will be, which is just more trolling. As I've repeatedly said, it is not simply the images that are offensive, it's the reason behind creating them.
As far as Christianity is concerned, there are reasons for criticism, certainly, just as their are for Islam, but there's a difference between criticism and abuse. Christianity supports things that I don't agree with, and I'll readily say so, so does Islam, but this isn't about criticism is it? It's about abuse and insults which are specifically designed to be as such. I don't like that when targetted at Christians or Muslims.
-
I would actually find that quite funny, actually, I'm going to check rule34 right now and see if Dawkins exists.
yes, as I mentioned this is quite precise, people should be able to say or write or make any expressive work. no one is making you look at it. and even if they were they can't make you pay attention.
It doesn't change the fact, as someone who deals with the visual medium, this approach is piss-poor when it comes to any form of artistic merit and criticism. Unless someone can actually show a substantial demonstration of skill and thought-provocation like the infamous Fountain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_mutt it just goes to show the entire movement was built on shoddy stilts, and wouldn't stand if someone sneezed at it. Rather, it is a bland repetition of an already explored and rehashed discussion over whether the art is the idea or separate from it.
-
there are people in your country who take the matter far more personally.
I doubt there are many that care particularly when some foreigner does it in some foreign land, it's mostly when an american does it that pisses these people off. and again they can just be pissed of.
With regards to the 'point' of this thread, once again, it was a picture of a stick man, the whole reason I initiated this debate was because there needed to be more to it than that.
Next, you are not stuck on a planet with 'humorless assholes', you are stuck on a planet with people who take their religion far more seriously than you do, this isn't about what is 'right' or 'wrong', it's about what 'is' and how you deal with it. Once again, poking them with a stick is not the answer. Yes, there are Muslims in your own country, and no doubt many of them took offence at the actions of those who drew Mohammed, but they won't say anything about it because of the repercussions, because American Freedom of Speech is not as 'Free' as it likes to believe, criticizing minorities, such as Gays, girls who have abortions, Atheists or Muslims is fine, but there is genuine danger in criticizing majorities particularly in certain areas of the US.
The fact is, whether you view the Muslim community as a Monolithic whole or not, the pictures are designed and intended to insult all Muslims
I'm going to just stop you right here, no it's not, it's intended to insult and ridicule those who fly into a rage when a non-muslim decides to do something forbidden to a muslim. it IS intended to be an act of defiance and an expression of free speech, a message that we cannot be silenced with threats it only makes us louder.
ok, you can go on...
it's just that some keep quiet about it because they know what the outcome of speaking out about it will be, which is just more trolling. As I've repeatedly said, it is not simply the images that are offensive, it's the reason behind creating them.
As far as Christianity is concerned, there are reasons for criticism, certainly, just as their are for Islam, but there's a difference between criticism and abuse. Christianity supports things that I don't agree with, and I'll readily say so, so does Islam, but this isn't about criticism is it?
yes it is.
It's about abuse and insults which are specifically designed to be as such. I don't like that when targetted at Christians or Muslims.
yes, in so much as it is ridicule. ridicule of those who cannot stand someone else liking what they don't like. ridicule is criticism - respect, I do not respect these people.
and because I know you are going to try and take advantage of my brazen use of pronouns, let me show you a picture of 'those people' of which I speak
(http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/03/21/1225843/489984-cartoon.jpg)
and you know, actually I don't mind the signs and the marching and the chanting, it's the killing and assaults and property damage that I am particularly targetted at, so this isn't really an accurate picture of what I'm talking about, but I hope you get my point.
-
pic looks familiar... oh right, it's interchangeable with the koran burning gathering in florida. now that was how you're suppose to play chicken.
-
And so emulating their attitude is the only possible response? They say insulting things to us, so the very best response we can come up with is to say insulting things to them?
Sink to the same level if you wish, because this is, regardless of your claims to the opposite, absolutely and undeniably about doing something that will insult people of a specific denomination, that's the whole point of the pictures. They were created in response to outrage from a relatively small number of people over the original 'Mohammed Cartoons', and in doing so, a minor, misinformed group has been encouraged and supported by the belligerence of others. This entire 'Image of Mohammed' issue would have been long, long over had it not been for the yearly regurgitation of this day and with each iteration, it creates more distrust and feelings of being insulted from the Muslim community as it becomes less a statement and more simply a case of trolling each year.
-
It doesn't change the fact, as someone who deals with the visual medium, this approach is piss-poor when it comes to any form of artistic merit and criticism. Unless someone can actually show a substantial demonstration of skill and thought-provocation like the infamous Fountain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_mutt it just goes to show the entire movement was built on shoddy stilts, and wouldn't stand if someone sneezed at it. Rather, it is a bland repetition of an already explored and rehashed discussion over whether the art is the idea or separate from it.
ok, the point of the whole thing is that the most tame, most innocuous image of Mohamed is (as of some time around 2004) supposedly justification of murder.
typing:
0\-<
now I have a death sentence on my head.
-
And so emulating their attitude is the only possible response? They say insulting things to us, so the very best response we can come up with is to say insulting things to them?
What is insulting about a depiction of a man in ASCII art, lying on his side?
I mean, unless you actually say it's Muhammed, it could be anyone. Even if you do say it's Muhammed, it could still be anyone.
-
As I have repeatedly stated, the image wasn't the problem, the lack of debatable dialogue was the problem. The whole reason this post is still open is because of the very Freedom of Speech I support, but what I am not comfortable with is the idea that these images are in some way 'trying to make the world a better place', because they simply are not.
-
for the greater good
(http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/freedomdemotivator.jpg)
-
And so emulating their attitude is the only possible response? They say insulting things to us, so the very best response we can come up with is to say insulting things to them?
Sink to the same level if you wish, because this is, regardless of your claims to the opposite, absolutely and undeniably about doing something that will insult people of a specific denomination, that's the whole point of the pictures. They were created in response to outrage from a relatively small number of people over the original 'Mohammed Cartoons', and in doing so, a minor, misinformed group has been encouraged and supported by the belligerence of others. This entire 'Image of Mohammed' issue would have been long, long over had it not been for the yearly regurgitation of this day and with each iteration, it creates more distrust and feelings of being insulted from the Muslim community as it becomes less a statement and more simply a case of trolling each year.
I wish.
you can assert that the moon is made of cheese until you are blue in the face, it won't make the lunar regolith go well with wine.
ok, so if 'their level' ends up winning, that is people are jailed if they say blasphemous statements or draw blasphemous images (and blasphemous is whatever the mob decides it is this month). then why should I not sink to it? because they are winning apparently, judging by your position in this.
-
As I have repeatedly stated, the image wasn't the problem, the lack of debatable dialogue was the problem. The whole reason this post is still open is because of the very Freedom of Speech I support, but what I am not comfortable with is the idea that these images are in some way 'trying to make the world a better place', because they simply are not.
and the fact that that simple ascii man on his side is insulting to some is insulting to me. rablerablerable!
-
You know, I'd like to think that jail isn't needed, that people would be able to figure out the problem without laws and learn a little empathy. Seems I over-estimate humanity sometimes.
As for the post about taking offence at people taking offence, did you read my post? Which part of the phrase 'The image wasn't the problem' relates to your response?
-
Silly bob, if we are just nice to them, they'll eventually learn all about love&peace and tolerance. Just don't offend them for the next 100 years.
-
There is a massive difference between taking offence at something and someone doing something deliberately offensive to you. Engage with them in this manner and it will be far longer than 100 years before they start learning love and peace and tolerance, because you are handing their leaders excuse after excuse to paint our culture in a very poor light.
-
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll find excuses regardless. Just indoctrinate childeren at schools with enough lies and altered history lessons and it'll be accepted as the common truth soon enough. If all else fails, blame israel and the jews.
Sure, I don't think this will have any kind of positive effect either. But it's not like the west has to just meekly accept all of their bull****.
-
Agreed, we don't, but we also don't need to be throwing **** around either. The best we can do for these countries right now is, as you yourself hinted at, encourage education and support for the people who live there, because the only weapon against ignorance is education, not abuse. Abuse, in any form, only serves to make matters worse.
-
ok, the point of the whole thing is that the most tame, most innocuous image of Mohamed is (as of some time around 2004) supposedly justification of murder.
How about asking yourself why they are seriously offended? What cultural, societal, and anthropological elements lead to such violent reaction to simple religious depictions?
The "answer" would turn into an academic study, no resolution, and fixes nothing. That being said, Free Speech is, and always has been a double-edged sword. If you say something, get ready to defend yourself on both criticism and responsibility for said actions. People can and will be offended, happens here, happens there, for the same or different reasons.
Attempting to use that [murder] justification is a red herring, appealing to emotional statement of murder simply dodges the problem of analysis. In this matter, it's knowing when you're trying make a valid point, which I see nothing more than a mere jest for quick kicks, not a solid examination and viable solutions.
-
It's reverse psychology. They really want you to draw and learn about Muhammad, and have been wildly successful. :)
j/k
-
found this "portrait" of him?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/Blank.svg/500px-Blank.svg.png)
epic exit strategy too.
-
ah, he's in a blizzard, nice.
-
There's actually several hadith that depict Mohammed, and there is also a veiled depiction of him in cave near Mecca that is considered holy. That's the thing.
The original Mohammed images were offensive largely because Mullahs in certain countries included images that were not images of Mohammed and weren't intended to be. In fact Shiite Muslims didn't really have a problem with it compared to Sunnis. The change came around when, rather than simply attempting to deal with the reaction with moderate and intelligent debate, instead certain people decided it would be fun to 'bait the Muslims'.
Just as Americans unify, regardless of disagreements, against someone who attacks or ridicules their culture, why is it such a surprise when other cultures react in precisely the same way?
-
being united does not make them right.
when certain things happen people react in a certain way. they react to cartoons by killing people, we respond to them killing people by drawing thousands more cartoons.
-
And so the circle continues...
-
yeah, the cold war did that too, until one of the two sides couldn't afford to play oneupmanship any more.
-
being united does not make them right.
when certain things happen people react in a certain way. they react to cartoons by killing people, we respond to them killing people by drawing thousands more cartoons.
And you deftly avoid my reservations likes Richard Dawkins does towards Oxfordian Armchair Atheists, oh joy!
This is why I belittle the movement, nary a trace of thought or study, history is merely a word, just a guttural utterance in numbers of DERRRRRPPPPP!!!!!!
(I was being sarcastic btw).
-
yeah, the cold war did that too, until one of the two sides couldn't afford to play oneupmanship any more.
The cost there was initially financial, though there was a large cost in life after the collapse. This isn't about one-upmanship, it's not about Nuclear proliferation, it's about people posting images that they know will lead to violence and death. Whether the people in these countries are misguided or not, that is not any kind of moral high-ground to stand on, it is simply encouraging an increase in hostility in a never-ending cycle.
-
I think only me and bob have taken the draw part seriously so far.
coming soon...? :nervous:
-
The cost there was initially financial, though there was a large cost in life after the collapse. This isn't about one-upmanship, it's not about Nuclear proliferation, it's about people posting images that they know will lead to violence and death. Whether the people in these countries are misguided or not, that is not any kind of moral high-ground to stand on, it is simply encouraging an increase in hostility in a never-ending cycle.
Oh no. It's about information. Pakistan has already cut itself off from Twitter over this; over information they perceive as hostile or damaging. How Orwellian are they prepared to be over ASCII images? That is the question.
-
Actually, they dropped the ban after 8 hours and Twitter is available again now.
I don't agree with the censorship instated by Pakistan, that probably wasn't the best way of dealing with the problem, but that doesn't mean that posting stuff that is designed to be abusive and insulting to their culture is the best way of confronting that mentality. Once again, the ASCII art is totally irrelevant and isn't really the issue being discussed here, it's the far more inflammatory ones being posted and the nonchalance towards the violence and death this creates, as though if enough people get killed, something will change. It won't, not via that route. All it does is give hardliners an excuse to say "See! They have no respect for our culture and we are justified in protecting ourselves against their insults!".
In other words, it's behaviour such as 'Draw Mohammed Day' that actually helps these people stay in power by living up to the stereotype of Westerners that they already project.
-
"See! They have no respect for our culture and we are justified in protecting ourselves against their insults!".
"See! They have no respect for the might of the Red Army!"
This is a circular and nonfunctional argument. They are attempting to protect people against information they regard as harmful to the view of reality that sustains their power, therefore creating that information enables them to maintain power. Please construct another one.
-
It's their argument, not mine. I'm not saying it isn't circular, but give them the ammunition, mix it with cultural and educational differences and that is the result. This isn't about 'constructing arguments', it's about what is actually going on.
-
Saw thread title when it was first posted..
Rephrased it to "Third Annual Be An Ignorant Asshat Day" in my mind..
Watched thread conversation..
Realized I was right..
Good jorb Bob.. *sigh*
-
It's their argument, not mine. I'm not saying it isn't circular, but give them the ammunition, mix it with cultural and educational differences and that is the result. This isn't about 'constructing arguments', it's about what is actually going on.
It is about constructing arguments. You've taken a position here that this event does more harm than good, and it is up to you to defend it when someone denies that it reflects reality; as I have, citing examples of why this is so.
No matter what they cite the simple fact is that attempting to ban outlets for speech regarded as destructive to order or confidence in authority either A: doesn't work if not hairtrigger since people will continue to find it; or B: places you at a serious disadvantage in the perception of reality if it is hairtrigger. No matter what is proclaimed about the nature of this event, in the end it forces a choice on what kind of ineffective the sort of Islam that takes offense wants to be or forces it to adapt.
I don't find that much of a problem at all.
-
Idunno, I kinda agree with Bob... in principle anyway. People who get offended too easily deserve to be offended. Except when they have power. In which case they deserve to lose that power.
Wait, this could probably be applied to me if someone could find something I get offended about.
Hey guys, how can I clarify "get offended too easily" in a manner that leaves me exempt? :D
-
Idunno, I kinda agree with Bob... in principle anyway. People who get offended too easily deserve to be offended. Except when they have power. In which case they deserve to lose that power.
Wait, this could probably be applied to me if someone could find something I get offended about.
Hey guys, how can I clarify "get offended too easily" in a manner that leaves me exempt? :D
say 'i'm a white straight male'
-
:ha: But it was a half-serious ethics question.
What makes one person's offense worth denying another person's rights? Is there any good reason to take offense at something besides a physical offense being made at you?
-
Well, it all falls back to the difference between taking offence and causing offence really. If someone takes offence at something someone else has said, then tough, they'll live. If someone doesn't agree with the existence of homosexuality, then fine, they're entitled to. If, however, someone actively seeks out Homosexuals in order to hurl abuse at them then that, to me, is not taking offence, it's setting out to cause it.
It's sort of like the difference between arguing for a shorter legal period in which an abortion can take place and hurling abuse at women outside abortion clinics. The first group, whilst I may not always agree with them, are at least accepting that there are other opinions, whereas the second group assume that they, and only they, are correct, which is a dangerous position to adopt.
-
:ha: But it was a half-serious ethics question.
A statement is probably worth worrying about if it infringes on someone's freedoms. This includes freedom from fear. 'Offense' is a weasel word that doesn't really belong in these discussions.
Is there any good reason to take offense at something besides a physical offense being made at you?
I hate all faggots and I'm never going to hire them. Women are ****s - is that your wife? What a *****. I bet she has you completely whipped.
-
Well, 'offence' is a pretty generic term, this is true, it's just easier than trying to break it up into the all the sub-genres that come with it. If the discussion were less polarised, I would differentiate more, but at the moment the word suffices.
-
I think every religion (and atheism), ideology and worldview should be regularly insulted. If nothing more, then just to stick it to those people who think their ideology deserves any special privileges, and to stick it to those people who think insults should somehow be against the law or regulated. Blaspheme away!
-
It's their argument, not mine. I'm not saying it isn't circular, but give them the ammunition, mix it with cultural and educational differences and that is the result. This isn't about 'constructing arguments', it's about what is actually going on.
It is about constructing arguments. You've taken a position here that this event does more harm than good, and it is up to you to defend it when someone denies that it reflects reality; as I have, citing examples of why this is so.
No matter what they cite the simple fact is that attempting to ban outlets for speech regarded as destructive to order or confidence in authority either A: doesn't work if not hairtrigger since people will continue to find it; or B: places you at a serious disadvantage in the perception of reality if it is hairtrigger. No matter what is proclaimed about the nature of this event, in the end it forces a choice on what kind of ineffective the sort of Islam that takes offense wants to be or forces it to adapt.
I don't find that much of a problem at all.
The thing is, when the founding fathers created the Right to Freedom of Speech, I think they expected people to be able to execute some level of self-control with regards to using it. And that's the problem, I talk about self-control, I've never once mentioned a preference for arresting people for it or banning it, but that is how you've chosen to interpret my words, as Bobboau did earlier.
It seems that merely talking to people is a pointless exercise in this day and age, it's threats in all directions or nothing, and Freedom of Speech is insults or bust.
If I intended to control Freedom of Speech, I would have locked this thread, instead I asked why the only possible response to the problems in Islam is to irritate them even more. Yes, you can do that, but where did the assumption that this is an intelligent way of dealing with the problem come from?
Edit: Bobboau has already quite openly stated that when people post these pictures, other people die. I feel extremely uncomfortable with people saying that it's ok to carry on posting those pictures safe from behind their computer screens whilst others pay the price. That's not pushing forward the ideals of Freedom, it's not even close to it. It's something considerably more sinister. That's why I ask people to stop and think for 30 seconds about the result of their actions in the larger scope, rather than just taking the opinion of 'Well, if people get killed, that's their problem, we'll just sit here and poke them even more'.
-
"Freedom of speech" does not mean "Freedom of consequence". It is astonishing to me how many people, especially on the internet, seem to think that just because you can say something means that noone in their right mind can object to it.
-
The problem there is that the argument goes "I don't care if they object to it, I still have a right to say it.", which is a handy way of avoiding responsibility for the outcome of that speech, because under those rules, no-one has to be held accountable for anything they say.
Sad truth is, appealing to peoples better nature is becoming a more and more futile gesture, it's almost as though asking people to show some empathy is, in some way, 'Anti-Freedom'.
-
I think the way that I saw it put on the rape topic sums up my opinion. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but yes I have the right to think you're an utter **** for the way you used it.
-
:ha: But it was a half-serious ethics question.
Is there any good reason to take offense at something besides a physical offense being made at you?
Does there need to be? There is no good reason for a lot things people do.
-
Yes, you have freedom of speech, but yes I have the right to think you're an utter **** for the way you used it.
</thread>
-
Bobboau has already quite openly stated that when people post these pictures, other people die.
Uh, no, he's stated that people say posting these pictures should be punishable by death. Not that anyone actually carries it out or even necessarily attempts to. That's a serious functional distinction. I doubt that you or he can trace a single actual death to this cause, and until you do that statement is hyperbole assuming I'm generous and a lie assuming I'm not.
I feel extremely uncomfortable with people saying that it's ok to carry on posting those pictures safe from behind their computer screens whilst others pay the price.
Which renders this portion of your post irrelevant.
You keep posting about Freedom of Speech; this has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech and everyone who thinks it does is deeply and truly missing the point. This is the internet's form of demonstrating against things it doesn't like. It serves the same purposes; it demonstrates discontent and values outside those supported by the group demonstrated against. The rest of humanity has something to say about their habits. That they don't like what is said about their habits is perhaps unfortunate, but it reflects on them, not on the rest of humanity. You might as well blame the Arab Spring protesters for the governments they were protesting.
It's about forced adaptation to the world outside a subcultural bubble. The sort of Islam that gets hacked off about this is, honestly, not a terribly nice place to be by most standards, and it would be cruel to leave people there without taking even perfunctory action. Compromising that subcultural bubble with information hostile to it forces either adaptation to such information or efforts to block that information which must invariably limit access to other information as well and thereby force such a subculture to grow more feeble.
-
Bobboau has already quite openly stated that when people post these pictures, other people die.
Uh, no, he's stated that people say posting these pictures should be punishable by death. Not that anyone actually carries it out or even necessarily attempts to. That's a serious functional distinction. I doubt that you or he can trace a single actual death to this cause, and until you do that statement is hyperbole assuming I'm generous and a lie assuming I'm not.
I feel extremely uncomfortable with people saying that it's ok to carry on posting those pictures safe from behind their computer screens whilst others pay the price.
Which renders this portion of your post irrelevant.
You keep posting about Freedom of Speech; this has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech and everyone who thinks it does is deeply and truly missing the point. This is the internet's form of demonstrating against things it doesn't like. It serves the same purposes; it demonstrates discontent and values outside those supported by the group demonstrated against. The rest of humanity has something to say about their habits. That they don't like what is said about their habits is perhaps unfortunate, but it reflects on them, not on the rest of humanity. You might as well blame the Arab Spring protesters for the governments they were protesting.
It's about forced adaptation to the world outside a subcultural bubble. The sort of Islam that gets hacked off about this is, honestly, not a terribly nice place to be by most standards, and it would be cruel to leave people there without taking even perfunctory action. Compromising that subcultural bubble with information hostile to it forces either adaptation to such information or efforts to block that information which must invariably limit access to other information as well and thereby force such a subculture to grow more feeble.
being united does not make them right.
when certain things happen people react in a certain way. they react to cartoons by killing people, we respond to them killing people by drawing thousands more cartoons.
That is an act, not a demand. So it's ok to have Freedom of Speech as long as long as someone else is being killed for it.
Yeah, I think Karajorma covered it...
-
They wanted to kill people anyway, that was just an excuse. If they're willing to kill because they got offended, then the problem isn't that they got offended.
You're not supposed to give in to behavior like that, Danegold, not negotiating with terrorists, ect. Though, in reality, lets just call this what it is. It's a bunch of immature people trying to show that they can't be controlled, especially by some stupid arabs.
-
That is an act, not a demand.
False dichotomy. Demands can also be acts. If I engage in illegal activity as part of civil disobedience, I am doing both. If I draw pictures of the prophet because I think the prohibition against drawing pictures of the prophet is asinine and should be changed, I am still doing both.
So it's ok to have Freedom of Speech as long as long as someone else is being killed for it.
You've made this assertion that people are being killed over this several times, uncritically accepting what Bob has told you even as you deny the reality of everything else he says. This is both very odd, and still not proof it actually happens.
Produce the evidence for this assertion if you intend to use it in your argument. Now.
-
That is an act, not a demand.
False dichotomy. Demands can also be acts. If I engage in illegal activity as part of civil disobedience, I am doing both. If I draw pictures of the prophet because I think the prohibition against drawing pictures of the prophet is asinine and should be changed, I am still doing both.
So it's ok to have Freedom of Speech as long as long as someone else is being killed for it.
You've made this assertion that people are being killed over this several times, uncritically accepting what Bob has told you even as you deny the reality of everything else he says. This is both very odd, and still not proof.
Produce the evidence for this assertion if you intend to use it in your argument. Now.
And so now you reverse even further, you make one claim, I prove that you are mistaken, so you change that claim to something else....
I'm tired of this thread because its turning faster and faster into justifications, rather than reasons.
-
And so now you reverse even further, you make one claim, I prove that you are mistaken, so you change that claim to something else....
What the hell are you talking about? No, seriously, I don't get this in the slightest. My position has not changed in the least; you may have proved a claim about acts, sure, but your claim was also that acts aren't and cannot be demands, which is clearly false. (Or does occupying Tahrir Square not counting as a demand?) I never believed either you or Bob about the killing thing, and I can prove it with quotes.
If you're just going to declare this crap you might want to actually illustrate it.
-
Yes it has, first you claimed Bobboau only said people demanded death and didn't do it, and accused me of being a liar for saying so, then, when I proved that he had said that, you've simply tried to take another tack.
It's duck and weave now, and, frankly, now it's got to this point, where you are doing things like implying I am a liar simply because (a) you didn't read the thread and (b) you don't agree with me, there's no real point continuing the conversation.
Goodnight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Deaths
-
Yes it has, first you claimed Bobboau only said people demanded death and didn't do it, and accused me of being a liar for saying so, then, when I proved that he had said that, you've simply tried to take another tack.
I can distinguish hyperbole from Bob, which you should probably be able to as well. (Considering that in previous threads he's even admitted he has a problem with doing it, it would be wise not to bring up a "you didn't read x" argument considering you're betraying that very problem.) Bob gave up on talking to you to convince because you refused to engage with his arguments; much as you have utterly refused to engage with mine.
So. You're right about people dying. (Sort of; of those the actual direct influence on many of them is shakey. I count two incidents that are semi-clear in direct relationship; several others are the result of protesters killing other protestors; one doesn't even offer evidence of relationship at all.)
Now for the grand question.
So what?
People have died for all kinds of causes. Dying over depictions of the Prophet is admittedly not very high on the list of things people ordinarily care about, but you're not presenting a valid argument for stopping simply by saying "people get killed over this". People get killed over all kinds of things related to pictures, some of them considerably less high (gang tags, graffiti) on the give-a-damn meter than a major religious figure.
The concept that people are threatening to kill other people over an action and doing that very action as a form of protest against such killing has a long history in human endeavor. India's independence movement; civil rights and voting rights for blacks in the US; Tahrir Square again; pretty much every civil war in history. The mere fact they're killing people over it goes a long way towards rendering them discredited and discredible. The fact they can't kill everyone means it isn't going to help them to kill people, only hurt them.
Again, it was never about free speech.
-
If people are getting killed over Draw Mohammed Day, its the fault of the over-zealous Muslisms who respond to every perceived slight on their faith as an invitation to murder people, not the people drawing Mohammed.
-
If people are getting killed over Draw Mohammed Day, its the fault of the over-zealous Muslisms who respond to every perceived slight on their faith as an invitation to murder people, not the people drawing Mohammed.
The difference is that Draw Mohammed Day is specifically designed to piss them off. I'm not about to really defend anybody who would actually kill over it, but to say it's 100% their fault for getting mad that there is an entire movement dedicated to deliberately desecrating their holy figures is folly.
-
No one is saying that the people doing the killings aren't responsible for their actions. What they are saying is the equivalent of saying that if you walk into a biker bar and say "I ****ed your mother" to the biggest biker, you can't claim to have no responsibility for the arse-kicking you received. Yes that in no way diminishes the biker's responsible for the assault, but no, that doesn't mean you are completely innocent.
Flipside's point is that while maybe it's noble for people to die in the cause of freedom from religious repression, the Draw Mohammed Day people never seem to realise that they aren't giving some of the people who die any choice about the matter. They draw Mohammed, people in far away countries riot as a result (A fact they know will happen), people get killed in the riots, and then the people who who drew Mohammed fail to give a **** about the implications of their attitudes.
Do that in your own country and you'd find yourself in jail for inciting a riot.
-
If people are getting killed over Draw Mohammed Day, its the fault of the over-zealous Muslisms who respond to every perceived slight on their faith as an invitation to murder people, not the people drawing Mohammed.
The difference is that Draw Mohammed Day is specifically designed to piss them off. I'm not about to really defend anybody who would actually kill over it, but to say it's 100% their fault for getting mad that there is an entire movement dedicated to deliberately desecrating their holy figures is folly.
Except this day was not created with the specific intent to enrage Muslisms to murder, at least to me. It was created in response to the initial wave of murder-craze saying "we won't be intimidated by a bunch of murderous zealots". That being said, it probably has gone on too long and is now probably mostly used to antagonize people.
-
Indeed.
See the thing is, I have often complained at religious people for allowing the fundamentalists to misrepresent them. The religious moderates far too often don't do anything when the fanatics do something crazy in the name of their religion instead of shouting them down. Draw Mohammed Day is a fantastic example of atheists showing the same despicable disregard for the actions of their crazies and ****-stirrers.
-
The idea this is an atheist thing also needs supporting detail to prove it, since a lot of the participants the first couple of times were definitely Christian.
And, of course, this ignores the classic cycle of demonstration; first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Killing people doesn't buy them anything and hurts their cause if what they're killing over doesn't stop.
-
as far as I know, no one has died from Draw Mohamed Day specifically, yet, would not be surprised if it happened, because people HAVE died because of drawings of Mohamed in general.
-
Which brings me to the whole crux of the matter. Do you care?
-
"We will be heard and people will let us do what we want, and if others get killed in the process, well, that's just the cost of forwarding our ideals"
Funny how that argument applies to both sides now...
Seems that simple human compassion, empathy and tolerance, the very things we are supposed to be representing, fall by the wayside in favour of what amounts to Cultural Trolling.
If this is the 'best' we have to offer then Nuke is right, we are ****ed as a species.
-
As long as there will be cultural extremists, there will be cultural trolls to tease them. And I think that is a positive thing. These mentally unstable individuals need to be exposed, not appeased. What better way to expose extremism than to insult an ideology and see who acts outside the norms?
Indeed.
See the thing is, I have often complained at religious people for allowing the fundamentalists to misrepresent them. The religious moderates far too often don't do anything when the fanatics do something crazy in the name of their religion instead of shouting them down. Draw Mohammed Day is a fantastic example of atheists showing the same despicable disregard for the actions of their crazies and ****-stirrers.
Not really. Drawing a Mohammed or insulting Islam is not crazy or fundamentalist. **** needs to be stirred.
-
Even if people die as a result.
You know, I've finally understood why so many people avoid GD, and it's certainly time to join them.
-
Not really. Drawing a Mohammed or insulting Islam is not crazy or fundamentalist. **** needs to be stirred.
Deliberately going out of your way to insult 1.2 billion people in a way that might result in deaths of people who don't even belong to that group simply because they don't hold your beliefs or lack of them isn't fundamentalist?
Flipside put it rather well, that sort of rhetoric is really starting to sound like exactly what the other side says.
-
Even if people die as a result.
You know, I've finally understood why so many people avoid GD, and it's certainly time to join them.
Yes, it is unfortunate, but even if people die. We dont negotiate with terrorists. Otherwise it means they won. And a bunch of extremists rioters is even a few steps below organized terrorists in my book.
-
Yes, it is unfortunate, but even if people die. We dont negotiate with terrorists. Otherwise it means they won. And a bunch of extremists rioters is even a few steps below organized terrorists in my book.
support are troops
e: ahaha, kara, this guy thinks you (or your ancestors?) should have been banned from the UK
-
How does "we do not negotiate with terrorists" lead to "trolling huge groups of people is totally OK"?
-
Yes, it is unfortunate, but even if people die. We dont negotiate with terrorists. Otherwise it means they won. And a bunch of extremists rioters is even a few steps below organized terrorists in my book.
If you descend to their level that also means they won. And when you've reached the point where you say "I don't care who dies as long as the masses rise up and depose the system I don't agree with", you've sunk to their level.
-
Even if people die as a result.
You know, I've finally understood why so many people avoid GD, and it's certainly time to join them.
Yes, it is unfortunate, but even if people die. We dont negotiate with terrorists. Otherwise it means they won. And a bunch of extremists rioters is even a few steps below organized terrorists in my book.
Man, sure is easy for other people to die for your convictions.
-
srsly
-
This seems as good a time as any to say that last semester I started a new religion that worships Laplace Transforms. Anyone want to draw a few of those?
-
This seems as good a time as any to say that last semester I started a new religion that worships Laplace Transforms. Anyone want to draw a few of those?
sodomize yourself with a dirac delta you heretic
-
This is getting ridiculous. It's not just a question of whether this is worth doing if it leads to people being killed. It's a question of whether this trolling makes arabs more or less violent in the first place. I can't answer either. That we are even discussing this may be because comedy central gave in to their demands and showed them threatening people was a good way to get what they want.
-
Yes, it is unfortunate, but even if people die. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Otherwise it means they won. And a bunch of extremists rioters is even a few steps below organized terrorists in my book.
While at it, why not a preemptive strike against any government that doesn't officially endorse this event, they might be negotiating with terrorists after all?
Seriously, if you fight mindless violence with acts that build new ground for mindless violence you've become part of the problem.
It's a question of whether this trolling makes arabs more or less violent in the first place.
They didn't manage to force their views on us, chances are it doesn't work the other way either.
-
It's a question of whether this trolling makes arabs more or less violent in the first place.
They didn't manage to force their views on us, chances are it doesn't work the other way either.
Their views were riduculous and were backed up with violence. Lets not pretend this is the same.
-
It's a question of whether this trolling makes arabs more or less violent in the first place.
They didn't manage to force their views on us, chances are it doesn't work the other way either.
Their views were riduculous and were backed up with violence. Lets not pretend this is the same.
Riiiiight, because the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (mostly Iraq) were not based at all on ridiculous views or backed up with violence.
-
Their views were riduculous and were backed up with violence. Lets not pretend this is the same.
All that would be fine, if it was also *theirs* point of view.
-
I wasn't trying to justify the war in Iraq. We really screwed the pooch there. I was referring to the people who think they should prevent everyone from drawing Mohamed, sorry that wasn't clear.
Just so everybody's clear, we're talking about radical muslims knowing that they can't get what they want by threatening people's lives. I don't think the two messages are comparable. Even from their perspective, I think that's something that can be understood. If not by the individual, then at least by his followers.
-
We dont negotiate with terrorists. Otherwise it means they won.
Now you just sound like a moron (and a parrot).
Do you know what happens if a terrorist holds a gun to your head and makes demands, and you play the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" act? You get your ****ing head blown off. The whole mess in Iraq and Afghanistan could've been avoided if we had negotiated with bin Laden. And furthermore bin Laden was right, we shouldn't have so many damn bases in the Middle East, and we shouldn't be such a corporatist state.
[/rant]
Edit: wait, did I miss a whole page or something?
-
bin Laden was not right and knuckling under to terrorist demands is asinine. He should've been treated as a common criminal, not an enemy leader.
-
Exactly. Threating terrorists like enemies only helps them, since that means they're taken much more seriously. Also, did you thought about how many of those fanatics actually adhere to what Mohamed said? I believe that there are more people in America who adhere to Mohamed's teachings than there are fanatics shouting his name in the middle east.
-
I said
And furthermore bin Laden was right, we shouldn't have so many damn bases in the Middle East, and we shouldn't be such a corporatist state.
And you replied
bin Laden was not right
You are either saying that it's not a problem that the USA is such a corporatist state, or that this (see below) is not "too damn many". Or both. Or you're arguing with the man instead of with the idea.
(http://www.antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1.-us-bases-in-the-middle-east-a.jpg)
You then went on to say knuckling under to terrorist demands is asinine.
We lost >5000 Americans in the September 11th attacks, and in the completely pointless Iraq war, and the almost-as-pointless Afghan war.
Now suppose that sometime before September of 2011 we stopped doing the thing that made bin Laden want us dead, i.e. we stopped having too damn many bases in the Middle East. How many people would have been killed in the 9/11 attack? None.
-
It's never a good idea to ignore the geopolitical and economic underpinnings of bin Laden's band of criminals, but at the same time, it's never a good idea to ignore the ideological component either. You cannot argue a counterfactual about what would or would not have happened if US deployment policy had changed during the Clinton years.
e: seriously trying to boil down this insanely interconnected chain of events into a dependency on one variable is just goofy
We lost >5000 Americans in the September 11th attacks, and in the completely pointless Iraq war, and the almost-as-pointless Afghan war.
Classy job writing off all the non-Americans we killed (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-thumbsup.gif)
-
Yes, there might have been other factors... like maybe he had enough of a power trip that he'd keep the fight going just to keep his minions.
But we knew what he wanted (or at least what he said he wanted). We could at any time have said (to ourselves):
Let's withdraw from these bases, because they are an enormous resource drain, and because they are destabilizing the region more than they are doing any good. While we're at it, let's make good foreign policy decisions involving Israel and Palestine, instead of acting as though Israel can do no evil.
Not even any "negotiating with terrorists" required.
w.r.t. non-Americans: better than pulling a number out of my ass. The 5000 on the other hand is based on numbers I knew, ~3000 from 9/11 and 2000+ servicemen killed.
-
I don't feel remotely qualified to speak to any of those points and neither should you. Any kind of analysis on this subject without a damn lot of footnotes is rank pretense.
bin Laden and his lieutenants explicitly called for the creation of a Muslim caliphate that would oppose Israel and the United States. Removing US bases was one of many strategic goals; the US would never have abandoned support of Israel and that alone would have motivated an attack.
w.r.t. non-Americans: better than pulling a number out of my ass
All we're doing here is pulling things out of our asses. Be realistic.
-
Yes, it is unfortunate, but even if people die. We dont negotiate with terrorists. Otherwise it means they won. And a bunch of extremists rioters is even a few steps below organized terrorists in my book.
support are troops
e: ahaha, kara, this guy thinks you (or your ancestors?) should have been banned from the UK
uhm... what? I dont know what you are talking about at all.
If you descend to their level that also means they won. And when you've reached the point where you say "I don't care who dies as long as the masses rise up and depose the system I don't agree with", you've sunk to their level.
I never said that I dont care. I do, but the alternative, to give in to the demands of those who use violence to threaten people into submision, is worse.
As for levels, there is a subsurface level for those who troll radicals with a tendency for violent response. Then there are several miles of ocean. Then at the bottom under a fat layer of sediment there are those radicals that are being trolled. Not comparable at all, IMHO.
-
What demands? This is the 3rd Annual Draw Mohammed Day. By the time you've picked a day of the year to do something you can't claim that you're doing it in response to something like terrorism. The first one might have been a legitimate response to something but by now you're just waiting for Hallmark to bring out a card for the occasion.
So again, I ask you why is this worth the death of other people?
-
By the time you've picked a day of the year to do something you can't claim that you're doing it in response to something like terrorism.
This statement makes not a lick of sense. A continuing problem can most certainly have a continuing response.
-
So again, I ask you why is this worth the death of other people?
yes
-
Congratulations, you managed to answer yes to a question asking you to explain.
-
oh, crap, sorry, I didn't notice the 'why' there. gimme a sec.
-
because who would these 'other people' be?
Others who have been found drawing Mohamed and were punished for there transgressions against god? if they were drawing Mohamed then they were of a like mind and felt the same as us that it was worth risking your life for.
A Muslim who was killed while trying to kill the above group? self defense, he should not have been trying to kill someone for saying something he disagreed with.
random bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Someone uninvolved who will be killed if we do no capitulate to demands? I believe the technical term for that is a hostage. and I think we all know the term for people who take hostages, and the standard policy on negotiating with them.
-
wait what you didn't explain why i dont even
if they were drawing Mohamed then they were of a like mind and felt the same as us that it was worth risking your life for.
don't think this is exactly what Kara was talking about, and even if it were you neglected to mention why they [you] think it was worth risking their [your] life for. (aside from that they [you] do)
A Muslim who was killed while trying to kill the above group? self defense, he should not have been trying to kill someone for saying something he disagreed with.
uh, all right. I suppose it's your right to believe that tricking stupid people into committing crimes is a good idea.
random bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Someone uninvolved who will be killed if we do no capitulate to demands? I believe the technical term for that is a hostage. and I think we all know the term for people who take hostages, and the standard policy on negotiating with them.
that's not a reason why it's ok to draw mohamed if we assume it causes death.
-
ok, how about this.
because life is not worth living if it must be done living under fear that what you say can lead to your incarceration or death. the ultimate goal of this protest is for there to be no reaction to it.
-
because life is not worth living if it must be done living under fear that what you say can lead to your incarceration or death. the ultimate goal of this protest is for there to be no reaction to it.
I am afraid that I will get b& if I start calling everyone dirty names, but I neither stop posting because of it nor continuously call people dirty names. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this draw Mohamed thing is something that would stop if it were anywhere near as likely that the people that drew Mohamed would die as me getting b&. And I'm not going to even touch why you assume that everyone that would get killed in this situation agrees with you.
-
I honestly am having a hard time following you... ok, look let me just boil it down. I value freedom of expression, a lot. there, that's why.
-
He's basically saying that if you were in a situation where someone said "I might kill this dude over here if you draw Mohamed."... then you probably wouldn't draw Mohamed as quickly as you made this thread. Regardless of your stance on negotiating with them or how much you value freedom of expression or your feeling that it's worth the risk.
Way out here, so removed from any actual danger, it's pretty easy to say some words and say it's worth the risk.
-
Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, this is the 3rd such day. Is there a need for a 3rd day of protest? What happened between the 1st day and now to make it clear such a protest is needed? Haven't you made your point already? At what point do those of you who consider the day is unnecessary? As long as a minority still call for death? One or two imams? Any Muslim in the world?
With no statement of your goals beyond "Let's stick it to some fanatics" it's really hard to see what the goals of this day are beyond trolling.
-
At what point do those of you who consider the day is unnecessary? As long as a minority still call for death? One or two imams? Any Muslim in the world?
Yep, pretty much this long. Because trolling someone peaceful and moderate is just a dickish thing to do (but still should be perfectly legal unless it is harrassment or something). But trolling an extremist is almost a moral obligation!
Also, when it is repeated it may help to desensitise muslims to insults of their faith.
-
Yep, pretty much this long. Because trolling someone peaceful and moderate is just a dickish thing to do (but still should be perfectly legal unless it is harrassment or something). But trolling an extremist is almost a moral obligation!
Trolling is just harassment filtered through the internet. Trolling someone, as you so rightly said, is a dickish thing to do, so why not follow Wheatons' Law and not do it when you know that the vast majority of people you are trolling is moderate and thus will only be radicalized by said trolling?
Also, when it is repeated it may help to desensitise muslims to insults of their faith.
I heard that being called a dickhead stops being insulting once you've been called a dickhead ten times. But that's not how humans work, now is it?
-
I heard that being called a dickhead stops being insulting once you've been called a dickhead ten times. But that's not how humans work, now is it?
I heard being able to depict one of the most influential religious and historical figures of all time is the same thing as calling people dickheads.
Seriously, that's a completely **** comparison of behavior, reflecting absolutely none of what makes this discussion tick. You're better than that.
-
I heard that being called a dickhead stops being insulting once you've been called a dickhead ten times. But that's not how humans work, now is it?
I heard being able to depict one of the most influential religious and historical figures of all time is the same thing as calling people dickheads.
Seriously, that's a completely **** comparison of behavior, reflecting absolutely none of what makes this discussion tick. You're better than that.
Hey stop using this post template you've picked up where it's [argument] [derisive personal attack] tia
-
Hey stop using this post template you've picked up where it's [argument] [derisive personal attack] tia
I have distilled the arguments against this to their essence and turned them around. "This is bad. You're dicks."
If it's not appreciated come up with more substantive levels to engage with the discussion people.
-
Seriously, that's a completely **** comparison of behavior, reflecting absolutely none of what makes this discussion tick. You're better than that.
Why, exactly? If his hypothesis is that repeatedly insulting someone, or groups of someones, will lead to that group of people eventually becoming desensitized to being insulted, I want to see some proof. Personally, I believe that this is very much not the case; especially when talking about groups that receive a constant influx of new members. Someone is bound to take offence all over again, thus restarting the argument.
In addition, labelling a certain group of insults to be basically OK to use because "they need to grow up" is a rather silly concept in my opinion, and certainly does not deserve to be taken even remotely serious.
-
Not even gonna bother reading the entire thread. So sue me. Just stop being dicks and debate nicely.
So.... let's just call it "Draw [your deity's/religion's revered persona's name here] Day, sit back with muay thais and see which worldwide communities panic.
Here's my contribution: something I thought up myself, drew myself, and am posting myself (as a Jewish believer in Jesus who holds both the Old Testament and the New as the Word of God):
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1272883/ENIMAGE1331650502776.jpg)
-
I heard that being called a dickhead stops being insulting once you've been called a dickhead ten times. But that's not how humans work, now is it?
I heard being able to depict one of the most influential religious and historical figures of all time is the same thing as calling people dickheads.
Seriously, that's a completely **** comparison of behavior, reflecting absolutely none of what makes this discussion tick. You're better than that.
Hey stop using this post template you've picked up where it's [argument] [derisive personal attack] tia
This.
Oh so this.
-
@The E: Which ignores the point that, again, it's not really about childishness or whether or not this is insulting, but about the degree of response and the nature of what's being said.
If we were saying "Brigham Young is a jackass" then yes, that would be a case of someone being outright insulting. But we're not calling the Prophet a jackass. (Well, not most of us.) And also, Mormons wouldn't threaten to kill people over Brigham Young being called a jackass.
We are drawing pictures of someone who is a major religious, and more importantly a major historical, figure. You are proposing something equivalent to a ban on depictions of George Washington, or Lenin, or Kaiser Wilhem II, because simply depicting such a person is considered insulting. Now I don't think much of Willie either, probably a lot less than I think of the Prophet since the Prophet actually accomplished some admirable things, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to make any depiction of him demeaning. Nevertheless we should ban all depictions of him.
This is not a matter of being childishly insulted; it's an issue of attempting to assert control. The threats and actual instances of violence only make that more clear. The idea that the outrage is over insults when even the most flattering portrayal would draw the same sort of condemnations as the least flattering is extremely hard to sustain.
-
There's an interesting discussion to be had about this topic - a complex one on which my thoughts haven't settled - but this thread is not getting that job done.
sit back with muay thais
i think you mean mai tai
-
but this thread is not getting that job done.
Considering your habit of chastising threads in this manner, I have to ask if you feel it's A: actually going to accomplish something, and B: is somehow more effective than actually participating in an effort to steer the thread back on track whatever you regard "on track" to mean.
(Yes I'm veering wildly offtopic but then this habit has always bugged me.)
-
Yeah, I think it can accomplish something. We recently had a really good thread on a controversial topic, and it did require a fair bit of posting about posting. I agree that backseat moderating can be super annoying, but HLP's conversational dynamics are (by this point in our august history) so ossified and the moderators so ineffectual compared to other forums that I don't think the occasional kick will hurt.
I do think there's a very interesting core point here, one which cuts across feminism, civil rights, and every other sector of cultural policy. To what extent are the traditions of one group valuable when they constrain the freedoms of another? Would we be more responsive to demands to avoid depicting Mohammed if they weren't accompanied by insane violence and rioting? Would these demands be more worthy of consideration if they were presented via peaceful demonstration, mass sit-ins, letter writing, whatever?
There's a tricky entanglement here between the problematic methods used to defend the no-depiction cause, and the question of the fundamental worth of that cause. The prohibition against depicting Mohammed is arbitrary unless you subscribe to a subset of Muslim beliefs. How much do we value arbitrary prohibitions? Should they ever receive any consideration at all? Should that consideration be practical (depicting Mohammed could get people killed) or principled (we should consider the beliefs of others, even those we don't understand, and limit certain freedoms out of respect for them)?
I'm not totally sure where I stand.
e: it's really hard to have good effective debate anywhere, let alone on a modding forum, but I think the most valuable thing is to shoot for a conversational rather than antagonistic approach. Spending time restating the other side's points and exploring their implications like you're gently jerking each other off in a bathhouse lightly glazed in sweat but it's not gay no gay **** here is a lot more valuable than angry morally outraged rebuttals
-
Well the fact that the typical response is fanatical calls for retribution and violence doesn't garner much in the way of sympathy, typically it strokes most folks' "**** you" button. Acting in a progressive fashion would certainly get them a much better response in the West. Take Israel/Palestine for example, the Palestinian position would be much more legitimate and would have made much greater gains for their people if they had been practicing civil disobedience all these years rather then blowing up shopping marts and shooting rockets.
-
Agreed. I think I see two obstacles to that kind of response. The first is cultural - there's just no institution of peaceful disobedience in place (correct me if I'm wrong). The second is strategic, and one I'm even less certain about: would that kind of peaceful protest be effective, whether in Palestine or in this case?
There's also a pretty significant difference between Palestine and here. I'd say the Palestinians definitely have an issue to stand on even when their methods are questionable, but I'm not convinced 'don't depict Mohammed, even in other cultures' is a petition that should ever be entertained.
-
The prohibition against depicting Mohammed is arbitrary unless you subscribe to a subset of Muslim beliefs. How much do we value arbitrary prohibitions? Should they ever receive any consideration at all? Should that consideration be practical (depicting Mohammed could get people killed) or principled (we should consider the beliefs of others, even those we don't understand, and limit certain freedoms out of respect for them)?
To me, considering such prohibitions seems to be a kind of slippery slope. But hey, I'm a SWM, what do I know?
"I feel outraged when people depict pirates with a wooden leg! It makes me feel inadequate and pressures me into amputating my leg to meet expectations!"
"Arrr!"
RABLE RABLE RABLE...
-
Agreed. I think I see two obstacles to that kind of response. The first is cultural - there's just no institution of peaceful disobedience in place (correct me if I'm wrong). The second is strategic, and one I'm even less certain about: would that kind of peaceful protest be effective, whether in Palestine or in this case?
There's also a pretty significant difference between Palestine and here. I'd say the Palestinians definitely have an issue to stand on even when their methods are questionable, but I'm not convinced 'don't depict Mohammed, even in other cultures' is a petition that should ever be entertained.
I think in both cases it would stimulate much better results then what they currently receive. Our response to depicting the Prophet if they had voiced there discontent in a peaceful manner would be much less knee jerk. As for Israel I think it would pretty much negate the IDF's big tan kill power. Running over a bunch of peaceful protesters with a Merkava won't make good copy with the rest of the world.
-
Well the fact that the typical response is fanatical calls for retribution and violence doesn't garner much in the way of sympathy, typically it strokes most folks' "**** you" button. Acting in a progressive fashion would certainly get them a much better response in the West. Take Israel/Palestine for example, the Palestinian position would be much more legitimate and would have made much greater gains for their people if they had been practicing civil disobedience all these years rather then blowing up shopping marts and shooting rockets.
Agreed.
However, I must ask: How is all that protesting working out for say, Tibet? :p
-
Well the fact that the typical response is fanatical calls for retribution and violence doesn't garner much in the way of sympathy, typically it strokes most folks' "**** you" button. Acting in a progressive fashion would certainly get them a much better response in the West. Take Israel/Palestine for example, the Palestinian position would be much more legitimate and would have made much greater gains for their people if they had been practicing civil disobedience all these years rather then blowing up shopping marts and shooting rockets.
Agreed.
However, I must ask: How is all that protesting working out for say, Tibet? :p
The rest of the world isn't financed by Israel? :P
-
Well the fact that the typical response is fanatical calls for retribution and violence doesn't garner much in the way of sympathy, typically it strokes most folks' "**** you" button. Acting in a progressive fashion would certainly get them a much better response in the West. Take Israel/Palestine for example, the Palestinian position would be much more legitimate and would have made much greater gains for their people if they had been practicing civil disobedience all these years rather then blowing up shopping marts and shooting rockets.
Agreed.
However, I must ask: How is all that protesting working out for say, Tibet? :p
About as well as all that blowing stuff up is working for Palestine.
-
There are degrees to which nonviolent protest works. Israel is a modern country with a free press and no real tradition of longterm censorship. It might, however, have a racial divide that can be exploited...but only to a point. In the end the religion/racial thing will still work against them.
The classic success of nonviolence is India and it's instructive to consider who they succeeded against, and what they did when someone else threatened to take over. You can use nonviolence against the British because they regard themselves as moral people and there are lengths to which they are not prepared to go. Most of the Indian independence movement was more than happy to support the Brits during World War 2, however, because they perceived correctly that Imperial Japan would not be swayed by such tactics.
So it is with Israel; the explicitly Jewish state can justify the use of any and all means so long as you continue to threaten their existence, but in being explicitly Jewish they carry with them certain morals about not slaughtering the innocent and soforth.
China has manifest destiny issues with Tibet, a long tradition of censorship, racial divides that they will gleefully exploit, and long struggle with the concept of morality in government being a good thing.
-
However, I must ask: How is all that protesting working out for say, Tibet? :p
You mean the rather violent riots where they beat up immigrants and set buildings on fire?
-
I think it shouldn't be without any surprise that I support Battuta's take on the point of this thread. Depictions of Muhammed and freedom of expression are one thing, but I'm calling out Draw Mohamed Day on the entire methodology behind it. My biased opinion is that it falls into another pointless troll-a-thon, rather forming a concrete protest of a more concrete issue, like the problem of literal wage slaves used in the Persian Gulf countries.
Think of it as "I cast magic missile and attack the darkness!"
Attempting to attack such a large and amorphous blob doesn't really net any positive gains except Lulz and Derps.
-
But I like Lulz and Derps :(
-
I think it's pretty juvenile to try and prevent people from making fun of you. It's something you learn when you grow up. Personally, I think most children figure it out when they find out that it mostly eggs people on. Looking at Arabs as culturally underdeveloped, wouldn't this be the best way for them to learn it? It's the same way everybody else has learned it.
I think the question will be whether or not the reasonable arabs see it as hateful or merely a reaction to a bunch of radicals. How will the trolling be presented to them? Personally, I found most of the pictures to be amusing.
-
Go into a bar of any kind and call everyone inside a mother ****ing faggot. Odds are significantly better than even that they'll prevent you from doing it very quickly and very violently. Does that make the reaction that of radical funadmentalists? **** no, it makes you a flaming idiot.
There are any one of a thousand other things you could better be spending your time on to "help Arabs learn that they're culturally underdeveloped".
-
Trolling is just harassment filtered through the internet. Trolling someone, as you so rightly said, is a dickish thing to do, so why not follow Wheatons' Law and not do it when you know that the vast majority of people you are trolling is moderate and thus will only be radicalized by said trolling?
I heard that being called a dickhead stops being insulting once you've been called a dickhead ten times. But that's not how humans work, now is it?
It is not harassment when 1) it happens through the Internet (because you can usually block the harasser) 2) if you attack an idea instead of a person. (otherwise a political cartoon insulting democrats is a harassment, there is no difference between religion and politics, both are ideologies)
And yes, desensitisation does work. If you are called a dickhead once, you may react violently. If you are called a dickhead ten times, then you probably wont bother anymore.
-
Go into a bar of any kind and call everyone inside a mother ****ing faggot.
Returning to the root of this entire issue, drawing a political cartoon is hardly equivalent of cursing someone to their face.
-
I think it's pretty juvenile to try and prevent people from making fun of you. It's something you learn when you grow up. Personally, I think most children figure it out when they find out that it mostly eggs people on. Looking at Arabs as culturally underdeveloped, wouldn't this be the best way for them to learn it? It's the same way everybody else has learned it.
I think the question will be whether or not the reasonable arabs see it as hateful or merely a reaction to a bunch of radicals. How will the trolling be presented to them? Personally, I found most of the pictures to be amusing.
Muslims are not Arabs in the sense of the two sets mapping perfectly
-
Go into a bar of any kind and call everyone inside a mother ****ing faggot.
Come on people, we've been over this point...god I don't even know. I know I've been over it in this thread at least three times on my own. The horse about it being insulting is dead. We resurrected it. We killed the zombie. We burned the corpse. The ghost showed up so we exorcised it.
Nobody is presenting an argument for why it should be considered the same thing to back their assertions it is. If we could maybe ban the next person who equates drawing any possible image of the Prophet with verbal insults and doesn't offer some kind of supporting argument for why that makes sense, we might make some progress here.
-
somehow I'm not comfortable with the idea of banning someone for saying something you don't want them to say...
-
I think it's pretty juvenile to try and prevent people from making fun of you. It's something you learn when you grow up. Personally, I think most children figure it out when they find out that it mostly eggs people on. Looking at Arabs as culturally underdeveloped, wouldn't this be the best way for them to learn it? It's the same way everybody else has learned it.
I think the question will be whether or not the reasonable arabs see it as hateful or merely a reaction to a bunch of radicals. How will the trolling be presented to them? Personally, I found most of the pictures to be amusing.
Muslims are not Arabs in the sense of the two sets mapping perfectly
Indeed, there are many Muslims who are not Arab, such as Muslims from Iran or South or Southeast Asia, for example. And there are Arabs who are not Muslims, such as Arab Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians).
Go into a bar of any kind and call everyone inside a mother ****ing faggot.
Come on people, we've been over this point...god I don't even know. I know I've been over it in this thread at least three times on my own. The horse about it being insulting is dead. We resurrected it. We killed the zombie. We burned the corpse. The ghost showed up so we exorcised it.
Nobody is presenting an argument for why it should be considered the same thing to back their assertions it is. If we could maybe ban the next person who equates drawing any possible image of the Prophet with verbal insults and doesn't offer some kind of supporting argument for why that makes sense, we might make some progress here.
Drawing an image of Muhammad is analogous to verbal insults in that the motive for doing so is to offend others. What might a respectful or otherwise inoffensive depiction of Muhammad look like, and what would be the artist's motive for creating and disseminating it if not to be offensive?
-
Drawing an image of Muhammad is analogous to verbal insults in that the motive for doing so is to offend others. What might a respectful or otherwise inoffensive depiction of Muhammad look like, and what would be the artist's motive for creating and disseminating it if not to be offensive?
This is where it falls apart. Muhammad is a historical figure. His life and his actions are a part of the historical record; unlike Jesus or Buddha, who are difficult to provide good historical evidence of and who left little trace to mark their steps, Muhammad's life and times are imminently important in understanding the history of the Arabian Peninsula. Depicting him is, as such, entirely possible to be educational, nationalistic, inspirational or negative propaganda both, or simply a personal tribute by the artist to a man who left an exile, returned a conquering hero, and founded one of the world's greatest religions.
The depiction of the two pivotal events in the existence of early Islam, the flight to Medina and the return to Mecca, could be any or all of the above things.
-
and may Shiva help you if you decide to make a critical documentary about him.
-
I think it's pretty juvenile to try and prevent people from making fun of you. It's something you learn when you grow up. Personally, I think most children figure it out when they find out that it mostly eggs people on. Looking at Arabs as culturally underdeveloped, wouldn't this be the best way for them to learn it? It's the same way everybody else has learned it.
I think the question will be whether or not the reasonable arabs see it as hateful or merely a reaction to a bunch of radicals. How will the trolling be presented to them? Personally, I found most of the pictures to be amusing.
Muslims are not Arabs in the sense of the two sets mapping perfectly
Indeed, there are many Muslims who are not Arab, such as Muslims from Iran or South or Southeast Asia, for example. And there are Arabs who are not Muslims, such as Arab Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians).
"Islamic traditions include a number of instances in which the Prophet had the opportunity to retaliate against those who abused him, but refrained from doing so. He said, "You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness." "
Muslim is the wrong word too. I chose brevity over precision.
-
Go into a bar of any kind and call everyone inside a mother ****ing faggot.
Different thing, insulting a person vs. insulting an ideology. And still, law and morality is firmly on the side of the one who insults in such case.
And if in that bar there is a bunch of extremists who would advocate death or harsh legal punishments for calling someone a mother****ing faggot (as numerous muslim extremists do), then yes. It is almost our moral obligation to do it.
-
And still, law and morality is firmly on the side of the one who insults in such case.
wat. Since when is it morally and legally acceptable to go into a bar and call everyone a mother****ing faggot?
-
Gah, can we all just assume that that was a terrible analogy and move on? Drunks deserve a different set of rules entirely and even your average "Biker" should know better than to feed trolls on the internet by now.
-
my issue wasn't with the analogy, my issue was with what he said.
-
it is illegal to go into a bar and call everyone a mother****ing faggot?
-
A Muslim, a Jew, and a Christian walk into a bar...
-
it is illegal to go into a bar and call everyone a mother****ing faggot?
Depends on where you are and the manner in which you do it.
-
@Bobboau: I believe it is illegal to commit suicide, therefore yes.
-
Depends on where you are and the manner in which you do it.
I am in New York City, I walk into a bar and either 1) yell at the top of my lungs "everyone in here is a mother****ing faggot!" or 2) walk up to every individual person and say in a stern tone "you are a mother****ing faggot!" and then walk away. let us assume for the sake of argument that for #2 I do it quickly enough that the owners don't see me doing it enough fast enough to tell me to leave their property before I get to the last person. have I broken a law?
-
No, you just act like a complete ****wit and probably get knocked unconscious.
-
If it was a gay bar you might get some laughs. But can't you get tossed in jail for the night on harassment/disturbing the peace/drunk & disorderly type charges, even without the hate speech?
-
I am in New York City, I walk into a bar and either 1) yell at the top of my lungs "everyone in here is a mother****ing faggot!" or 2) walk up to every individual person and say in a stern tone "you are a mother****ing faggot!" and then walk away. let us assume for the sake of argument that for #2 I do it quickly enough that the owners don't see me doing it enough fast enough to tell me to leave their property before I get to the last person. have I broken a law?
But can't you get tossed in jail for the night on harassment/disturbing the peace/drunk & disorderly type charges, even without the hate speech?
Disturbing the peace laws are one of those things where you're only really breaking the law if someone cares enough to bother reporting you; it's the kind of thing to prevent people from being annoying ****wits. If everyone's cool with your behavior, you're not really disturbing the peace, are you?
Anyway, those points aside, if you're shouting "you're all mother****ing faggots" in public there is something wrong with you.
-
If it was a gay bar you might get some laughs. But can't you get tossed in jail for the night on harassment/disturbing the peace/drunk & disorderly type charges, even without the hate speech?
I wanna take you to a gay bar.
Let's start a war. A nuclear war. At the gay bar.
-
now there's a ground zero everyone would wanna go to war over. :sigh:
-
And I think we're done here.