[Flipside]

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.

[yuezhi]

for the greater good

[Bobboau]

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.

[Bobboau]

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!

[Flipside]

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?

[Spoon]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Spoon]

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****.

[Flipside]

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.

[AtomicClucker]

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.

[stinkyFeet]

It's reverse psychology. They really want you to draw and learn about Muhammad, and have been wildly successful. 

j/k

[yuezhi]

found this "portrait" of him?


epic exit strategy too.

[Bobboau]

ah, he's in a blizzard, nice.

[Flipside]

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?

[Bobboau]

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.

[Flipside]

And so the circle continues...

[Bobboau]

yeah, the cold war did that too, until one of the two sides couldn't afford to play oneupmanship any more.

[AtomicClucker]

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).

[Flipside]

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.

[yuezhi]

I think only me and bob have taken the draw part seriously so far.

coming soon...?