[Flipside]

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...

[stinkyFeet]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Flipside]

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

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[karajorma]

Which brings me to the whole crux of the matter. Do you care?

[Flipside]

"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.

[666maslo666]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.