PDA

View Full Version : Another attack on a cartoonist



DataPacRat
05-16-2010, 01:40 AM
In case anyone is interested in updates on the story: In response to an artist making sketches of a figure that many Muslims believe it is inherently disrespectful to portray in any form, some extremists have responded by attempting to set the artist's house on fire.

Source: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...cked_again.php:

Like last time, I expect this news will set off another fusillade of dissenting opinions, but too bad. Extremists have vandalized Lars Vilks home, trying to set it on fire (original article in Swedish here).


In an undoubtably futile attempt to forestall what I expect will be common objections to this story here, I know that there are political ramifications to the cartoons of Mohammed. I know that many of them were motivated by racism and xenophobia. In this instance, though, I don't care. Vilks drew a sketch. His enemies set his house on fire.

I would encourage Muslims to respond in kind, with their own cartoons lampooning Vilks (it shouldn't be hard; the article about the arson has a picture of Vilks that looks rather deranged already). But when you respond to an insult to your beliefs with violence and destruction, you have moved beyond the boundaries of civilization, straight into barbarism, and you will get no sympathy from me.
Source: http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/05/1...wing-muhammad/

You never hear about Hindus walking into McDonald’s and telling the manager they’re not allowed to use beef products anymore.

If they did, we would laugh it off. We’d say that’s absurd because non-Hindus don’t have to follow their rules.

But what if the Hindu radicals committed a violent act against the manager? We’d be furious.

What if moderate Hindus said it was offensive for someone else to eat a Big Mac? We’d laugh it off.

In response to all that, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to stage a peaceful sit-in where all participants ate Big Macs.

It wouldn’t be anti-Hinduism nor would anyone be purposely trying to piss off Hindus by doing that. It would just be a show of solidarity by those who believe that only Hindus need to abide by their religious beliefs, not anyone else.

That’s what we’re doing by drawing these Muhammad images.



Lars Vilks, the man who drew Muhammad’s face on the body of a dog, was attacked a few days ago. And it has only gotten worse for him since then.

His house was set on fire. (Thankfully, Vilks is ok.)

The facade of the building was lightly damaged, a police spokeswoman told SR radio. Neither Vilks, nor anyone else was in at the time of the incident at the house in a secluded part of southern Sweden.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
05-16-2010, 01:58 AM
how come your sources are blogs mostly of the atheist variety?
I don't mind the news at all, I simply mind the source.. hope you can find more credible sources and frankly the end results won't change matters any... it is a positive reinforcement for these otherwise unknown cartoonists.. I am pretty sure that is why they do it!

all the best
Reply

Skavau
05-16-2010, 02:57 AM
http://www.thelocal.se/26662/20100515/
Reply

جوري
05-16-2010, 03:08 AM
pls. with a home like that he'd probably setting it on fire himself to claim the insurance money...
he looks positively satanic.

all the best
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Skavau
05-16-2010, 03:10 AM
He's probably wealthy enough from selling his stories about his cartoons to the media.

He 'looks satanic', huh?
Reply

TrueStranger
05-16-2010, 03:17 AM
First of all there is on one in the world today that knows how Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him) looked like. We do not have a picture of the (Prophet Peach be upon Him), just descriptions. Just because some idiot picks-up a pencil and draws a man with a beard and labels him Mohamed does not in reality mean that is an accurate image of our beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).

So why are we upset about an image that does not resemble in any form or manner our beloved Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). I'm most certainly upset about the notion that they have the audacity to make such lies as to say this is Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him).

We should not contribute to the popularity of these men that are potentially doomed to hell.
Reply

جوري
05-16-2010, 03:21 AM
Originally Posted by Skavau
He's probably wealthy enough from selling his stories about his cartoons to the media.

He 'looks satanic', huh?
Is that what you too look like.. I always imagined you with bug eyes like that
Originally Posted by TrueStranger
First of all there is on one in the world today that knows how Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him) looked like. We do not have a picture of the (Prophet Peach be upon Him), just descriptions. Just because some idiot picks-up a pencil and draws a man with a beard and labels him Mohamed does not in reality mean that is an accurate image of our beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).

So why are we upset about an image that does not resemble in any form or manner our beloved Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). I'm most certainly upset about the notion that they have the audacity to make such lies as to say this is Mohamed (Peace Be Upon Him).

We should not contribute to the popularity of these men that are potentially doomed to hell.
I totally agree!

:w:
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-16-2010, 04:08 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
pls. with a home like that he'd probably setting it on fire himself to claim the insurance money...
he looks positively satanic.

all the best
He does look satanic.. I wonder how much he would get for insurance money. I am sure he has a top insurance company covering his property.
Reply

Woodrow
05-16-2010, 04:53 AM
Perhaps we are seeing the birth of the latest psychological phenomena.

Over the past 30 or 40 years there has been periods of episodic bizarre suicides. The first noted was "Suicide by 18 wheeler" during which time there was a rash of single occupant cars being involved in high speed head on collisions with semi-trailers. Later there was a rash of lone gun men being involved in shoot outs with police. This became known as "Suicide by cop" Suicides in which the committer is presenting a front of Bravery, being a victim or a hero.

I wonder if we may be seeing the rise of a new form of suicide and this is the start of "Suicide by Offended Religious Adherent"

It does seem that these sick cartoonists are getting the results they expect and want to happen, for some odd perverse reason known only to their own twisted inner self.
Reply

DataPacRat
05-16-2010, 04:55 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
how come your sources are blogs mostly of the atheist variety?
I use 'Google Reader' to keep up with my various newsfeeds - at present I'm subscribed to 1,552 different RSS feeds in it, though few make it into my actual daily "A-list", and I only even glance at about 250 articles a day, and read fewer than that. The top 11 sites I read in this fashion, with the most articles per day, are Metafilter, Boing Boing, Slashdot, Pharyngula, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, "Lawyers, Guns and Money", Greg Laden's Blog, FAILblog, Beyond the Beyond, kottke.org, and Friendly Atheist. Of those, so far only Pharyngula, which is run by a biology professor, and Friendly Atheist have mentioned the new attack. That is why I sourced this thread using those two articles... and I was very careful to include those articles' links to /their/ original sources, including the Times Online. That seemed quite sufficient attribution.

If what you are asking is why I'm subscribed to those particular blogs in the first place: I'm subscribed to a wide variety of blogs, and file them into such categories as webcomics, podcasts, cryptography, gaming, genealogy, ham radio, local news, medicine, military, outdoorsy & hiking, political, atheism, libertarianism, skepticism, rationalism, science, "people I disagree with", civil rights, human rights, online rights, science, science fiction, space, and a number of others - 75 different tags in all. Not counting Twitter feeds which I mostly ignore, there are about three dozen blogs in my 'atheism' section; 1500 feeds split into 75 categories means I have an average of around 20 feeds per category, so the number of blogs I pay atetntion to about atheism is above average, but not excessively so.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Reply

DataPacRat
05-16-2010, 05:13 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
It does seem that these sick cartoonists are getting the results they expect and want to happen, for some odd perverse reason known only to their own twisted inner self.
Actually, they are being very public and prominent with their reasoning - if you have not heard of it, then either you haven't been paying attention, or you're deliberately ignoring what they're saying. In case it's the former, here you go:

Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults.

That's it. That's the whole point.

Or, if you prefer, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Whether you think this ideal is a good one or a bad one, whether you're aware of the reasoning behind it or not, there are people who think it is /such/ a good idea that they're willing to place their life on the line for such a principle. People have been willing to place their lives on the line for the right to practice whatever religion they choose, or for the right to own property, or for the right not to be discriminated against based on their birth or heritage; the cartoonists involved here see themselves as being engaged in a similar resistance against those who would threaten their right to freedom of speech.


And in case anyone's curious about the events, here are some new updates from Lars Vilks' own blog, as translated by Google Reader:

Chased by Arsonists

Well, so it can go. An acquaintance told me that my kitchen window was shattered and that it had been trying to instigate a fire house on the wall. Through the window were the perpetrators (they were probably more) fire to the curtain that burned a black mark kitchen ceiling.

There is a certainly not an isolated event.
Husattentatet

Since the police did their investigation and for a time cordoned off the site as a crime scene could be further findings: A slightly curved, very beautiful knife that lay beneath the window that had been wrapped. More knife was given a second knife was found in the roadside. The question is why attack figures throw or possibly placing one of his daggers.

Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Reply

جوري
05-16-2010, 05:38 AM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat

If what you are asking is why I'm subscribed to those particular blogs in the first place
I am not.. I like news from credible sources not blogs.. but did state that it wouldn't matter either way as per this particular subject matter.. it does seem like a topic of interest for atheists to have on their blogs.. I can't envision a better pastime beyond the passive aggressive relationship that they have with the other half or in this case 85-90% along with the usual moments of perceived clever cynicism which in their mind's eye sets them a bar above the rest of course meriting the usual self-congratulatory fests and inseminates the delusions of grandiosity.

all the best
Reply

Woodrow
05-16-2010, 05:49 AM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
Actually, they are being very public and prominent with their reasoning - if you have not heard of it, then either you haven't been paying attention, or you're deliberately ignoring what they're saying. In case it's the former, here you go:

Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults.

That's it. That's the whole point.

Or, if you prefer, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Whether you think this ideal is a good one or a bad one, whether you're aware of the reasoning behind it or not, there are people who think it is /such/ a good idea that they're willing to place their life on the line for such a principle. People have been willing to place their lives on the line for the right to practice whatever religion they choose, or for the right to own property, or for the right not to be discriminated against based on their birth or heritage; the cartoonists involved here see themselves as being engaged in a similar resistance against those who would threaten their right to freedom of speech.


And in case anyone's curious about the events, here are some new updates from Lars Vilks' own blog, as translated by Google Reader:






Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Thank You,

I think most of the world, including a large percentage of us Muslims will agree with this statement:

Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults.
Is it in compassion towards others that he chooses to spread this message by engaging in an activity that will be insulting to others, even the ones who will not act violently towards his insults? Who is the target audience he is trying to reach. It is not a very good method to solicit support, by insulting potential supporters. His goal does seem to go much deeper then the superficial vocalization that his goal is to show Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults. something is flawed in the mentality that he can accomplish his goal by deliberately eliciting the behavior he condemns.

I see him as either a masochist or having a death wish and is seeking the ultimate visualization that Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults. He does seem to indicate he will not stop with the insults as long as he has the ability to make them.

He is setting up a self fulfilling prophecy with the message being the ultimate insult to us Muslims. He is not going to be happy until he can make us look like barbaric killers.


Sadly, he probably will eventually find somebody who is willing to oblige his death wish.
Reply

DataPacRat
05-16-2010, 05:57 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I am not.. I like news from credible sources not blogs.. but did state that it wouldn't matter either way as per this particular subject matter.. it does seem like a topic of interests for atheists to have on their blogs.. I can't imagine much else of interest beyond the passive aggressive relationship that they have the other half along with the usual moments of perceived clever cynicism and self-congratulatory fests.
This is a classic example of the "argument by incredulity" - that just because you cannot imagine something, then it cannot exist.

Tell you what; why don't you subscribe to Pharyngula and Friendly Atheist for a week, and read the articles and comments posted there, and then let me know if you still hold this opinion?

all the best
What a bizarre three words to finish with after describing my online community as "passive aggressive" and the like.
Reply

DataPacRat
05-16-2010, 06:06 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I see him as either a masochist or having a death wish and is seeking the ultimate visualization that Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults. He does seem to indicate he will not stop with the insults as long as he has the ability to make them.

He is setting up a self fulfilling prophecy with the message being the ultimate insult to us Muslims. He is not going to be happy until he can make us look like barbaric killers.
I do not think he can "make" you do anything - he's not holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to, er, hold a gun to his head. His actions aren't creating new behaviour out of nothingness, or inducing you to behave in ways you cannot behave in otherwise; he is /evoking/ behaviours that are inherent in you. (For various definitions of "You".)

As for a death wish... do you think Mahatma Gandhi had a death wish? Rosa Parks? Nelson Mandela? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr? The White Rose? Risking receiving violence, and even death, for a principle isn't usually considered a death wish, especially if taking that risk helps bolster that principle.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Reply

جوري
05-16-2010, 06:07 AM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
This is a classic example of the "argument by incredulity" - that just because you cannot imagine something, then it cannot exist.

Tell you what; why don't you subscribe to Pharyngula and Friendly Atheist for a week, and read the articles and comments posted there, and then let me know if you still hold this opinion?
In fact I joined a Dawkins forum at some point hoping for light scientific banter and didn't last very long, but did share with members here the onslaught of F bombs and condescension toward their fellow man and the sort of topics discussed to avoid them futile discourse.. I do think they have mastered one science and that is of pugilism and rivalry at who does best braying of a donkey.


What a bizarre three words to finish with after describing my online community as "passive aggressive" and the like.
I think that description sums my experience quite adequately or rather I should say the collective experience of theists! ..

all the best
Reply

glo
05-16-2010, 09:34 AM
Originally Posted by Skavau

He 'looks satanic', huh?
Well, that raised eyebrow does look a little suspect! :D

Reply

Skavau
05-16-2010, 01:24 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Is it in compassion towards others that he chooses to spread this message by engaging in an activity that will be insulting to others, even the ones who will not act violently towards his insults? Who is the target audience he is trying to reach. It is not a very good method to solicit support, by insulting potential supporters.
In this context, I would argue that it is the only way to spread this message. For me and many others there is no compromise on this issue. Free speech is just that important. This includes the right to mock, insult and ridicule concepts and ideas no matter who values them as sacred, or who declares them as exempt. The idea is to effectively show that they will not stop after receiving threats, and that the principle of free expression is worth defending that virulently.

The alternative is to accept a subjective and open to abuse system of censorship based on arbitrary whims such as 'offense' and 'insult'. Or bring back crude blasphemy laws (but extended to other religions) - which I also would not accept.

is goal does seem to go much deeper then the superficial vocalization that his goal is to show Violence isn't an appropriate response to insults. something is flawed in the mentality that he can accomplish his goal by deliberately eliciting the behavior he condemns.
In some respects he would rather cynically illicit public sympathy for attempts of violence made against him. He probably in some ways hopes for a violent confrontation to achieve that.
Reply

جوري
05-17-2010, 05:08 AM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
He does look satanic.. I wonder how much he would get for insurance money. I am sure he has a top insurance company covering his property.
Not sure how much dated books of the far side variety and an ethnic wrap over the door would be worth and I won't lose much sleep over it..

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
05-17-2010, 09:24 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau


In some respects he would rather cynically illicit public sympathy for attempts of violence made against him. He probably in some ways hopes for a violent confrontation to achieve that.
He most likely will achieve his goal of death by an angry person. Reminds me of Ambrose Bierce whose last news article was about the Mexican revolution in which he ended "To go to Mexico in these times is a fast form of self euthanasia" (or very similar words) After which he left for Mexico and was never seen or heard from again. He probably demonstrated visiting Mexico was not a safe move, but I doubt if over 2 people really gave a Tinker's dime.

May he achieve all he deserves.
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-17-2010, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Not sure how much dated books of the far side variety and an ethnic wrap over the door would be worth and I won't lose much sleep over it..

:w:
Lol..I am sure thats just one of his rooms..khair, anyways.
Reply

جوري
05-17-2010, 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
Lol..I am sure thats just one of his rooms..khair, anyways.
I am sure it is his best room for picture taking purposes and it doesn't say much on the rest.. whatever the case, I really don't care.. seeing a single room of this satanists' apt. is enough to understand why he likes creating a ruckus..

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
05-17-2010, 11:39 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
I do not think he can "make" you do anything - he's not holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to, er, hold a gun to his head. His actions aren't creating new behaviour out of nothingness, or inducing you to behave in ways you cannot behave in otherwise; he is /evoking/ behaviours that are inherent in you. (For various definitions of "You".)

As for a death wish... do you think Mahatma Gandhi had a death wish? Rosa Parks? Nelson Mandela? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr? The White Rose? Risking receiving violence, and even death, for a principle isn't usually considered a death wish, especially if taking that risk helps bolster that principle.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Sorry for not getting back sooner. I just now found your reply. The big difference between this man and the likes of Ghandi et al is they specifically stated what they opposed. They engaged in non violent protest and they targeted a specific ideology or political system. This man is insulting an entire group of people for the purpose of eliciting a violent response. He is not protesting what he see's as a wrong, he is stereotyping 1/5 of the world's population and doing what is an insult to all 1.5 billion people so that when one out of them does what his stereotypical opinion is, it will be reflected as the expected action of all.

It does not seem his goal is to right a perceived wrong, but rather as a means to foster hate against an entire group of people. He does not hate Muslims because they are harming him, he hates us because we are Muslim and it seems he is trying to justify his hate and get others to agree with him.
Reply

Woodrow
05-18-2010, 05:05 AM
Just a thought to ponder. Often if not always the difference between a heroic act and a terrorist attack depends on which side of the street you are standing on.

There are many young men standing in line willing to go to war and kill and die for the goal of protecting this man's right to insult a Prophet(PBUH). They are called American Soldiers and by many people seen as heroes. How does this differ from a man acting alone who is willing to kill and/or die to protect 1.5 million people from having what they love offended? I guess the bottom line is "He who is in power, is right." I abhor violent retaliation by anybody. I do not endorse or desire anybody to harm this man, but if one does, how does his act differ from the actions of Soldiers fighting to protect the right to insult.

Does anybody, besides me, see that this man's hate and insults are a disgrace to the young men who died to give him "Freedom of Speech"? Did those young men die so that writers will have the right to insult as they choose. without fear?
Reply

Skavau
05-18-2010, 05:18 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
There are many young men standing in line willing to go to war and kill and die for the goal of protecting this man's right to insult a Prophet(PBUH).
Are you talking about the conflicts in the Middle East? I don't think that they have anything to do with this issue. The 'fight' for free-speech (largely an intellectual fight) is taking place in the secular world. And make no mistake, it is a minor skirmish if anything. Most of the population in secular countries are probably unaware or uninterested about the fact that there are intellectual attempts (and violent attempts) to prohibit people from insulting the Prophet of Islam.

It is merely an attempt by a minority to dictate to others what they should or should not say based on their own personal beliefs. It garners media attention purely because of the group involved and the overloaded suggestion that they may turn violent to achieve their ends. The reason for the persistency of people to continue to draw Muhammed is to say that they will not buckle and that yes, the right to mock and insult concepts (not just Muhammed) is just that important.

How does this differ from a man acting alone who is willing to kill and/or die to protect 1.5 million people from having what they love offended?
It could differ in many ways depending on your perspective. The simplest method to avoid being offended by the way is to not view things that could offend you, or do not buy things that may contain content that could offend you.

Does anybody, besides me, see that this man's hate and insults are a disgrace to the young men who died to give him "Freedom of Speech"? Did those young men die so that writers will have the right to insult. without fear?
Such is free-speech. (What 'young men' are you referring to?)
Reply

Woodrow
05-18-2010, 05:45 AM
Originally Posted by Skavau


It could differ in many ways depending on your perspective. The simplest method to avoid being offended by the way is to not view things that could offend you, or do not buy things that may contain content that could offend you.


Such is free-speech. (What 'young men' are you referring to?)
Perspective is what it is about. Perhaps much could be done if we all stepped back and occasionally made an effort to understand what other people see that makes them angry.


I am aging my self. I still go back to the era when us young men went into the military to protect Mom's apple pie.....etc......etc......etc.

I guess I don't want to think that today's soldier may not be in the military for altruistic ideals.
Reply

DataPacRat
05-18-2010, 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Sorry for not getting back sooner. I just now found your reply. The big difference between this man and the likes of Ghandi et al is they specifically stated what they opposed.
As does this man: "Violence" and "Censorship" are what he opposes, especially when the former is used to try to enforce the latter.

They engaged in non violent protest
What could possibly be less violent then setting pen to paper?

and they targeted a specific ideology or political system.
There seems to be a particular variation of Islam which is attempting to accomplish the political goal of limiting the freedom of speech of others by prohibiting what one particular religion finds offensive; this subgroup, this ideology if you will, is what he is targeting.

This man is insulting an entire group of people for the purpose of eliciting a violent response.
Doing something peaceful which elicits a violent response to demonstrate the differences between the peaceful protestor and the violent group is precisely the very same core tactic applied by civil disobedience protesters, the civil rights movement, and Gandhi's path of satyagraha. By your statement, and your implication that this isn't what he should be doing, you seem to have demonstrated that you simply do not understand either the goals of the side in this matter you oppose, nor the tactics they use.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Reply

DataPacRat
05-18-2010, 12:26 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Just a thought to ponder. Often if not always the difference between a heroic act and a terrorist attack depends on which side of the street you are standing on.
This is the kind of moral relativism up with which I will not put.

Initiating force, hurting and even killing people who have not done any acts of violence towards others, is bad. Wrong. Evil. Whatever the justification used, whatever the reasoning, however noble the ultimate cause, this is the very centre of why we say that "the means do not justify the ends".


Does anybody, besides me, see that this man's hate and insults are a disgrace to the young men who died to give him "Freedom of Speech"? Did those young men die so that writers will have the right to insult as they choose. without fear?
Freedom of speech means nothing if it only applies to people with whom we agree.

To quote George Orwell, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
Reply

جوري
05-18-2010, 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
As does this man: "Violence" and "Censorship" are what he opposes, especially when the former is used to try to enforce the latter.
If you can't draw the line where it is appropriate then someone else will have to draw it for you. Being able to put something down on paper doesn't denote that it is relevant or even necessary. People have been imprisoned without trial lesser reasons and you are a fool nay a hypocrite even to suggest otherwise!
You try glamorizing Hitler shooting some Jews and have their head over dog bodies and let's see how well that fares!

What could possibly be less violent then setting pen to paper?
Pen and paper have signed war treaties and annihilated villages to whims. Take a look at the hunt for Imam Al-Awlaki for no more than hearsay of alleged conversations why aren't you equally advocating the absurdity there.. or is your brand of free expression only of the fickle variety?

All the best
Reply

DataPacRat
05-18-2010, 01:27 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
If you can't draw the line where it is appropriate then someone else will have to draw it for you. Being able to put something down on paper doesn't denote that it is relevant or even necessary.
I don't think that the only things people should be allowed to say are those which someone else thinks are "relevant" or "necessary".


People have been imprisoned without trial lesser reasons and you are a fool nay a hypocrite even to suggest otherwise!
Um... huh? Since when did I ever suggest otherwise? People have been imprisoned for standing next to someone they weren't married to - that doesn't meant that I think it was a good idea to imprison them for that.

You try glamorizing Hitler shooting some Jews and have their head over dog bodies and let's see how well that fares!
Um... huh? There are /plenty/ of comics and cartoons demonizing Jews. There just tends not to be much violence associated with it.

You also seem to be mistaking my agreement that someone should be /allowed/ to say something stupid with my agreement with whatever that stupid thing might be. I think the best way to expose stupidity is for it to be open to the sunlight, for everyone to read and point their fingers at and laugh.


Pen and paper have signed war treaties and annihilated villages to whims. Take a look at the hunt for Imam Al-Awlaki for no more than hearsay of alleged conversations why aren't you equally advocating the absurdity there.. or is your brand of free expression only of the fickle variety?

All the best
You did not answer my question. I did not say that putting pen to paper /could not/ be violent. I asked what could be /less/ violent.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Reply

جوري
05-18-2010, 01:35 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
I don't think that the only things people should be allowed to say are those which someone else thinks are "relevant" or "necessary".
What you think is inconsequential!


Um... huh? Since when did I ever suggest otherwise? People have been imprisoned for standing next to someone they weren't married to - that doesn't meant that I think it was a good idea to imprison them for that.
Then perhaps you should take a more important cause instead of wasting your time arguing over a silly comic, if merely to loan your causes some credence!


Um... huh? There are /plenty/ of comics and cartoons demonizing Jews. There just tends not to be much violence associated with it.
I haven't seen any in main stream that weren't publicly condemned as defamatory do you want to try again?
You also seem to be mistaking my agreement that someone should be /allowed/ to say something stupid with my agreement with whatever that stupid thing might be. I think the best way to expose stupidity is for it to be open to the sunlight, for everyone to read and point their fingers at and laugh.
I don't care for your reasons for doing so.. my experience with atheists in general that they have no principles or objects of importance and try really hard to subscribe others to their philosophy as well!



You did not answer my question. I did not say that putting pen to paper /could not/ be violent. I asked what could be /less/ violent.
Being dead would be less violent.. what an inane question.. putting words together doesn't make a question out of nonsense!

Thank you for your time,
All the best
Reply

DataPacRat
05-18-2010, 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
What you think is inconsequential!
Then why are you asking me questions?


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Reply

Woodrow
05-18-2010, 01:40 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
This is the kind of moral relativism up with which I will not put.

Initiating force, hurting and even killing people who have not done any acts of violence towards others, is bad. Wrong. Evil. Whatever the justification used, whatever the reasoning, however noble the ultimate cause, this is the very centre of why we say that "the means do not justify the ends".
There is a fine line that separates where one man's rights infringe upon another mans rights. Is the deliberate insulting of others, with no purpose except insult a justifiable means of imposing absolute "Free Speech". Is defamation of character a right of "Free Speech"? These cartoons are defamation of the Character of Muhammad(PBUH). Deliberate defamation for no purpose except to elicit a violent response.




Originally Posted by DataPacRat
Freedom of speech means nothing if it only applies to people with whom we agree.
Is there not a responsibility that goes with "Freedom of Speech". Does that permit the spread of lies, defamation of character and deliberate promotion of hatred? Does it not carry a limitation of moral decency?

Originally Posted by DataPacRat
To quote George Orwell, "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
Is that not limited by decency and what needs to be told, not what the author simply wants to say? Does a person have the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theater, simply to cause panic?
Reply

جوري
05-18-2010, 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
Then why are you asking me questions?

I am not asking you any questions, I am commenting on what you have written!

all the best
Reply

DataPacRat
05-18-2010, 01:55 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
There is a fine line that separates where one man's rights infringe upon another mans rights.
Yes, there is. A less than serious way of describing that line is "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."


Is the deliberate insulting of others, with no purpose except insult a justifiable means of imposing absolute "Free Speech". Is defamation of character a right of "Free Speech"? These cartoons are defamation of the Character of Muhammad(PBUH). Deliberate defamation for no purpose except to elicit a violent response.
You seem to be conflating 'insult' with 'defamation'; trust me, the two are /not/ the same. (Or don't trust me, and look it up yourself.) Defamation is a subcategory of fraud, and fraud is one of the two-or-three limits on free speech I agree with, as those limits are for the specific purpose of preventing measurable harm. If one person defames another, the first can be sued for it, and, if convicted, pay serious fines or even get sent to jail. However, in most jurisdictions, defamation has been legislated so that it only applies to the living - that is, if someone is dead, then they cannot be harmed in such a way that the charge of 'defamation' applies. This would seem to be the case with Muhammad.


Is there not a responsibility that goes with "Freedom of Speech". Does that permit the spread of lies, defamation of character and deliberate promotion of hatred? Does it not carry a limitation of moral decency?

Is that not limited by decency and what needs to be told, not what the author simply wants to say? Does a person have the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theater, simply to cause panic?
The reason to have the right to free speech in the first place is, through certain intermediary steps, to help protect people from harm. The only limits on free speech which I agree with are against those forms of speech which are directly connected with negating that overall purpose, that is, causing harm. Speech directly connected with physical harm is easy to figure out - threats and shouting "Fire" qualify for that. Fraud is a specific category of lies, in which the person speaking knows what they're saying is untrue, and they are saying it for the purpose of causing harm to another - and this is the other limitation on free speech I agree with. Defamation is one example of such speech; so is lying about the odds of a crooked gambling game.

However, /insulting/ someone, without defamation, does not necessarily fall under either of the above categories, and so I oppose limiting speech simply because someone considers it insulting.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Reply

DataPacRat
05-18-2010, 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I am not asking you any questions, I am commenting on what you have written!
Take a closer look at this symbol:

?

When used as the punctuation at the end of a sentence, that sentence is a question. You will note that you used it in posts 2, 29 and 31 of this thread, in a fashion which could easily be interpreted as having those sentences being directed at me.

In addition, in English, formal grammer is descriptive rather than prescriptive - that is, there is no single organization which declares that English is spoken in one particular way. Informally, a number of your declarative statements have been made in a fashion which invites a response based on those statements' topic; thus, in this informal fashion, those statements can also be considered as questions.

In sum, if you don't want people who disagree with you to be able to respond to what you post, then you shouldn't be writing posts in a public forum such as this one.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
Reply

جوري
05-18-2010, 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
Take a closer look at this symbol:

?

When used as the punctuation at the end of a sentence, that sentence is a question. You will note that you used it in posts 2, 29 and 31 of this thread, in a fashion which could easily be interpreted as having those sentences being directed at me.

In addition, in English, formal grammer is descriptive rather than prescriptive - that is, there is no single organization which declares that English is spoken in one particular way. Informally, a number of your declarative statements have been made in a fashion which invites a response based on those statements' topic; thus, in this informal fashion, those statements can also be considered as questions.

In sum, if you don't want people who disagree with you to be able to respond to what you post, then you shouldn't be writing posts in a public forum such as this one.


Thank you for your time,
You are familiar with rhetorical q's or no?
You are free to comment all you want as I am free to point out what is wrong with what you have written!

all the best
Reply

Skavau
05-18-2010, 04:43 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Perspective is what it is about. Perhaps much could be done if we all stepped back and occasionally made an effort to understand what other people see that makes them angry.
Sure, I don't doubt that.

I don't get the point here?
Reply

Woodrow
05-19-2010, 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Sure, I don't doubt that.

I don't get the point here?
It was my reply to your statement here is is repeated, enlarged and made bold.

Originally Posted by Skavau
Are you talking about the conflicts in the Middle East? I don't think that they have anything to do with this issue. The 'fight' for free-speech (largely an intellectual fight) is taking place in the secular world. And make no mistake, it is a minor skirmish if anything. Most of the population in secular countries are probably unaware or uninterested about the fact that there are intellectual attempts (and violent attempts) to prohibit people from insulting the Prophet of Islam.

It is merely an attempt by a minority to dictate to others what they should or should not say based on their own personal beliefs. It garners media attention purely because of the group involved and the overloaded suggestion that they may turn violent to achieve their ends. The reason for the persistency of people to continue to draw Muhammed is to say that they will not buckle and that yes, the right to mock and insult concepts (not just Muhammed) is just that important.


It could differ in many ways depending on your perspective. The simplest method to avoid being offended by the way is to not view things that could offend you, or do not buy things that may contain content that could offend you.



Such is free-speech. (What 'young men' are you referring to?)
Reply

Woodrow
05-19-2010, 06:15 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
Yes, there is. A less than serious way of describing that line is "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
If only we had a clear, proven way to be certain everybody will stop their fist before it impacts with a nose. People seem to have a tendency to push their freedoms to the extreme and it is common for them to fail to see when and where they have transgressed into the rights of their neighbor.




Originally Posted by DataPacRat
You seem to be conflating 'insult' with 'defamation'; trust me, the two are /not/ the same. (Or don't trust me, and look it up yourself.) Defamation is a subcategory of fraud, and fraud is one of the two-or-three limits on free speech I agree with, as those limits are for the specific purpose of preventing measurable harm. If one person defames another, the first can be sued for it, and, if convicted, pay serious fines or even get sent to jail. However, in most jurisdictions, defamation has been legislated so that it only applies to the living - that is, if someone is dead, then they cannot be harmed in such a way that the charge of 'defamation' applies. This would seem to be the case with Muhammad.
Insult and defamation are two separate things. Yet, often they will be the result of the same causes and sometimes either can be the cause for the other.




Originally Posted by DataPacRat
The reason to have the right to free speech in the first place is, through certain intermediary steps, to help protect people from harm. The only limits on free speech which I agree with are against those forms of speech which are directly connected with negating that overall purpose, that is, causing harm. Speech directly connected with physical harm is easy to figure out - threats and shouting "Fire" qualify for that. Fraud is a specific category of lies, in which the person speaking knows what they're saying is untrue, and they are saying it for the purpose of causing harm to another - and this is the other limitation on free speech I agree with. Defamation is one example of such speech; so is lying about the odds of a crooked gambling game.
Yet full freedom of speech can backfire. Hitler came to rise to a large degree because he had freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by DataPacRat
However, /insulting/ someone, without defamation, does not necessarily fall under either of the above categories, and so I oppose limiting speech simply because someone considers it insulting.
Speech is a very powerful weapon. Much more damaging and effective than bombs and guns. I personally advocate the free ownership of guns, yet I recognize that some people misuse that right and therefore I submit to the need for restrictions and control, as much as I dislike the restrictions.

Words are formidable weapons. In some ways even more subtle than material weapons as their damage is subtle and difficult to see. When a recognized weapon is available is readily available to all, it will be misused. There is not happy nor agreeable solution. simple fact is weapons need to to restricted, even though we all have to give up some rights in order to protect everybody. the ideal solution would be for everybody to use Freedom of speech is a safe sane, constructive manner. As distasteful as it is, some degree of control is needed.




Originally Posted by DataPacRat
Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti
You are Welcome
Reply

Skavau
05-20-2010, 02:45 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
If only we had a clear, proven way to be certain everybody will stop their fist before it impacts with a nose. People seem to have a tendency to push their freedoms to the extreme and it is common for them to fail to see when and where they have transgressed into the rights of their neighbor.
Well, this is the crux of the issue here. People here appear to believe that an affront to their feelings is an affront to their rights. That their feeling offended is somehow more of a problem than censorship. That, I'm afraid I cannot abide as it opens up a very slippery slope to being compelled to censor all things that people find offensive. Scientologists find Xenu.tv, Anonymous websites and Free Zone literature profoundly offensive and by the reckoning of many here, would be absolutely within their rights of 'feeling offended' to pull their content from the internet and from circulation. How do you you objectively define that 'feeling offended' is a good enough reason to impose restrictions and somehow a transgression to their liberty, precisely?

Yet full freedom of speech can backfire. Hitler came to rise to a large degree because he had freedom of speech.
No he didn't. Freedom of speech of course gave Adolph Hitler a backdrop, but I would hardly consider his SA intimidating people into voting for the NSDAP, the Enabling Act (voted by a parliamentary majority) and many of the other backroom deals as products of free speech. Don't forget just how disjointed and corrupt the Weimar Republic was.

At any rate, I find fault with your premise. Are you suggesting that freedom of speech should be restricted in advance on the basis that just perhaps fascist groups, or totalitarian groups or such like might use it to argue their case? Not only is that in itself, a self-contradiction given than imposed censorship of a kind is totalitarian in nature - but it is also ineffective. If there is a prevailing tendency towards fascism sweeping through the population, then it would come regardless or not it would be legal or not to spread it. To take point, in the end - I don't think it mattered that Germany became a democracy. As long as their economic situation was dire and even if the Kaiser was still in place, Nazism would have always had a similar impact to the one it did.

Words are formidable weapons. In some ways even more subtle than material weapons as their damage is subtle and difficult to see. When a recognized weapon is available is readily available to all, it will be misused. There is not happy nor agreeable solution. simple fact is weapons need to to restricted, even though we all have to give up some rights in order to protect everybody. the ideal solution would be for everybody to use Freedom of speech is a safe sane, constructive manner. As distasteful as it is, some degree of control is needed.
In what context do you argue that freedom of speech is a "dangerous weapon"? Yes, I agree it is powerful and an excellent ahead-of-its-time or an excellent analysis has the capacity to change a lot of people's thoughts - but people should not be held accountable for that. Your argument so far appears to contain a lot of fear of people being convinced of fascism and other unpleasantries through the means of speech (and I assume you're going to connect media that mocks, or insults religion as enablers for that). I would say in direct response that this the price that we pay for free speech, and it is an important price for all of our liberty we take for granted in saying what we say and expressing what we belief stems from it. Your liberty to preach Islam is the same liberty defectors use to insult, satirize and mock Islam. My liberty to promote humanism is the same liberty that Christians use to promote Christianity. To drive a wedge and declare some as unacceptable based on 'hurt feelings' not only betrays the historical development of free speech, but it also opens everyone else up to have their cake and eat it too and demand their own restrictions.

I would ask you though, as I have asked several others - a specific question: On the internet as I suspect you may know there exist parodies of wikipedia. Their intent is humour and all of their articles mock, deride and satirize the topic. One of the websites is explicit, and the other is not so explicit. They both have articles on all of the topics that wikipedia does and function just as wikipedia - including articles on Islam. I mean these websites have been posting cartoons and depicitions of Mohammed for at least as long as the original Danish cartoon 'controversy'. Do you propose that these websites, by your own beliefs be shut down and removed from the internet?

If so, would you by extension then suggest that any internet user who insults Islam, or insults any particular religion have their ISP contacted and be threatened with suspension of their service? Why or why not?

Cheers
Reply

aamirsaab
05-20-2010, 09:03 AM
The issue is that freedom of speech just doesn't exist. There are limitations (in most cases, for good reason!).

To go around, prancing that oh my rights this and my freedom that is just nonsense. Basic human psychology, i.e. reciprocity and the mutual understandings of brotherhood/sisterhood and mankind OVERRIDE any other freedom or right any day of the week - you can test this out in real life by visiting a hospital and shouting BOMB!, then promptly being arrested for being a douche. It is unfortunate that people of so called high calibre and position do not understand this simple concept, treating others like something they just stepped in. But that has always been the case, and adding the internet into the mix, is likely to get worse.

Social inhibition is a good thing; it keeps you from saying something really, really stupid. This isn't censorship from the government; it's something that should be seen in an extremely positive light. The planet I came from, we called it respect.
Reply

Skavau
05-20-2010, 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The issue is that freedom of speech just doesn't exist. There are limitations (in most cases, for good reason!).
There are limitations, indeed. However what has yet to be reasonably argued is that 'offense' is reason enough for censorship.

To go around, prancing that oh my rights this and my freedom that is just nonsense. Basic human psychology, i.e. reciprocity and the mutual understandings of brotherhood/sisterhood and mankind OVERRIDE any other freedom or right any day of the week
Many of us now live in an almost anonymous society. Millions of people in driving distances of each other. Mutual understanding between millions of people that all find some things acceptable, some things unacceptable would almost inevitably result in the ridiculous situation of the absolute prohibitation of all information. If we were to always cater to the crowd that declare their hurt feelings as more important than other people's liberty then there would never ever be the possibility of protest. There would never ever be the possibility of humour in any public domain. There would never ever be the possibility of any dissent and any complaints would literally kill off entire subjects of discussion.

Indeed the anonymous society is even more so when you consider the internet (which has demonstrated repeatedly that it is beyond censorship and pro virality).

Social inhibition is a good thing; it keeps you from saying something really, really stupid. This isn't censorship from the government; it's something that should be seen in an extremely positive light. The planet I came from, we called it respect.
Yes, sure . You ought bear the intellectual consequences of what you write. Indeed on this also, it is to note that racial slurs are not illegal. It is a societal accomplishment that people consider them so rephrensible and unacceptable. What you are talking about already exists.

Just consider how society detests those who claim the holocaust did not happen. Just consider how society reacts to those who claim racial superiority.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Social inhibition is a good thing; it keeps you from saying something really, really stupid. This isn't censorship from the government; it's something that should be seen in an extremely positive light. The planet I came from, we called it respect.
LOL. :) True.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 02:22 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Many of us now live in an almost anonymous society. Millions of people in driving distances of each other. Mutual understanding between millions of people that all find some things acceptable, some things unacceptable would almost inevitably result in the ridiculous situation of the absolute prohibitation of all information.
True. And this is exactly what happens.

If you would notice - there are no opinions around you. Most people are mute

What you think is your opinion is just a recitation of something you heard on the news.

How do I know that it is not your opinion? Because I already heard it somewhere else.

People are very predictable today and they think that they have freedom of speech while having
freedom of speech without ever being taught how to think (and I mean truly thinking
for yourself and not recycling ideas you get from other sources) is at best useless.

Even worse - it might hurt other people because you might be transferring harmful ideas without
even checking them.

For instance - the benefit you, and your society, would get from truly co-operating with Muslims out of respect would be
so much far beyond the benefit of drawing some foolish cartoon like a five year old.

Did you thought about that?
Reply

Skavau
05-20-2010, 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
People are very predictable today and they think that they have freedom of speech while having
freedom of speech without ever being taught how to think (and I mean truly thinking
for yourself and not recycling ideas you get from other sources) is at best useless.
The possibility that someone is likely to have a unique and original opinion in a field of millions is profoundly unlikely, and also completely irrelevant to this topic.

For instance - the benefit you, and your society, would get from truly co-operating with Muslims out of respect would be
so much far beyond the benefit of drawing some foolish cartoon like a five year old.
Our society is not a collective. Our politicians can sit down with senior representatives of Islam in the UK, or in other nationstates and pay them lipservice. They could do more to prevent their discrimination in society (which is incumbent on both sides - not just the politicians here). It is not incumbent upon a member of society to be compelled to 'respect' and 'recognise' Islamic concepts of discussion.

And by the way, people being able to ridicule their beliefs on some internet forum is not discrimination.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 02:40 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Our society is not a collective.
It is. Just dis-functional.
Reply

Skavau
05-20-2010, 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
It is. Just dis-functional.
No it isn't, sorry. Do you even understand what collectivism is and involves?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 03:06 PM
Yes.

And it is dis-functional.

If it would be functional you wouldn't have all the primitive wars you have today.
Reply

Skavau
05-20-2010, 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Yes.

And it is dis-functional.
So explain to me what you think collectivism is, and then explain to me how you think 'my society' is a collective, please.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 03:32 PM
Our world is a collective as we are all connected to each other and are responsible for each other.

Your society is one organ in the human collective which is at this point is dis-functional since it is engaged
in war with other parts of this collective.
Reply

Skavau
05-20-2010, 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Our world is a collective as we are all connected to each other and are responsible for each other.
So, I take it by that rather mundane explanation you don't know what 'collectivism' is.

Your society is one organ in the human collective which is at this point is dis-functional since it is engaged
in war with other parts of this collective.
So your definition of 'collective' apparently just means 'us'. How semantically null.

At any rate, the fact that 'our society' is at war with others has nothing to do with anything regarding this thread.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-20-2010, 04:28 PM
These threads about cartoonist is getting annoying now seriously. Those people that support the cartoonist are pathetic, we don't have no shoulders for you to cry on alright. Get sympathy elsewhere!! Bunch of mad people, leave our religion ALONE!!!!!!!!!! OR ELSE!!!
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
These threads about cartoonist is getting annoying now seriously. Those people that support the cartoonist are pathetic, we don't have no shoulders for you to cry on alright. Get sympathy elsewhere!! Bunch of mad people, leave our religion ALONE!!!!!!!!!! OR ELSE!!!
You are right. I do not have energy for this foolishness.
Reply

JETforce
05-20-2010, 05:15 PM
Does a person have the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theater, simply to cause panic?
Well, where I live, there isn't a law against that, the theater will just kick you out if you do that, I guess unless someone gets hurt. A lot of people don't know where that saying originated. It originated in court battles in the US over the banning of the Socialist Party and other progressive parties in the early 1900s (mind you, the bans were minimal, given their big success during that time) where the justification for their banning was "what's next, allowing people to scream fire or falling boulder in crowded areas?" I think it's a bad example, with bad origins.
Reply

aamirsaab
05-20-2010, 07:26 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
There are limitations, indeed. However what has yet to be reasonably argued is that 'offense' is reason enough for censorship.
This is where common decency and respect should step in...
Many of us now live in an almost anonymous society. Millions of people in driving distances of each other. Mutual understanding between millions of people that all find some things acceptable, some things unacceptable would almost inevitably result in the ridiculous situation of the absolute prohibitation of all information. If we were to always cater to the crowd that declare their hurt feelings as more important than other people's liberty then there would never ever be the possibility of protest. There would never ever be the possibility of humour in any public domain. There would never ever be the possibility of any dissent and any complaints would literally kill off entire subjects of discussion.
Respect for your fellow man should always be a priority. I'm not saying one should walk on egg shells, and there is always room for humour. But, it is indeed possible to tell a joke without any form of insult (I used to drop them in every now and again during my college years)

Indeed the anonymous society is even more so when you consider the internet (which has demonstrated repeatedly that it is beyond censorship and pro virality).
Yeah, I said it before in the libel/slander thread; internet is just the A-hole of mankind.

Yes, sure . You ought bear the intellectual consequences of what you write. Indeed on this also, it is to note that racial slurs are not illegal. It is a societal accomplishment that people consider them so rephrensible and unacceptable. What you are talking about already exists.
I know it exists, my point was that this should not be forgotten nor pushed below the right to insult someone.

Just consider how society detests those who claim the holocaust did not happen. Just consider how society reacts to those who claim racial superiority.
Such behaviour should always be considered horrible and disgusting. I'm glad for the most part it is, but as will always be the case, some will act like jerks. What my point is, the way some people chant and rave about freedom of speech indicates a significant rise in such horrible acts via desensitization.
Reply

جوري
05-20-2010, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by JETforce
Well, where I live, there isn't a law against that, the theater will just kick you out if you do that, I guess unless someone gets hurt. A lot of people don't know where that saying originated. It originated in court battles in the US over the banning of the Socialist Party and other progressive parties in the early 1900s (mind you, the bans were minimal, given their big success during that time) where the justification for their banning was "what's next, allowing people to scream fire or falling boulder in crowded areas?" I think it's a bad example, with bad origins.
Actually people who cause false alarms of whatever nature are imprisoned/and/or fined.. two girls who pulled the fire alarm in a school because they didn't want to sit for the finals, weren't only kicked out, but their family charged for causing undue panic, and for the police and firetrucks called at the scene.. a rather exorbitant fee for being stupid. I think rather than stating what is and what isn't a bad example that you should take everything and deal with it singularly from multiple views.. you'll recognize that said mockery isn't at all about free speech, it is about pushing and pushing to see what you can get away with and we see that this hypocrisy isn't applied to other venues of the same nature.. only when it comes to Muslims since Muslims are now in season!

all the best
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-20-2010, 10:02 PM
*unsubscribes*
Reply

smile
05-22-2010, 12:17 PM
the dude looks pretty normal t me
dunno why u say he looks satanic
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!