Please Complain to Comedy Central

Sister I think its better if we just ignore it, the more attention we will give them the more they will instigate new controversies. By contacting them, they will not stop their disgusting behavior. Also the person who started the "Draw Muhammad Day" has dropped the event after everyone got angry. Source(was posted by brother Woodrow)

format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature

The day is not aimed at offending Muslims or hearting peoples feelings.

Yes it is - it is all it is about hurting other peoples feelings.

format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature

It is about defending freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is more important in a democracy than protecting peoples feelings

Then democracy sucks. Or more accurately - it is a non-human system of government. Thinking that you can base a healthy human society only on the values of democracy without religion is a very wrong bet. At best it would serve the limited interest of a limited group of people in your country - in the long run it would be un-beneficial even for them as they would become the slaves of their own defected economical system.

format_quote Originally Posted by atheistbynature

and 'draw Mohammed day' is to show that violence towards individuals will not make that go away.

Hurting other peoples feelings is violence. For instance - you have just been violent because you have justified hurting other peoples feelings. In fact - justifying violence is the worst kind of violence.

If you so want to make a stand for human rights and freedom of speech in America - go to your average black Ghetto and tell the gangsters over there that African Americans in America have the right to live in peace without having to be afraid to send their kids to school without them being shot. Or maybe here saying your moral stand is a bit more difficult - why don't you do that?

Can a black mother go and tell that to a 14 year old gangster without being shoot? Isn't that important? Or is her freedom of speech less important or completely unimportant for that matter?

format_quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus

Yes it is - it is all it is about hurting other peoples feelings.

It has the consequence of hurting people's feelings. And it is in part about declaring freedom of speech supercedes others feeling offended. However, more importantly it is about demonstrating that violence is not an acceptable response to insult.

You can yourself declare cartoons that mock, insult and ridicule religious figures as unacceptable, unecessary but you cannot insist that based on this that they should be prohibited by law. Your feelings ought not dictate the direction of law and give exemptions towards freedom of speech.

Then democracy sucks. Or more accurately - it is a non-human system of government.

I have no idea how you worked this out. Certainly in no literal way. Democracy is the direct opposite by definition.

Hurting other peoples feelings is violence. For instance - you have just been violent because you have justified hurting other peoples feelings. In fact - justifying violence is the worst kind of violence.

Hurting other people's feelings is not violence. Especially if they are not directed to other people, but concepts.

If you so want to make a stand for human rights and freedom of speech in America - go to your average black Ghetto and tell the gangsters over there that African Americans in America have the right to live in peace without having to be afraid to send their kids to school without them being shot. Or maybe here saying your moral stand is a bit more difficult - why don't you do that?

What does this have to do with freedom of speech?

format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau

Hurting other people's feelings is not violence. Especially if they are not directed to other people, but concepts.

Hurting other peoples feelings is violence. If you want to criticize a concept you can do it if you wish in a respectable way that would not hurt other peoples feelings.

The fact that you did not understand my example shows that you do not care about freedom of speech but rather the freedom to instinctively follow your urges which are easily manipulated to present a very flat and one-dimensional mindset.

In fact - the fact that you did not understand the example of the black woman shows that you really do not care about the people but rather about concepts.

Frankly - why should I care anything about a concept - a concept is worth nothing. What religious people care for is human beings and their souls.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq

But why do they want to draw my prophet Muhammad peace be upon him? I mean he does not concern them which just proves that they are the ones looking for death threats we never suggested to attack them before this nonsense, I think they hungry for pain, wat of bunch of idiots seriously there is a thing called respecting other religion and what they are doing is not so they have to face the consequences right?

People do not 'want' to draw Muhammad anymore than people want to draw other figures found in other religions. You realise (I hope) that mockery and insults towards Christianity in the Western World is just as large (if not larger) as perhaps it is towards Islam. There exist many forms of media, articles and drawings that directly mock Christianity (both on the internet and otherwise). This is a part of the free-speech culture that exists here. You do not have to view it yourself, you do not have to endorse it and you have every right to condemn it - but you do not have the right to insist that Islam is exempt from this.

Also, I would add that there is no requirement in this to respect religion.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus

Hurting other peoples feelings is violence. If you want to criticize a concept you can do it if you wish in a respectable way that would not hurt other peoples feelings.

You have not actually backed up your claim that hurting other people's feelings (willfully or otherwise) is violence, so to repeat the old statement: what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

At any rate, why should people have to be bound by your requirements of criticism? Someone was directly offended once by me suggesting that torture in hell was not consistent with a benevolent deity. I cannot predict how people will react to ideals I espouse, or claims I make about what they hold to be true. I cannot account for how dear people hold their own personal metaphysics. Why should I observe this?

format_quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus

The Prophet does not belong to your culture - you do not accept him.

So by what right do you make use of him in your media?

Who's media? "Ours"?

The government does not control the media. The media is allowed to focus on what topics they like.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mohamed Sadiq

Also respects towards other religion does include not to mock their religion and drawing the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is abusing a religion, do you understand it now?

I understand your personal behavioural constraints. I also understand that these behavioural constraints ought have no impact on the law regarding free speech. The fact you have respect towards other religions and choose not to mock them is your choice, and should not be imposed on others.

There is no need for evidence. Violence is a direct action of a person which hurts another individual - by definition.

What a fantastically liberal definition. It is a definition that most do not share (check Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com) and most secular nationstates do not recognise. My being an atheist has the direct capacity to upset and hurt other people. Are you claiming that if I was to declare my position in front another individual that I would be offended I would in fact be acting violent?