Another attack on a cartoonist

[shuraimfan4lyf]

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..

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

 

[جوري]

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..

 

[Woodrow]

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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[Skavau]

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?)

 

[Woodrow]

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.

 

[DataPacRat]

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

 

[DataPacRat]

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."

 

[جوري]

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

 

[DataPacRat]

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

 

[جوري]

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

 

[DataPacRat]

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

 

[Woodrow]

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.

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?

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?

 

[جوري]

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

 

[DataPacRat]

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

 

[DataPacRat]

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

 

[جوري]

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

 

[Skavau]

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?

 

[Woodrow]

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.

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?)

 

[Woodrow]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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