Shots have been fired outside a conference on cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a suburb of the US city of Dallas, police say.
A Swat team member told the conference that one officer and two suspects were shot - but it is not clear if the shootings are related to the event.
Police have put the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland on lockdown and told participants in the event not to leave.
Dutch anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders was attending the conference.
Mr Wilders tweeted that shots had been fired and he had now safely left the building.
One eyewitness told the Associated Press news agency that he heard about 20 shots, which appeared to come from a car driving past the conference centre, followed by two individual shots.
The American Freedom Defense Initiative had organised the event, which included a $10,000 award for a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.
Such cartoons are offensive to many Muslims.
There were widespread protests in 2006 when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
In January this year, 12 people were murdered by two Islamist gunmen at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had also published similar cartoons.
cincydooley wrote: I have to admit...I don't understand why this conference exists other than to be demeaning and hateful.....
Someone help me out here...
How could God/Allah possibly be demeaned by anything a paltry human does, let alone a cartoon?
And you don't need to hate something to mock it..
And yes, an ideology so fractured that it is simultaneously called a religion of peace while millions of adherents call for violence is worthy of mockery. Doubly so if you claim the delivery method of said ideology is divinely revealed knowledge that cannot possibly be improved on or updated.
According to the Dallas Morning News, two men pulled up in a vehicle and then shot an officer outside the Curtis Culwell center Sunday evening. They were then fatally shot by police officers.
Surely you're not equating the people drawing pictures as equally horrible to the people firing bullets?
Calling two people horrible is not the same as equating their acts as equal. A man who spits on a baby is daily is horrible. A man who kills babies is also horrible.
I mean, sure drawing pictures designed to be offensive against people you dont like isnt the same as killing someone, but it sure does make the people drawing those pictures horrible people as well.
I mean, sure drawing pictures designed to be offensive against people you dont like isnt the same as killing someone, but it sure does make the people drawing those pictures horrible people as well.
Indeed.
This 'expo' was a contest with the apparent specific purpose of insulting people for the 'crime' of having different beliefs to those of the event's oganisers. And that is, quite frankly, appalling.
Co'tor Shas wrote: They look more like soldiers than police in those pictures. Is is normal for them to use non-blue/black outfits?
It's because they're a SWAT team, I believe. And uniforms and equipment vary widely by department.
As for the OP:
You'd likely be hard pressed to find a more adamant free speech advocate than me, but the whole purpose of this event was to be inflammatory, disrespectful and provocative to Muslims, whether peaceful or radical. I wonder if the event organizers got what they wanted out of it?
According to the Dallas Morning News, two men pulled up in a vehicle and then shot an officer outside the Curtis Culwell center Sunday evening. They were then fatally shot by police officers.
In the land of the free... We're allowed to have "feth you" events.
That doesn't make it a good idea.
'Free Speech' doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for your behaviour. If you set out to deliberately insult someone, screaming '...but my Free Speeches!' isn't going to stop them from kicking you in the fork.
The right to Free Speech was supposed to keep people free of oppression. Not to serve as a vehicle to promote hatred and demean those with different beliefs to your own.
cincydooley wrote: I have to admit...I don't understand why this conference exists other than to be demeaning and hateful.....
Someone help me out here...
Yeah, pretty much.
That's always been the complex thing about all this nonsense about images of the prophet - people absolutely must have a right to create whatever they want, including images that are blasphemous to a religion. However, while people must have that legal right, that doesn't mean there isn't a personal obligation to consider the sensibilities of other people when but simply claiming that right isn't enough. People should also be expected to behave with some kind of decency and respect to others, including sometimes deciding that the point you want to make isn't worth the offence it might cause to others.
People freak out and claim that's self-censorship, and it is, but they miss the point that we all self-censor all the time. For instance, a guy giving a eulogy might accidentally dropped a really good double entendre, but no-one will shout out 'that's what she said' in the middle of the church... because we're not completely awful man-children. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't ever draw an image of Mohammed, it just means that they should spend a bit of time figuring out if the point they're trying to make is worth the offense it will cause.
Fairly obviously, 'because I can' is not a good enough reason. That's the kind of thinking that ends up with stupid conferences like this nonsense.
'Free Speech' doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for your behaviour. If you set out to deliberately insult someone, screaming '...but my Free Speeches!' isn't going to stop them from kicking you in the fork.
Nor does it make you immune to criticism. The organizer has a right to have their event, and we have the right to call them a and express a lack of surprise that someone took the bait.
The right to Free Speech was supposed to keep people free of oppression. Not to serve as a vehicle to promote hatred and demean those with different beliefs to your own.
But they're the same thing really. If you don't have the ability to promote hatred then you aren't really free of oppression.
It's a shame that some people feel the need to offend and provoke another religion that they'd hold a conference like this. It's much, much worse that two people would take the bait and attack the conference, seemingly intending to kill people.
But given that both of those groups of turd like people exist, and capturing these idiots would have been way to dangerous for the police involved, we probably ended up with the best possible result - two dead murderous idiots, and what seems like only a minor injury to one of the security team. Full credit to the police for an effective security operation.
whembly wrote: In the land of the free... We're allowed to have "feth you" events.
Just say'n.
Of course you are. People absolutely have a right to create whatever they want, including images that are blasphemous to a religion. They even have a right to hold conferences about creating images that are blasphemous. However, simply having a right to do something doesn't mean you are automatically justified in doing it. Decent behaviour isn't just legal, but it also considers whether the point being made is important enough to offset any potential offense.
People freak out and claim that's self-censorship, and it is, but they miss the point that we all self-censor all the time. Consider you're at a funeral, and in the middle of the eulogy the speaker accidentally dropped a really good double entendre. Only the worst kind of man-children would even consider calling out 'that's what she said' in the middle of the church. Almost all of us are mature enough to realise that offending bereaved people isn't actually worth making that joke.
Now, there will be times when an image of Mohammed will be justified. But the reason has to be a lot more substantial than 'because I can'. Because if that's all you've got then you're basically being as obnoxious as the guy cracking jokes in a funeral.
Well, no, 'Free Speech', at least in the US context, means having the right to say what you want without interference by your government.
It doesn't mean that if you act like a dick, people will just grin and bear it.
But attempting to murder folks for having this event is pants on crazy.
Sure. Although you could slap the same label on 'Running an event designed specifically to insult a religion in a way that is known to have resulted in people being murdered not so long ago'...
The issue here is far less about 'freedom of speech' and more about the fact that if you insult people, there's a good chance that you'll piss them off.
That doesn't mean that the reaction in this case was the right one... just that it's not exactly an unexpected one, and I would agree with those who suggest that it was likely exactly what the organisers were fishing for, so that they could then point the finger at those nasty muslims trying to impinge on their freedoms.
If you poke the bear, you can't claim to be the victim when it bites you.
"because I can" is exactly the thing we need to defend with regards to freedom expression.
To repeat my analogy, consider in the middle of a funeral the speaker uses some poorly chosen words that opens up a double entendre and someone yells out 'that's what she said'.
When that nitwit defended his joke with 'because I can' you'd call him the worst kind of donkey-cave you wouldn't spend a second pointing out that he was legally allowed to tell that joke. You'd call him the worst kind of donkey-cave who got poor old Aunt Mavis crying all over again.
This is no different. People can draw Mohammed if they want. But if they do so for no reason other than 'because they can' then they're being donkey-caves.
whembly wrote: "because I can" is exactly the thing we need to defend with regards to freedom expression.
Why? The legal right to be offensive just because you can is not in any danger, so what you're talking about defending is the ability to be offensive just because you can and not face criticism for your actions.
insaniak wrote: Although you could slap the same label on 'Running an event designed specifically to insult a religion in a way that is known to have resulted in people being murdered not so long ago'...
You mean events such as "believing something different to what they do and still being alive"?
The more extreme and violent the position, the more justified it is for people to be negative and mocking of said position. Making people too afraid to criticise is one of the main the goals of these kinds of attacks. Extremist views, regardless of the basis of those views (religious, political, etc), should rightly be able to be lampooned as part of the overall discussion surrounding them.
Bromsy wrote: Man we are jaded that when a people try to murder other people for drawing we just shrug and call them idiots for drawing.
I 'just draw' quite a bit, and this ain't that. No one is siding with the shooters either, but it doesn't take a child prodigy to work out that this was done intentionally to antagonize then cry wolf when they succeeded in antagonizing. It is a story where no one is right, and everyone is wrong. It is just that some are idiots for purposely trying to piss off others and the other is criminally liable and idiotic for taking the bait.
Honestly my first though was that they shot at themselves to create sympathy, but really I really don't know what happened other than people were shot for stupid reasons. Hopefully the shooters are caught and sent to jail for a good long time.
SilverMK2 wrote: You mean events such as "believing something different to what they do and still being alive"?
This "conference" was not just about having different beliefs, it was about being deliberately offensive to people that have the "wrong" religion.
The more extreme and violent the position, the more justified it is for people to be negative and mocking of said position. Making people too afraid to criticise is one of the main the goals of these kinds of attacks. Extremist views, regardless of the basis of those views (religious, political, etc), should rightly be able to be lampooned as part of the overall discussion surrounding them.
You do realize that there are a lot of people who are not even close to "extreme and violent" that are offended by the cartoons, right? Or are they just acceptable collateral damage as long as the violent extremists are properly mocked and insulted?
Peregrine wrote: This "conference" was not just about having different beliefs, it was about being deliberately offensive to people that have the "wrong" religion.
Of this I am aware. However, the same extremist fringe who targets people "offending" against them for drawing pictures (a truely terrible crime I'm sure), is also quite happy murdering people simply for being alive and not believing the same things they do. When actively offending and simply existing are treated the same way, then there is a problem...
You do realize that there are a lot of people who are not even close to "extreme and violent" that are offended by the cartoons, right? Or are they just acceptable collateral damage as long as the violent extremists are properly mocked and insulted?
Of course I realise that more people are offended than the murderous fringe. However, the material offense given to average joe believer because someone on the other side of the world draws a picture highlighting a link between some followers of your religion and violent acts is negligible.
Political cartoons are regularly pretty offensive towards their chosen target, and arguably to the followers of said politician/ideal. I would not say that they ruin peoples lives as much as some extremist political group then going out and killing people who don't have the same political views.
I can't claim to know many Jews, for example, but the few that I do know don't suffer through life because some Muslims have drawn horrible anti-semetic cartoons, written or spoken about wiping out the Jewish race/religion, etc... Yet the people actually being killed in support of the sentiments behind this offensive language are still just as dead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chromedog wrote: If it's forbidden to depict Mohammed in a picture, how does ANYONE know what the original bloke looked like?
One (among many) things I've just never understood about religious things.
Because the restriction is cultural that has been adopted religiously by the major Islamic groups. For quite a few hundred years there were depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art. They vary about as much as pictures of Jesus, but generally show a bloke with a beard. I guess that means any image of a bearded gent is potentially offensive...
Bromsy wrote: Man we are jaded that when a people try to murder other people for drawing we just shrug and call them idiots for drawing
.
And there are some people are so jaded they don’t even read the thread before posting their witty comment.
If those jaded people had read the thread, they would find that every single person who posted thought the attempted attack was much, much worse than drawing pictures of Mohammed. They would learn that the only reason the drawing is getting more commentary is because that’s actually being debated, whereas it’s just accepted by everyone that attacking the conference was murderous insanity.
But hey, more fun to be jaded and just dropping in for witty comments.
SilverMK2 wrote: Of this I am aware. However, the same extremist fringe who targets people "offending" against them for drawing pictures (a truely terrible crime I'm sure), is also quite happy murdering people simply for being alive and not believing the same things they do. When actively offending and simply existing are treated the same way, then there is a problem...
Nobody is justifying the actions of the murderous extremists. Criticizing the cartoonists for being tasteless s does not mean approving of violent retaliation against them.
However, the material offense given to average joe believer because someone on the other side of the world draws a picture highlighting a link between some followers of your religion and violent acts is negligible.
I'm glad you're here to tell everyone how offended they should be.
Political cartoons are regularly pretty offensive towards their chosen target, and arguably to the followers of said politician/ideal.
What's your point? I don't think anyone here has said that political cartoons are never inappropriate. And "you're only as bad as offensive political cartoons" is hardly a favorable opinion of the anti-religious cartoonists.
I would not say that they ruin peoples lives as much as some extremist political group then going out and killing people who don't have the same political views.
And nobody is arguing otherwise. You're arguing against a straw man here.
Co'tor Shas wrote: They look more like soldiers than police in those pictures. Is is normal for them to use non-blue/black outfits?
It's because they're a SWAT team, I believe. And uniforms and equipment vary widely by department.
As for the OP:
You'd likely be hard pressed to find a more adamant free speech advocate than me, but the whole purpose of this event was to be inflammatory, disrespectful and provocative to Muslims, whether peaceful or radical. I wonder if the event organizers got what they wanted out of it?
Somehow, I bet if we swap a few religious names around here, there wouldn't be quite as much indignation towards the event organizer, and lots more wailing and teeth gnashing at the gunmen. I mean we're getting seriously close to victim blaming in this thread.
insaniak wrote: This 'expo' was a contest with the apparent specific purpose of insulting people for the 'crime' of having different beliefs to those of the event's oganisers. And that is, quite frankly, appalling.
This could work just as well for an expo of cartoons against racism. “This 'expo' was a contest with the apparent specific purpose of insulting people for the 'crime' of having different beliefs on race to those of the event's oganisers.”
I think the real difference is that you consider being Muslim a valid opinion that should be respected and not mocked.
insaniak wrote: 'Free Speech' doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for your behaviour. If you set out to deliberately insult someone, screaming '...but my Free Speeches!' isn't going to stop them from kicking you in the fork.
The right to Free Speech was supposed to keep people free of oppression.
So, people “kicking you in the fork”, or rather, trying to shot you dead, is not oppression? Tell me more about this gak .
insaniak wrote: Well, no, 'Free Speech', at least in the US context, means having the right to say what you want without interference by your government.
It also means that the government should try to protect you from people unlawfully attacking you for said speech. Else it does not work.
It's hard to be sympathetic of someone getting attacked by a religious nut when they were standing in front of said nut yelling 'Go on, then! I dare you! '
'Free Speech' doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for your behaviour. If you set out to deliberately insult someone, screaming '...but my Free Speeches!' isn't going to stop them from kicking you in the fork.
You are correct that it does not stop them, but it does not legitimize their actions
I would point out that at this time the motive for this attack has still not been made public, if known.
Of course you should be allowed to draw cartoons.
But do you really have to do it for the sole purpose of annoying more than a billon people?
That's just ignorant.
In the land of the free you are not allowed to say "feth" on TV. You are not allowed to show a female nipple. And you are not allowed to say "kill the president". Allow that before you cry for "freedom of speech".
AFAIK it is forbidden in some states to teach Darwins theory - freedom of speech?
d-usa wrote: The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.
So the attackers can claim the equivalent of "It's not my fault, she shouldn't have been dressed like that"?
No.
A vast majority of people are able to comprehent two separate concepts existing at the same time:
1) The organizer is an idiot and an donkey-cave who decided that "come at me bro" was the right thing to do and, based on whatever your opinion may be, he was right/wrong for doing so. 2) The attackers are idiots and donkey-cave who decided that shooting up a place because they felt offended is a valid response to feeling insulted, if that is indeed why they did it.
At the same time people are able to realize:
1) The organizer is an ass, but he doesn't deserve to be shot up for being an ass. 2) The attackers are donkey-caves who may be offended, but that doesn't justify what they did. 3) Peaceful Muslims who are exposed to an event that is a giant "feth you" to their religion and peaceful bystanders who get hit by the crossfire because of stupid responses are going to be a sad reality.
It appears that the OT has a problem with the fact that a person can be both a victim and an donkey-cave.
von Hohenstein wrote: Of course you should be allowed to draw cartoons.
But do you really have to do it for the sole purpose of annoying more than a billon people?
That's just ignorant.
Nice to see you condemning the people actually shooting other people instead of the ones drawing pictures...
In the land of the free you are not allowed to say "feth" on TV.
You are allowed in some networks and not in others, much like you aren't allowed to say it on Dakka. Free speech laws don't apply to private companies...
Well, no, 'Free Speech', at least in the US context, means having the right to say what you want without interference by your government.
It doesn't mean that if you act like a dick, people will just grin and bear it.
But attempting to murder folks for having this event is pants on crazy.
Sure. Although you could slap the same label on 'Running an event designed specifically to insult a religion in a way that is known to have resulted in people being murdered not so long ago'...
The issue here is far less about 'freedom of speech' and more about the fact that if you insult people, there's a good chance that you'll piss them off.
That doesn't mean that the reaction in this case was the right one... just that it's not exactly an unexpected one, and I would agree with those who suggest that it was likely exactly what the organisers were fishing for, so that they could then point the finger at those nasty muslims trying to impinge on their freedoms.
If you poke the bear, you can't claim to be the victim when it bites you.
Wrong, the first amendment, means having the right to say what you want without interference by your government. Free speech is a much bigger and more generic concept. I do love the argument that "he was asking for it, I just wonder if there are other circumstances where the same individuals would rightfully get incredibly upset at that thought........................
A vast majority of people are able to comprehent two separate concepts existing at the same time:
1) The organizer is an idiot and an donkey-cave who decided that "come at me bro" was the right thing to do and, based on whatever your opinion may be, he was right/wrong for doing so.
2) The attackers are idiots and donkey-cave who decided that shooting up a place because they felt offended is a valid response to feeling insulted, if that is indeed why they did it.
At the same time people are able to realize:
1) The organizer is an ass, but he doesn't deserve to be shot up for being an ass.
2) The attackers are donkey-caves who may be offended, but that doesn't justify what they did.
3) Peaceful Muslims who are exposed to an event that is a giant "feth you" to their religion and peaceful bystanders who get hit by the crossfire because of stupid responses are going to be a sad reality.
That we can both agree on. Reading your initial post of
d-usa wrote: The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.
Too bad that it looks like some other idiots took the bait, and even worse that the victim was a security guard that was stuck there.
It seemed a little heavy on the victim blaming. But thank you for the clarification.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
von Hohenstein wrote: AFAIK it is forbidden in some states to teach Darwins theory - freedom of speech?
von Hohenstein wrote: In the land of the free you are not allowed to say "feth" on TV. You are not allowed to show a female nipple. And you are not allowed to say "kill the president". Allow that before you cry for "freedom of speech".
AFAIK it is forbidden in some states to teach Darwins theory - freedom of speech?
A vast majority of people are able to comprehent two separate concepts existing at the same time:
1) The organizer is an idiot and an donkey-cave who decided that "come at me bro" was the right thing to do and, based on whatever your opinion may be, he was right/wrong for doing so.
2) The attackers are idiots and donkey-cave who decided that shooting up a place because they felt offended is a valid response to feeling insulted, if that is indeed why they did it.
At the same time people are able to realize:
1) The organizer is an ass, but he doesn't deserve to be shot up for being an ass.
2) The attackers are donkey-caves who may be offended, but that doesn't justify what they did.
3) Peaceful Muslims who are exposed to an event that is a giant "feth you" to their religion and peaceful bystanders who get hit by the crossfire because of stupid responses are going to be a sad reality.
That we can both agree on. Reading your initial post of
d-usa wrote: The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.
Too bad that it looks like some other idiots took the bait, and even worse that the victim was a security guard that was stuck there.
It seemed a little heavy on the victim blaming. But thank you for the clarification.
Reading it again I realize that it did. Sorry, that wasn't my intention.
Awww.... you're trying to be cute, that is actually really cute!
but that fine was appealed and ultimately voided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2011 ruling, and a case to reinstate the fine was refused in 2012.
But, please, continue to show your ignorance on these matters, its very entertaining!
Peregrine wrote: But they're the same thing really. If you don't have the ability to promote hatred then you aren't really free of oppression.
Having the ability doesn't mean you have to exercise it.
Self-control is more or less the hallmark of being an adult.
F that man...
Free speech means just that. There is no "but".
You can counter protest if you'd like... But attempting to murder folks for having this event is pants on crazy.
EDIT: @sebster
"because I can" is exactly the thing we need to defend with regards to freedom expression.
I'm sorry, but if the only defense you have for this sort of stuff is that it isn't actually illegal to do it, then I'm not sure that it's really a good plan.
Peregrine wrote: I'm glad you're here to tell everyone how offended they should be
You have been in the OT before, right? People on an Internet forum declaring and deciding how offended others are allowed to be is one of it's most 'endearing' qualities.
Whether people think it nice or not to offend peoples religions is irrelevant, people must be allowed to do so. No religion should be above reproach in our modern world.
We seem to be heading back to the dark ages where religions cannot be offended without getting killed for blasphemy. Even in the west.
Another thing;
I wonder if this is what the roman pagans were like, disorganised and divided, preoccupied with their daily lives while Christianity usurped their empire. There's probably pretty strong comparisons between then and now the way power and politics is playing out. We've already got some kind of comparison with Constantine and other high ranking romans being christian and/or sympathizers and there sure is alot of them now for Islam for example.
Dropbear Victim wrote: Whether people think it nice or not to offend peoples religions is irrelevant, people must be allowed to do so. No religion should be above reproach in our modern world.
And in this case, they were allowed to do so. Nobody has said that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Dropbear Victim wrote: Whether people think it nice or not to offend peoples religions is irrelevant, people must be allowed to do so. No religion should be above reproach in our modern world.
And in this case, they were allowed to do so. Nobody has said that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
You could argue that those that are defending that they shouldn't have organized this event are saying exactly that.
Self-censorship and PC censorship are still forms of censorship.
Modern society needs these forms of provocation, they are the only real way to affirm our freedoms.
Medium of Death wrote: This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.
It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.
Radical/Extremists/Jihadists are incompatible with the West
Increase your Muslim population and you will get more of them.
Islam is a creed of domination. It doesn't matter if there is a large silent/complicit majority.
Younger Muslims in Britain (even the ones born here) are more likely to be radicalised and hold stricter Islamic views.
That's not strictly because of you having an "increased Muslim population", but has more to do with the fact that the Muslim population is not as integrated as it should be.
Historically that has been an issue with Europe and ethnic/religious minorities when they have transplanted.
Dropbear Victim wrote: Whether people think it nice or not to offend peoples religions is irrelevant, people must be allowed to do so. No religion should be above reproach in our modern world.
And in this case, they were allowed to do so. Nobody has said that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
You could argue that those that are defending that they shouldn't have organized this event are saying exactly that.
Self-censorship and PC censorship are still forms of censorship.
Modern society needs these forms of provocation, they are the only real way to affirm our freedoms.
i have to agree with PV here. Freedom of speech must be protected, even for idiots, racists, and provocateurs. The heckler's veto (and this is the ultimate form of it) has no place here.
Also, as they have just learned, we shoot back here-and we actually practice.
That's not strictly because of you having an "increased Muslim population", but has more to do with the fact that the Muslim population is not as integrated as it should be.
There is an argument to be made that cultures shouldn't "integrate" because in the process of doing so, they lose what makes them unique. That's not an argument for "segregation" either. We just shouldn't expect Muslims to give up their own culture or make concessions just to fit in.
Somehow, I bet if we swap a few religious names around here, there wouldn't be quite as much indignation towards the event organizer, and lots more wailing and teeth gnashing at the gunmen. I mean we're getting seriously close to victim blaming in this thread.
It's not victim blaming though: they purposefully provoked retaliatiatory responses. Change it to "best picture of Jesus gets $10k", and you'd have a ton of people in there drawing him. Hell, I'd try my hand at that! But it's fairly common knowledge that images of Muhammad are offensive (I don't understand why, he was just a man after all, preaching the word of his God/Allah, but whatever). Putting this event on was fueling a fire. There's no way around it. I feel bad for the cop. He's the only one here deserving of sympathy. The politician douchenozzel needs to pay his medical bills. In full.
Hmm, wait, that's not hardcore enough for one of my posts. Let me fix that. Pay the cops medical bills and the politician should lose his ability to have children so no more hateful spawn can come into this world from his loins.
Medium of Death wrote: This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.
It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.
Radical/Extremists/Jihadists are incompatible with the West
You both wrong.
It shows religious extremists (especially, but not exclusively, Muslim) are not compatible with a free and democratic society. No West, or East, or South or North or above or below or any other geographical direction involved.
dereksatkinson wrote: There is an argument to be made that cultures shouldn't "integrate" because in the process of doing so, they lose what makes them unique. That's not an argument for "segregation" either. We just shouldn't expect Muslims to give up their own culture or make concessions just to fit in.
Culture should mix, and evolve together. But yeah, Muslims (and non-Muslims) must change stuff to better fit in. And that should not even be considered concessions, as this implies the change is negative. It is only negative if you decide it to be.
Peregrine wrote: I'm glad you're here to tell everyone how offended they should be
You have been in the OT before, right? People on an Internet forum declaring and deciding how offended others are allowed to be is one of it's most 'endearing' qualities.
You know when that one guy at work told that really offensive joke once and at the time you were like "man! I am totally offended!" and maybe for a couple of days you might have been a little bit angry whenever you thought of the joke but after that you more or less got on with your life? That is how most people deal with offense when it is given in a remote form.
The majority of people are reasonable human beings with better things to be worrying about than maintaining a level of offense against something that does not intrude on their daily lives. You have to work at being offended and take the offense and build it into your world view... and quite simply most people are not like that.
So, not telling people how offended they should be, pointing out how most people deal with offense.
timetowaste85 wrote: It's not victim blaming though: they purposefully provoked retaliatiatory responses. Change it to "best picture of Jesus gets $10k", and you'd have a ton of people in there drawing him. Hell, I'd try my hand at that! But it's fairly common knowledge that images of Muhammad are offensive (I don't understand why, he was just a man after all, preaching the word of his God/Allah, but whatever).
Mohammed is a historical figure. Declaring that nobody anywhere is permitted to depict him is as stupid as if the French wanted to forbid people from drawing Charles De Gaulle or Americans banning any painting or drawing of George Washington. Trying to murder people for depicting said historical figure is equal parts evil and insane.
You know that. I know that. But it's indoctrinated into that religion. I never said it makes sense. But these guys went out of their way to provoke members of said religion. That's kind of like sticking your head in a gator's mouth while getting somebody to stick a finger up its butt. You provoke it, it's gonna snap.
Bromsy wrote: Man we are jaded that when a people try to murder other people for drawing we just shrug and call them idiots for drawing
.
And there are some people are so jaded they don’t even read the thread before posting their witty comment.
If those jaded people had read the thread, they would find that every single person who posted thought the attempted attack was much, much worse than drawing pictures of Mohammed. They would learn that the only reason the drawing is getting more commentary is because that’s actually being debated, whereas it’s just accepted by everyone that attacking the conference was murderous insanity.
But hey, more fun to be jaded and just dropping in for witty comments.
The feth thread did you read? There were exactly four people - including yourself - who made any sort of statement that the attacks were worse than the drawing. Four. And two of those were only made as responses to other folks. So kindly lay off the personal attacks and pay attention before you go gak on someone else for no reason.
No. No it is not. It is an interdiction for Muslims that has been put forward as a universal rule by people actually purposefully trying to create trouble. Blame those people before you blame the expo organizers. Affirm that Islamic law has no bearing on what unbelievers can or cannot do before lambasting provocateurs that do the same.
From what I've seen, this event was designed by a certain woman who has a history of anti-muslim activity. You don't ask bernie the shark killer to save a shark.
Stephen Fry had a very applicable quote about being offended which basically boiled down to: You have not right to not be offended. In a land of free speech, people are going to be offended. So what?
My religion get's mocked quite often but you don't see us going on shooting sprees. In fact, I support people that criticize because they should have every right to do so. I don't agree with it, but I'll defend their right to mock my religion.
You'd likely be hard pressed to find a more adamant free speech advocate than me, but the whole purpose of this event was to be inflammatory, disrespectful and provocative to Muslims, whether peaceful or radical. I wonder if the event organizers got what they wanted out of it?
I don't agree you can simplify it and that you alone can define what the purposes of others are or is limited to.
Those drawings don't do a thing to "make the world better" unto themselves. They were deliberately created, as propoganda, to engender patriotism (to sell a product in the 2nd instance)
The right to Free Speech was supposed to keep people free of oppression. Not to serve as a vehicle to promote hatred and demean those with different beliefs to your own.
And what here is hatred and demean? Shooting people or making art?
cincydooley wrote: I appreciate that you're using war time propoganda to try and make your point. It makes me smile.
I am using caricatures of military, political and religious leaders as a way to increase criticism. Not to let someone be so holy they can't be criticised.
cincydooley wrote: Those drawings don't do a thing to "make the world better" unto themselves. They were deliberately created, as propoganda, to engender patriotism (to sell a product in the 2nd instance)
You are the judge of the purpose behind art made by other people? Please enlighten me how you came to this position. If I draw an elephant, can you be equally certain what was the deliberately purpose of it?
Yup. I'm that single person. That one judge.
Those pieces of propoganda art were created as propoganda art to serve a specific purpose during wartime, which I already stated.
You can argue against that all you want. It won't make you any more right.
Those drawings do a have a value as art for people back then as they have today. People can enjoy provocative, hatefull and demeaning caricatures of brutal military dictators. I enjoy mocking art of any and all mass-murderers.
These people were idiots, but even idiots have first amendment rights.
One thing I don't get. Texas is one of the most heavily armed parts of America, and these attackers thought it would be a good idea to start shooting...
One thing I don't get. Texas is one of the most heavily armed parts of America, and these attackers thought it would be a good idea to start shooting...
cincydooley wrote: Those drawings don't do a thing to "make the world better" unto themselves. They were deliberately created, as propoganda, to engender patriotism (to sell a product in the 2nd instance)
von Hohenstein wrote: Of course you should be allowed to draw cartoons.
But do you really have to do it for the sole purpose of annoying more than a billon people?
That's just ignorant.
In the land of the free you are not allowed to say "feth" on TV. You are not allowed to show a female nipple. And you are not allowed to say "kill the president". Allow that before you cry for "freedom of speech".
AFAIK it is forbidden in some states to teach Darwins theory - freedom of speech?
I don't agree that everything can only have a single purpose.
cincydooley wrote: Those drawings don't do a thing to "make the world better" unto themselves. They were deliberately created, as propoganda, to engender patriotism (to sell a product in the 2nd instance)
Mmm but "piss Christ" does?
Hah. I never said that. I think piss Christ is dumb as gak. But it pretty much anything can be labeled "art" today.
One thing I don't get. Texas is one of the most heavily armed parts of America, and these attackers thought it would be a good idea to start shooting...
They're from (drove from) AZ I believe
Arizona's probably armed to the teeth as well. Hell, most of the south could probably supply the British Army.
Nah, "piss christ" is bad as well. It's like this, I can call black people the N-word, but doing so will still get them angry, and possibly try and get back at me (through words or violence).
Edit: wow, triple ninjed, I don't think that's happened to me before.
No one is arguing that they can't do it. They can. But just because you can be a mean spirited, condescending donkey-cave doesn't mean you should be a mean spirited, can't news ending donkey-cave.
cincydooley wrote: Those drawings don't do a thing to "make the world better" unto themselves. They were deliberately created, as propoganda, to engender patriotism (to sell a product in the 2nd instance)
Mmm but "piss Christ" does?
Hah. I never said that. I think piss Christ is dumb as gak. But it pretty much anything can be labeled "art" today.
Then you have no point. if that counts as art, so does whatever stupid drawings they did. There are no art standards in the First Amendment.
cincydooley wrote: No one is arguing that they can't do it. They can. But just because you can be a mean spirited, condescending donkey-cave doesn't mean you should be a mean spirited, can't news ending donkey-cave.
Perhaps you're missing that nuance.
Would you say making mocking caricatures of mass-murderous military leaders is "mean spirited" and "condescending"?
cincydooley wrote: No one is arguing that they can't do it. They can. But just because you can be a mean spirited, condescending donkey-cave doesn't mean you should be a mean spirited, can't news ending donkey-cave.
Perhaps you're missing that nuance.
Would you say making mocking caricatures of mass-murderous military leaders is "mean spirited" and "condescending"?
Are you really likening them to spiritual founders of a major religion?
cincydooley wrote: No one is arguing that they can't do it. They can. But just because you can be a mean spirited, condescending donkey-cave doesn't mean you should be a mean spirited, can't news ending donkey-cave.
cincydooley wrote: Those drawings don't do a thing to "make the world better" unto themselves. They were deliberately created, as propoganda, to engender patriotism (to sell a product in the 2nd instance)
I love blasfemy. In fact, absolutely everything is blasphemous. Your very existence, your breath, your body, anything you think, say and write is blasfemous.
Blasphemous art has rocketed and excelled the last century.
If you say so?
Can't help but be reminded of the nihilists from Big Lebowski.
Baxx wrote: If someone can be blasphemous, mocking mass-murdering military leaders, ridiculing dogma, blind faith and fanaticism, they should. It would help improve all of mankind. And it very much has so in all of history.
And in many of those instances, it makes them an insufferable donkey-cave.
Sure, that's their right. Doesn't make them less of an donkey-cave.
MWHistorian wrote: Stephen Fry had a very applicable quote about being offended which basically boiled down to: You have not right to not be offended. In a land of free speech, people are going to be offended. So what?
My religion get's mocked quite often but you don't see us going on shooting sprees. In fact, I support people that criticize because they should have every right to do so. I don't agree with it, but I'll defend their right to mock my religion.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what."
[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”
The people holding the conference have every right to do what they did. They're still pieces of gak for doing it, as their purpose is clearly inflammatory. I have no issue with freedom of speech creating something that ends up offending someone. That's life: people get offended. It happens. But these gaks set out to purposefully cause offense and an innocent person was injured because of it. That's the part I take issue with. So you can make your "freedom of speech, applaud the people for creating this art" crap comments, but their attitude was that of a hate crime and someone was injured because of it. That makes them pieces of gak.
Baxx wrote: Their purpose is inflammatory? What purpose woud you, the judge of all purposes, say is not inflammatory?
What could I do, say, draw or think that would not be inflammatory?
Do you understand what "inflammatory" means?
This was a "conference" organized by a woman with a history of organizing anti-Islam events. She invited Geert Wilders, who has long been 'targeted' by radicalized Islamists, and made a point of calling the event the "Muhammed Art Gallery".
Educate yourself. Look up Pamela Geller.
And it's worth noting that NOBODY is excusing the actions of the shooters. They're simply making the point that in this current atmosphere with radical Islam, it's like touching a hot burner on a stove and expecting not to feel heat radiating off the burner.
People putting the convention on have a history of anti Muslim.
Offer a high prize to people who draw holy figure of Muslim religion.
Muslims are very offended by said holy figure being shown in artwork.
Attack by small group of Muslims.
Get your head out of the sand. If you can't see it, you're being willfully ignorant or you're a troll. Your call: which are you? Ignorant or troll? There is no third option.
I found the exact quote of Sam Harris in context of previous terrorist attack in Paris:
So here's one sign that a person, whether on the left or right politically, has completely lost the plot here: The moment he begins to ask what was in those cartoons? Were those cartoons racist? Was there any negative portrayal of Muhammad? To ask such questions is obscene. People have been murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis.
TheCustomLime wrote: The inner cynic in me tells me that these people wanted some radical Muslims to shoot at them just to prove their stupid point.
The inner voice in me tells me that these people don't want a single shot to ever be fired because someone draws a cartoon. Having such conferences is one step forward to that goal.
TheCustomLime wrote: The inner cynic in me tells me that these people wanted some radical Muslims to shoot at them just to prove their stupid point.
The inner voice in me tells me that these people don't want a single shot to ever be fired because someone draws a cartoon. Having such conferences is one step forward to that goal.
Well if that's what they want, they're not off to a very good start.
Baxx wrote: Their purpose is inflammatory? What purpose woud you, the judge of all purposes, say is not inflammatory?
What could I do, say, draw or think that would not be inflammatory?
Do you understand what "inflammatory" means?
This was a "conference" organized by a woman with a history of organizing anti-Islam events. She invited Geert Wilders, who has long been 'targeted' by radicalized Islamists, and made a point of calling the event the "Muhammed Art Gallery".
Educate yourself. Look up Pamela Geller.
And it's worth noting that NOBODY is excusing the actions of the shooters. They're simply making the point that in this current atmosphere with radical Islam, it's like touching a hot burner on a stove and expecting not to feel heat radiating off the burner.
This art, this conference is many things. Inflammatory may very well be one of those things.
If you look at alot of the all-time greatest metal bands throughout history, they fall under the same description you use here. And certainly all extreme metal bands are inflammatory. In the beginning, they were operating in an atmosphere like a hotn burner on a stove. And the heat was all over. Today, the stove is cold, the burner is cold.
This was an inflammatory event. This is really no different than the Westboro Baptist Church, a group which pulls similar tactics of inflammatory actions(such as picketing the funerals of soldiers with signs consisting of vile slogans) and then proceeds to use the actions of anyone who retaliates to form the basis of a lawsuit.
So please. Stop posting, you really don't seem to have any actual understanding of the context that this event was in.
Kanluwen wrote: This was an inflammatory event. This is really no different than the Westboro Baptist Church, a group which pulls similar tactics of inflammatory actions(such as picketing the funerals of soldiers with signs consisting of vile slogans) and then proceeds to use the actions of anyone who retaliates to form the basis of a lawsuit.
Sure, it's just like that time the Westboro Baptist Church held a "Why God hates gays" discussion forum at their church, and then somebody tried to murder them all. Remember that? Anyone?
Kanluwen wrote: This was an inflammatory event. This is really no different than the Westboro Baptist Church, a group which pulls similar tactics of inflammatory actions(such as picketing the funerals of soldiers with signs consisting of vile slogans) and then proceeds to use the actions of anyone who retaliates to form the basis of a lawsuit.
So please. Stop posting, you really don't seem to have any actual understanding of the context that this event was in.
I know very well was religious extremism looks like. Freedom is often under threat from extremists.
Agreed. It doesn't matter at all what the cartoon was about. It's a cartoon.
To shoot someone over a cartoon is insane. That's what should be discussed. To say "They should have expected it" is basically saying they deserved it and that it's normal. It's not like putting your hand on a hot stove because the stove is a normal thing. It's like ordering a sandwich at Subway and getting punched in the face because you ordered the wrong one.
"What was she wearing? Was it provocative?" That's what I'm hearing a lot of here.
Keep believing that is the crux of the argument. Keep believing that saying "they should have expected this reaction" is the same as "they deserved it".
Kanluwen wrote: Keep believing that is the crux of the argument. Keep believing that saying "they should have expected this reaction" is the same as "they deserved it".
The fact that they expected it is the entire reason of the debate.
MWHistorian wrote: Agreed. It doesn't matter at all what the cartoon was about. It's a cartoon.
To shoot someone over a cartoon is insane. That's what should be discussed. To say "They should have expected it" is basically saying they deserved it and that it's normal. It's not like putting your hand on a hot stove because the stove is a normal thing. It's like ordering a sandwich at Subway and getting punched in the face because you ordered the wrong one.
"What was she wearing? Was it provocative?" That's what I'm hearing a lot of here.
They knew full well that these kinds of events and the artists that are involved in them have been targeted in the very recent past. You're right, they absolutely didn't deserve it, but they would be incredibly stupid if they didn't expect it. Obviously they did expect it, since they had a SWAT team on site for the event.
Saying they should have expected it is not the same as saying they deserved what happened or that it is a normal or okay thing.
Kanluwen wrote: Keep believing that is the crux of the argument. Keep believing that saying "they should have expected this reaction" is the same as "they deserved it".
The fact that they expected it is the entire reason of the debate.
But it doesn't change the nature of the event.
If it had been a Muslim group in the US holding an event that could be considered anti-Christian and an avowed Klansman opened fire at the event, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But since it was an American holding an inflammatory event, it was "protected speech"(never mind that "protected speech" does not necessarily include activities that are tantamount to incitement).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baxx wrote: The only thing to stop religious fascists killing critics is to keep the critisism up.
The blasphemy can continue alot longer than the terrorists can. After thousands of mocking cartoons, the religious fascists have to give up.
You keep using the term "fascists". You have no idea what it means, do you?
Baxx wrote: After thousands of mocking cartoons, the religious fascists have to give up.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. You really think hardcore extremists are going to give up because people make cartoons? If we just make enough cartoons that they find offensive, they will become so offended that they will throw down their arms? This is like, Naivety Level: Plaid.
Baxx wrote: I found the exact quote of Sam Harris in context of previous terrorist attack in Paris:
So here's one sign that a person, whether on the left or right politically, has completely lost the plot here: The moment he begins to ask what was in those cartoons? Were those cartoons racist? Was there any negative portrayal of Muhammad? To ask such questions is obscene. People have been murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis.
Well at least you're pulling from entirely unbiased sources.
Haha. You should care about the source. Kinda informs the viewpoint delivering said message.
Those questions aren't obscene. Killing people is pretty universally considered wrong.
But for some reason racism is sorta okay when it comes to Muslims, especially in parts of Europe and the U.S. Is racism okay, or isn't it? Which "phobias" are wrong? Homophobia had been labeled as clearly wrong, while islamophobia is, again, sorta okay.
You can continue to pick and choose what parts of the pie you're going to eat, but as before, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
You keep using the term "fascists". You have no idea what it means, do you?
Yeah I live in a country which has been invaded by fascists. Not a single member of my family were unaffected by it. Not a single aspect of society was unaffected. I have learned all my life what fascism means. For instance that criticism is not allowed and is punishable with torture and death. That everybody should think the same. That nobody should make mockery of military leaders. That might makes right. That people categorized as "different" should be killed.
Do you have any idea what fascism is?
Yup.
And to equate religious extremism with fascism suggests to me that your understanding of it is colored by conflating it with whatever you disagree with.
Kanluwen wrote: If it had been a Muslim group in the US holding an event that could be considered anti-Christian and an avowed Klansman opened fire at the event, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You mean "anti-Christian" like drawing a cartoon of Jesus having a gay orgy with Moses, Ganesha and the Buddha and publishing it in one of the most famous satire websites in the world? Because the Onion did that. Nobody tried to murder them.
cincydooley wrote: Haha. You should care about the source. Kinda informs the viewpoint delivering said message.
Those questions aren't obscene. Killing people is pretty universally considered wrong.
But for some reason racism is sorta okay when it comes to Muslims, especially in parts of Europe and the U.S. Is racism okay, or isn't it? Which "phobias" are wrong? Homophobia had been labeled as clearly wrong, while islamophobia is, again, sorta okay.
You can continue to pick and choose what parts of the pie you're going to eat, but as before, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
I didn't include all of what was said, I just cut out a snippet. The quote is in the context of moral analysis.
Baxx wrote: After thousands of mocking cartoons, the religious fascists have to give up.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. You really think hardcore extremists are going to give up because people make cartoons? If we just make enough cartoons that they find offensive, they will become so offended that they will throw down their arms? This is like, Naivety Level: Plaid.
Sure I have literally alot of ideas about what I'm talking about. I know back in the day, there were a handfull of really blasphemous metal bands. And religious extremists were burning records and making a fuzz. Today, there are thousands of blasphemous bands. And not a single record is burned. Not a single fuzz made. The extremists vere worn out. The fire burned out.
If 20 people draw muhammad, they will be targeted by religious fascists. If 2 million people draw muhammad, what are they gonna do? Kill all of them? Impossible! Kill just a few and let the rest live? If every newspaper posted muhammad cartoons, it would be impossible to justify an attack on just a single one of them. It would be impossible for terrorists to do anything.
The word you're looking for is fuss, not fuzz.
And no, it wouldn't be impossible for terrorists to do anything. It would just be a target-rich environment for them.
Baxx wrote: After thousands of mocking cartoons, the religious fascists have to give up.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. You really think hardcore extremists are going to give up because people make cartoons? If we just make enough cartoons that they find offensive, they will become so offended that they will throw down their arms? This is like, Naivety Level: Plaid.
Sure I have literally alot of ideas about what I'm talking about. I know back in the day, there were a handfull of really blasphemous metal bands. And religious extremists were burning records and making a fuzz. Today, there are thousands of blasphemous bands. And not a single record is burned. Not a single fuzz made. The extremists vere worn out. The fire burned out.
If 20 people draw muhammad, they will be targeted by religious fascists. If 2 million people draw muhammad, what are they gonna do? Kill all of them? Impossible! Kill just a few and let the rest live? If every newspaper posted muhammad cartoons, it would be impossible to justify an attack on just a single one of them. It would be impossible for terrorists to do anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Haha. You should care about the source. Kinda informs the viewpoint delivering said message.
Those questions aren't obscene. Killing people is pretty universally considered wrong.
But for some reason racism is sorta okay when it comes to Muslims, especially in parts of Europe and the U.S. Is racism okay, or isn't it? Which "phobias" are wrong? Homophobia had been labeled as clearly wrong, while islamophobia is, again, sorta okay.
You can continue to pick and choose what parts of the pie you're going to eat, but as before, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
I didn't include all of what was said, I just cut out a snippet. The quote is in the context of moral analysis. To ask such questions in a moral analysis is obscene.
Theyll attack symbols. Like flying planes into buildings or shooting up magazines.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Being articulate doesn't make Sam Harris any less biased.
Baxx wrote: Yeah so you have thousands of targets, but only kill one. They can't gain support for it. And already, the entire west is target rich environemt. It's not like religious fascists wouldn't want to bomb any kindergarden, school, subway, airport or other place packed with civilians if they could. Entire countries and every single human all over europe and usa are targets of radical islamists.
So if they already want to kill everyone, why is drawing more cartoons going to make them stop wanting to kill everyone?
Those questions aren't obscene. Killing people is pretty universally considered wrong.
Then Egypt is not part of your universe. You know how many egyptians support killing people for stopping believing in islam?
Millions of people thinkg killing people is right. Wether it is for loving someone of same sex, stopping believeing in a religious, drawing cartoons or thinking critically.
So if they already want to kill everyone, why is drawing more cartoons going to make them stop wanting to kill everyone?
The more they react, the more blasphemy we create. It teaches them, killing does not benefit their cause. If they want to live, they must learn to behave morally.
I don't think hate is a good way to fight hate.
The extremist deserve more than cartoons and the average Muslim will just get offended and possibly grow to hate the west and fight against it.
But for some reason racism is sorta okay when it comes to Muslims, especially in parts of Europe and the U.S. Is racism okay, or isn't it? Which "phobias" are wrong? Homophobia had been labeled as clearly wrong, while islamophobia is, again, sorta okay.
You know what the best part of this thread is? There's a couple people in here that I just want to call a bunch of fething gakkers. And they're currently advocating my right to do so in this very thread!!
Remember mods, the people who click the triangle for me saying this actually fully support me saying it.
The suffix "phobia" has nothing to do with irrationality. You may think they're irrational, but nothing about them, clinically, defines them as irrational.
You keep referring to "mass murdering military leader." I can only assume you're referring to George Washington? Or are you referencing Dwight Eisenhower? Or maybe Winston Churchill? Boudicca? Or maybe Saladin? Maybe Robert the Bruce?
Meh, I would have rather they been captured. Would have been nice to know if this was a spontaneous incident or not. And I prefer people go on trial for their mis-deeds anyway.
But "irrational" is used in the start of the wikipedia article about phobia.
In clinical psychology, a phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
Co'tor Shas wrote: Meh, I would have rather they been captured. Would have been nice to know if this was a spontaneous incident or not. And I prefer people go on trial for their mis-deeds anyway.
Me too, I would like people like that to actually participate in discussion wether it is right to kill people for drawing cartoons. I'd be tempted to send them letters with my own drawings to them in jail.
This is Texas we're talking about, they'd probably be executed within the week.
Wikipedia is, at best, a tertiary source. While phobias may be considered by others as irrational, they are not clinically defined as such, to my knowledge.
You should also probably reevaluate your definition of biased. Wikipedia would be a perfect example of an unbiased source. Citing someone that is vehemently anti-religion as an unbiased source is simply incorrect. Harris' very publicized bias informs any opinion he's going to present. And as such, anything he can use to support said viewpoint he'll use. Just like the idiots trying to link gay marriage to the Baltimore riots.
timetowaste85 wrote: You know what the best part of this thread is? There's a couple people in here that I just want to call a bunch of fething gakkers. And they're currently advocating my right to do so in this very thread!!
Remember mods, the people who click the triangle for me saying this actually fully support me saying it.
If your post were a fat weiner dog my wife would be going "watch this!" and spinning it on the kitchen floor. me likey
Baxx wrote: I think the message stands firmly on its own.
What message? That the world is black and white, and if you're the victim of a really bad person you instantly become a perfect saint and immune to criticism? It's an utterly stupid message, and considering the source just tells us that we shouldn't be surprised that he said it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baxx wrote: It is unnatural to me to call fear of attacks from radical islamist terrorists as phobic, when such events happens daily all over the world.
It's an irrational fear because you are almost certainly not going to be the victim of a terrorist attack. You might as well be terrified of being killed by an electrical problem with your computer as you write your post about how scary terrorism is.
From my meagre knowledge on the subject, Pamela Geller is not the kind of Islamophobe I want to get behind. More the kind that shouts bs about taqiya thinking she discovered some kind of secret conspiracy rather than “religious figure saying to Shia it is okay to lie when they go to Mecca so that they are not discriminated against” than the kind that the kind that gets the difference between criticizing Islam and demonizing Muslims.
Still, attacking her rather than the terrorists here seems quite in bad taste.
What message? That the world is black and white, and if you're the victim of a really bad person you instantly become a perfect saint and immune to criticism? It's an utterly stupid message, and considering the source just tells us that we shouldn't be surprised that he said it.
You draw some new elements into the discussion: black and white and victim becomes saint and immune to criticism. Please elaborate.
Baxx wrote: In my country and surrounding countries, multiple artists live the rest of their lives with armed police bodyguards because of the threat after drawing cartoons. Almost certainly they would be the victim of terrorist attacks because terrorists have tried multiple times already. That's how scary it is.
Are you an artist who has been subject to those threats?
Baxx wrote: No, but if were I wouldn't be surprised if I needed police bodyguards for the rest of my life.
Then why are you personally afraid of terrorist attacks?
I have it on good authority when one lives under this type of....."threat" one becomes harden towards fear. For fear is a weakness. We do not feed into weakness. We are not week. We can agree and all I want to see from you all is a north and south movement
Sure. You have any thread prior to the attack where we can discuss and ridicule?
Or do you use a failed assassination terrorist attempt to ridicule the victims? If so, I think that is very distasteful.
I had no knowledge of this event prior to the attacks, so that would be kind of hard. And I see no reason not to ridicule them. If a bunch of KKK members get shot at, I'm still going to ridicule them.
I had no knowledge of this event prior to the attacks, so that would be kind of hard. And I see no reason not to ridicule them. If a bunch of KKK members get shot at, I'm still going to ridicule them.
Sure. But would you do draw attention from the attack to ridicule to victims? I think that's highly inappropriate. Why not do it independently?
Baxx wrote: Sounds similar to opinions like having sex with same sex started stoning and beheadings of homosexuals.
Do you really not see a difference between a gay person just wanting the right to live their life without being bothered by anyone and an anti-religious cartoonist doing something for the sole purpose of provoking the "enemy"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baxx wrote: If you want to ridicule them, why not do it independent of homocidal maniacs trying to kill them?
Because people comment on newsworthy events? Are we not allowed to criticize people unless we have a forum thread dedicated to criticizing them before they become newsworthy, just in case we want to be allowed to criticize them later? I don't think anyone here would have had a different opinion of the cartoonists a week ago, so I don't understand what your point here is.
Then why are you personally afraid of terrorist attacks?
Not sure I ever ment I were.
Then your talk of how sensible fear of terrorism is has been demonstrated to be ridiculous. In your case it's an irrational fear, and the "phobia" label is appropriate.
Because people comment on newsworthy events? Are we not allowed to criticize people unless we have a forum thread dedicated to criticizing them before they become newsworthy, just in case we want to be allowed to criticize them later? I don't think anyone here would have had a different opinion of the cartoonists a week ago, so I don't understand what your point here is.
Sure I'm in no position to decide what others can or can not criticise. But if the criticism is irrelevant to the terrorist attack, I think it's irrelevant to criticise them in connection with the terrorist attack.
Baxx wrote: You're speaking about the sole purpose. Is that an ability only you have? Or can I do the same?
Let me try.
The sole purpose of your text in this thread, is to provoke me and millions and others. The sole purpose of you participating in this debate is to spread hatred.
Does it work for me to dicate what your sole purpose is?
...
Are you really disputing the claim that the goal of the "conference" was to provoke and offend people?
Geller told the AP before Sunday's event that she planned the contest to make a stand for free speech in response to outcries and violence over drawings of Muhammad. Though it remained unclear several hours after the shooting whether it was related to event, she said Sunday night that the shooting showed how "needed our event really was."
She did the event after another event took place there it seems
When a Chicago-based nonprofit held a January fundraiser in Garland designed to help Muslims combat negative depictions of their faith, Geller spearheaded about 1,000 picketers at the event. One chanted: "Go back to your own countries! We don't want you here!" Others held signs with messages such as, "Insult those who behead others," an apparent reference to recent beheadings by the militant group Islamic State.
Edit
The Chicago-based organization event
Protesters, upset that a Muslim group was holding a conference at a Texas conference center owned by the local school district, showed up last night waving flags and signs telling attendees, “Go home and take Obama with you.”
The conference, titled “Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate,” was being being put on as a fundraiser for a Chicago-based Islamic group, Sound Vision, and approximately about 500 attendees were expected, reports
Holding signs saying “You are not Americans. Don’t fly our flag,” protesters complained about the Garland Independent School District allowing the group to use the facility.
“We pay our taxes to that school, and I don’t want them here,” one woman, Lavona Martindale said.
Another protester, identified as Greg McKinley, said, “We’re here to stand up for the American way of life from a faction of people who are trying to destroy us.”
McKinley added, “If they want to live their life like the middle east, they can go back to the middle east.”
“I want for people to see that we are kind peaceful people,” explained conference attendee Page Spence. “We’re not here to fight, we’re not here to argue. We’re just here to show that we’re Americans too.”
A young woman, part of a group of counter-protesters, explained, “People are here to stand up with the Prophet against hate and intolerance.”
Police authorities beefed up their presence at the event following earlier protests at a Garland School Board meeting, where board members were told by one man,”I certainly don’t think you need people there who want to destroy this country.”
A spokesman for the school district said they do not discriminate against facility renters based upon religion.
So at this point someone is arguing that the event was not inflammatory while at the same time arguing that having more inflammatory events are the answer?
This thread is starting to make as much sense as the event...
d-usa wrote: So at this point someone is arguing that the event was not inflammatory while at the same time arguing that having more inflammatory events are the answer?
This thread is starting to make as much sense as the event...
d-usa wrote: So at this point someone is arguing that the event was not inflammatory while at the same time arguing that having more inflammatory events are the answer?
Because ridiculing people for having a different opinion to your own is what started this mess?
Having people possibly ridicule your belief system is part and parcel with a free and open society. If your beliefs are so fragile that simply having a non believer question, poke fun at, or ridicule them is enough to incite violence, then there is a problem with the person being violent, not the people exercising their right to free thought/speech.
In other words, its not the ridicule that started this, its that one group thinks they are special and you are not allowed to ridicule them. Their feelings of entitlement to be the only religion no one can make fun of, as well as feeling entitled to violent reactions/threats/ect in retaliation is what starts and feeds the flames on this issue.
Be people christian, Muslim, jedi, and so on you have the right to practice your religion's beliefs (so far as they dont violate human rights IE no child brides even if islam or the bible says its ok) but other people have the right to comment/criticize and even ridicule your beliefs.
Christians get called out as loonies who believe in a magical sky god all the time, christ is often depicted in cartoons/comics that are blasphemous.
Muslims/Islam will just have to get used to how a free society operates and adapt to it, they are welcome to protest, write letters, start groups, or perform any peaceful actions they see fit to counter/condemn/control the depictions of Mohammad. But this pattern of violently enforcing their beliefs upon others is not acceptable at all.
The whole world is *not* expected, obliged, or supposed to become less free to adapt to the way Muslims/Islam want them to behave.
If they dont like cartoons about mohammad, they shouldnt read them. Maybe get a ratings system akin to the ones that warn us a program on TV has violence and/or sexual content to warn that a program might have possibly blasphemous religious content.
But this whole "we are gonna shoot anyone who draws mohammad" is an unacceptable thing to have.
So is anyone trying to justify this violence by claiming someone else started it, or was "asking for it", because they spoke their mind/expressed some ideas.
I don't really know anymore. I am just shocked by how easy it is for some people to limit or define the purpose and meaning of actions done by other people.
I wonder how many shots would be fired if some Islamic cleric was holding a conference on the fine art of burning the American flag.
And if (well we will assume it was held in texas so...) when shots are fired, would the argument be defending free speech just like this events organizer is now claiming?
We can even look into this further, said hypothetical flag burning event was merely to stoke the fire and get Americans angry. Same way this event was made out to be.
I understand some dislike the showing of their prophet. I won't rub it in their face if they dislike it. It's just common sense. I may have paintings, posters and murals of this person, hell I may even keep a very Islamic anger inducing image of the prophet looking at himself while drawing himself. Nothing bad happens until I start coping them and air dropping them in mass to the middle east.
juraigamer wrote: Nothing bad happens until I start coping them and air dropping them in mass to the middle east.
History proves you wrong. Someone else might to the air dropping part. Actually, sometime not just air dropping your pictures, but also other, more inflammatory ones, because they just love the backlash.
Remember that one time when people were drawing cartoons of Jesus and all the Christians armed themselves and killed a bunch of innocent civilians?
Oh wait that never happened. (Present time)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
juraigamer wrote: I wonder how many shots would be fired if some Islamic cleric was holding a conference on the fine art of burning the American flag.
And if (well we will assume it was held in texas so...) when shots are fired, would the argument be defending free speech just like this events organizer is now claiming?
We can even look into this further, said hypothetical flag burning event was merely to stoke the fire and get Americans angry. Same way this event was made out to be.
I understand some dislike the showing of their prophet. I won't rub it in their face if they dislike it. It's just common sense. I may have paintings, posters and murals of this person, hell I may even keep a very Islamic anger inducing image of the prophet looking at himself while drawing himself. Nothing bad happens until I start coping them and air dropping them in mass to the middle east.
Seriously.
That correct answer is none and we would be supportive of their beliefs. But if you bring up Christianity and Jesus, oh boy you better watch out.
pities2004 wrote: Remember that one time when people were drawing cartoons of Jesus and all the Christians armed themselves and killed a bunch of innocent civilians?
Oh wait that never happened.
Sure it happened. Many times, thousands of victims. But the protest just continued, the injustice was increasingly criticised, blasphemy rocketed and slowly, church lost the iron grip of society. This is part of the process of enlightenment and development of democracy. Today, you can say or draw anything you want about Jesus. Not a single christian starts killing. And every single day, people are making and enjoying tons of anti-christian art. So that never again shall religious fanatics kill those who disagree with them.
pities2004 wrote: Remember that one time when people were drawing cartoons of Jesus and all the Christians armed themselves and killed a bunch of innocent civilians?
Oh wait that never happened.
Sure it happened. Many times, thousands of victims. But the protest just continued, the injustice was increasingly criticised, blasphemy rocketed and slowly, church lost the iron grip of society. This is part of the process of enlightenment and development of democracy. Today, you can say or draw anything you want about Jesus. Not a single christian starts killing. And every single day, people are making and enjoying tons of anti-christian art. So that never again shall religious fanatics kill those who disagree with them.
Citation needed.
Edit
Current event time frame.
Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.
Laemos wrote: that is blaming the victim. She started it by dressing that way. He could have crossed the street but didn't so he clearly provoked them.
In this specific case, more like She started it by standing in front of a loony with a gun and screaming at them to shoot her.
Once again, that doesn't make the response acceptable. Just not particularly surprising.
Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.
Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.
Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).
Laemos wrote: that is blaming the victim. She started it by dressing that way. He could have crossed the street but didn't so he clearly provoked them.
In this specific case, more like She started it by standing in front of a loony with a gun and screaming at them to shoot her.
Once again, that doesn't make the response acceptable. Just not particularly surprising.
Your comparison is weak. It would be better if you had a woman with short skirt getting raped, then pointing out "...but she was wearing a short skirt".
The loonies on the other hand stood with guns in front of the police, screaming to shoot them while actually shooting at the police.
pities2004 wrote: Remember that one time when people were drawing cartoons of Jesus and all the Christians armed themselves and killed a bunch of innocent civilians?
Oh wait that never happened.
Sure it happened. Many times, thousands of victims. But the protest just continued, the injustice was increasingly criticised, blasphemy rocketed and slowly, church lost the iron grip of society. This is part of the process of enlightenment and development of democracy. Today, you can say or draw anything you want about Jesus. Not a single christian starts killing. And every single day, people are making and enjoying tons of anti-christian art. So that never again shall religious fanatics kill those who disagree with them.
Right, it happened hundreds of years ago when that kind of thinking was acceptable, considered enlightened, and rampart at the time. It doesn't matter in this particular case what happened hundreds of years ago because back then everyone was doing stuff that was acceptable then but deplorable by todays standards.
Hence why when peoples answer to freedom of expression is violence today its both anachronistic, unjustified, and totally unacceptable regard less of how much some groups' feelings were hurt over a cartoon.
You bring up a good point.
Why is it that some religions have cooled down from the crusade days, while others are still stuck in an antiquated mindset over what is and is not acceptable behavior in modern society?
Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.
Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.
Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).
pities2004 wrote: Remember that one time when people were drawing cartoons of Jesus and all the Christians armed themselves and killed a bunch of innocent civilians?
Oh wait that never happened.
Sure it happened. Many times, thousands of victims. But the protest just continued, the injustice was increasingly criticised, blasphemy rocketed and slowly, church lost the iron grip of society. This is part of the process of enlightenment and development of democracy. Today, you can say or draw anything you want about Jesus. Not a single christian starts killing. And every single day, people are making and enjoying tons of anti-christian art. So that never again shall religious fanatics kill those who disagree with them.
Right, it happened hundreds of years ago when that kind of thinking was acceptable, considered enlightened, and rampart at the time. It doesn't matter in this particular case what happened hundreds of years ago because back then everyone was doing stuff that was acceptable then but deplorable by todays standards.
Hence why when peoples answer to freedom of expression is violence today its both anachronistic, unjustified, and totally unacceptable regard less of how much some groups' feelings were hurt over a cartoon.
You bring up a good point.
Why is it that some religions have cooled down from the crusade days, while others are still stuck in an antiquated mindset over what is and is not acceptable behavior in modern society?
Because of where the religions have developed. Things are different in the middle east and africa than in america and western Europe. Had chritanity stayed in the middle east and islam in america and europe, we would have the same sort of things happening over anti-christian stuff.
Why is it that some religions have cooled down from the crusade days, while others are still stuck in an antiquated mindset over what is and is not acceptable behavior in modern society?
Because some religions are observed primarily in countries where state and church have been largely separated, resulting in many citizens not following that religion, and many laws being made by non-followers... While others aren't.
What is and isn't acceptable in modern society is dictated by that society. It's not a universal truth, set in stone, that applies to the whole world.
Because of where the religions have developed. Things are different in the middle east and africa than in america and western Europe. Had chritanity stayed in the middle east and islam in america and europe, we would have the same sort of things happening over anti-christian stuff.
Yes if Christianity had stayed in its dark age mentality, and Islam progressed through the enlightenment, things would be different... is your point that if things were different that they would be different? You are right, if things had been different and it were Christians doing this now, we would be talking about them.
Regardless of the label one puts on a belief system, and regardless of the alternate time lines that system could have taken in its evolution, all we as people have that's tangible about that belief system are results of the actions it causes/encourages/discourages.
It wouldn't matter if it was atheists, Christians, or Muslims shooting people over a cartoon in a free society that they chose to be a part of, the actions of that group would still be anachronistic.
In reality, right now, this is the mind set of enough of (not all, not even most) Islam/Muslims that it is a real issue facing the modern world.
The issue is not that a hornets nest is being poked, not that people are saying inflammatory things.
Its that enough people are stuck in the past that we keep seeing this kind of violence.
Its that and open, inclusive society has welcomed people into it who are actually working to turn back the clock and change that culture to one that is more closed and repressive.
Because that is what this kind of violence does, it can close down society through change (IE the laws make drawing mohammed illegal closing down free speech), or through fear (people fear the terrorists so enact burka bans, people get islamaphobic, ect)
Which is why it is important to have these people say their piece openly, even if it is inflammatory to show Mohammad. Even if it means they will likely be targeted by violence. They have to keep putting their ideas out there to keep everyone else doing the same and preserve a truly open society.
easysauce wrote: Its that and open, inclusive society has welcomed people into it ...
Has it?
'Allowed' is probably a better word than 'welcomed'. To me, 'welcoming' someone would imply less mocking and/or screaming for them to get the hell out.
Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.
Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.
Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).
Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.
Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.
Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).
easysauce wrote: Its that and open, inclusive society has welcomed people into it ...
Has it?
'Allowed' is probably a better word than 'welcomed'. To me, 'welcoming' someone would imply less mocking and/or screaming for them to get the hell out.
No its not a better word in this case, and it doesn't justify you blaming the victim that they were "asking for it" due to them expressing their opinions. Spouting a risky opinion is not asking for it any more then sporting a risky dress is asking for it.
The west as it stands *today* is built on immigration and being welcoming of other cultures, give me your tired, poor, weak and all that.
Immigrants come from all over the world and live in western countries, all religions, ethnicity, ect, and all get along pretty well for the most part. Its a state of cultural diversity and integration not seen in other parts of the world. Western society is the most welcoming of all ideas, races, elasticities, religions, ect on the planet because it has such diverse people from so many different backgrounds working together.
The only people who are not welcoming anything are the people shooting others over cartoons.
Shooting people is also a great way to have people ask you to leave the party too... so what came first, were they asked to leave and then shot people over it? or did they shoot people and then were asked to leave? is it unreasonable to ask that kind of person to leave or mock their ideals if they justify this kind of action? (again, talking specifically about the people committing the acts, not the faith as a whole)
No its not a better word in this case, and it doesn't justify you blaming the victim that they were "asking for it" due to them expressing their opinions. Spouting a risky opinion is not asking for it any more then sporting a risky dress is asking for it.
So, if my neighbour plays music that the guy across the road doesn't like, and as a result the guy across the road burns my neighbour's house down... and then I choose to play the same music, is there any particular reason I should be surprised if my house suddenly starts to feel a little warm?
Yet again, I'm not saying the reaction in this case was reasonable, or acceptable, or sane. What I'm saying is simply that it shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody, and that acting in a way specifically (seemingly) intended to trigger that reaction might not have been the best idea.
Or, to return to the analogy that people seem so insistent on wedging in there - if a girl wears a skimpy dress, it's not her fault that she got raped... but that doesn't change the fact that walking alone down a dark alley where someone in a skimpy dress was raped the night before might not be a wise decision.
That doesn't excuse what happens, or make it any less terrible.
The west as it stands *today* is built on immigration and being welcoming of other cultures, give me your tired, poor, weak and all that.
Yes, I know that's what it says on the tin, but the reality is very, very different.
In practice, the people who are 'welcomed' are those who dress like us, and speak like us, and behave like us... and everyone else is either tolerated, or told to change their ways or get the hell out.
The only people who are not welcoming anything are the people shooting others over cartoons.
You caught the part where this 'art' contest was organised by a group dedicated to keeping Islam out of America, right?
Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.
Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.
Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).
Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.
Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.
Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).
Yet again, I'm not saying the reaction in this case was reasonable, or acceptable, or sane. What I'm saying is simply that it shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody, and that acting in a way specifically (seemingly) intended to trigger that reaction might not have been the best idea.
Or, to return to the analogy that people seem so insistent on wedging in there - if a girl wears a skimpy dress, it's not her fault that she got raped... but that doesn't change the fact that walking alone down a dark alley where someone in a skimpy dress was raped the night before might not be a wise decision.
That doesn't excuse what happens, or make it any less terrible.
To escort the skimpy dressed girl with armed police down the ally the night after someone in a skimpy dress was raped there, is probably the best idea.
To shut down all music in fear of pyromaniacs is also a high cost for alot of people, a much worse idea than to keep on rocking in the free world.
Geller told the AP before Sunday's event that she planned the contest to make a stand for free speech in response to outcries and violence over drawings of Muhammad. Though it remained unclear several hours after the shooting whether it was related to event, she said Sunday night that the shooting showed how "needed our event really was."
She did the event after another event took place there it seems
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (or "Draw Mohammed Day") was an event held on May 20, 2010, in support of free speech and freedom of artistic expression of those threatened with violence for drawing representations of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for two segments broadcast in April 2010. Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that "everybody" create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.
Baxx wrote: To shut down all music in fear of pyromaniacs is also a high cost for alot of people, a much worse idea than to keep on rocking in the free world.
Nobody is doing the equivalent of shutting down all music. The cartoons are clearly legal and nobody is arguing that it should be otherwise. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
insaniak wrote: Or, to return to the analogy that people seem so insistent on wedging in there - if a girl wears a skimpy dress, it's not her fault that she got raped... but that doesn't change the fact that walking alone down a dark alley where someone in a skimpy dress was raped the night before might not be a wise decision.
And what happened when someone pointed out that fact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk Toronto Police spokeswoman Meaghan Gray said cautioning women on their state of dress is not part of any police training. "In fact, this is completely contradictory to what officers are taught," she said. "They are taught that nothing a woman does contributes to a sexual assault."
insaniak wrote: In practice, the people who are 'welcomed' are those who dress like us, and speak like us, and behave like us... and everyone else is either tolerated, or told to change their ways or get the hell out.
So how do you believe society should respond to those who enter a country willingly, refuse to obey local laws, and insist that the native culture be changed to better suit them - and even use violence to achieve their aim?
So how do you believe society should respond to those who enter a country willingly, refuse to obey local laws, and insist that the native culture be changed to better suit them - and even use violence to achieve their aim?
'Society' doesn't need to respond to those people. That's why we employ law enforcement.
But the shunning of muslims is hardly confined solely to those who are actively causing problems. Just look at the complaints that spring up every time someone lodges an application to build a mosque. Or the groups like the one behind this 'art' contest... They're not just trying to keep the extremists out. They're trying to keep islam out entirely.
The organizers can use their free speech to piss of people they don't agree with and they should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean that others have to agree that it was a wise decision.
Criticizing the organizers for having an event that exists to offend and to provoke a response is a perfectly acceptable use of our free speech as well, and doesn't equal censorship.
The only people that broke the law were the shooters, who decided that terror was the only response to being offended.
I may think I that the organizers are idiots and that they should have seen this coming (which they did, and which is why they spend a lot of money on security), but I won't argue that they shouldn't be allowed to be idiots in the future simply because they were attacked.
But at the same time we should also not be forced to stop the criticism of the organizers simply because they were attacked. Their behavior doesn't excuse the attack one single bit, but the fact that they were attacked also doesn't excuse their behavior.
The law gives them the avenue to offend, and they have the right to be offensive. Others also have the right to be offended. Both sides have the right to use their speech to spread their message, and nobody has to agree with anyone. Both sides can yell at each other all they want, and the cries of "don't be so offensive" and "don't be so offended" will continue. And that's good. There will be public responses to people that offend as well as people that are offended, and that is good. And it's not always against the people doing the offending either. The OT school play thread is a good example where somebody was offended and the law appears to have agreed with him, but he still faces public criticism of the fact that he was offended here. Others here are criticizing the teacher for being offensive by organizing the play. Point being, that is how it is supposed to work.
Everybody agrees that terror is never an appropriate response to being offended, but terror should never result in the silencing of offensive speech nor their criticism.
If offensive speech gets drowned out by the speech of those offended, then that is how it is supposed to work. If those who are offended get drowned out by the speech of those who are offensive, the so be it. But when offensive speech or the criticism thereof gets shut down because of terror, then nobody wins.
No its not a better word in this case, and it doesn't justify you blaming the victim that they were "asking for it" due to them expressing their opinions. Spouting a risky opinion is not asking for it any more then sporting a risky dress is asking for it.
So, if my neighbour plays music that the guy across the road doesn't like, and as a result the guy across the road burns my neighbour's house down... and then I choose to play the same music, is there any particular reason I should be surprised if my house suddenly starts to feel a little warm?
Why wasn't the guy across the street put in prison? And while you should expect the guy to continue to act unreasonably, is that really justification for you and your neighbors to allow that lunatic to control what happens in the neighborhood? Terror wins?
insaniak wrote: Yet again, I'm not saying the reaction in this case was reasonable, or acceptable, or sane. What I'm saying is simply that it shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody, and that acting in a way specifically (seemingly) intended to trigger that reaction might not have been the best idea.
She spent $50,000 on security. That's why only one guard was injured and the two terrorists were killed before they could do any more harm. Make up whatever silly similes you wish, this group payed attention to the attack at Charlie Hebdo. Speaking of which, would you really suggest the people at Charlie Hebdo were responsible for what happened to them? It pretty much falls along the same line of thinking.
insaniak wrote: You caught the part where this 'art' contest was organised by a group dedicated to keeping Islam out of America, right?
That's a gross exaggeration of their purpose. Even if it were their purpose, they've already failed give there are over a million practicing Muslims in America already.
d-usa wrote: The organizers can use their free speech to piss of people they don't agree with and they should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean that others have to agree that it was a wise decision.
Criticizing the organizers for having an event that exists to offend and to provoke a response is a perfectly acceptable use of our free speech as well, and doesn't equal censorship.
The only people that broke the law were the shooters, who decided that terror was the only response to being offended.
I may think I that the organizers are idiots and that they should have seen this coming (which they did, and which is why they spend a lot of money on security), but I won't argue that they shouldn't be allowed to be idiots in the future simply because they were attacked.
But at the same time we should also not be forced to stop the criticism of the organizers simply because they were attacked. Their behavior doesn't excuse the attack one single bit, but the fact that they were attacked also doesn't excuse their behavior.
The law gives them the avenue to offend, and they have the right to be offensive. Others also have the right to be offended. Both sides have the right to use their speech to spread their message, and nobody has to agree with anyone. Both sides can yell at each other all they want, and the cries of "don't be so offensive" and "don't be so offended" will continue. And that's good. There will be public responses to people that offend as well as people that are offended, and that is good. And it's not always against the people doing the offending either. The OT school play thread is a good example where somebody was offended and the law appears to have agreed with him, but he still faces public criticism of the fact that he was offended here. Others here are criticizing the teacher for being offensive by organizing the play. Point being, that is how it is supposed to work.
Everybody agrees that terror is never an appropriate response to being offended, but terror should never result in the silencing of offensive speech nor their criticism.
If offensive speech gets drowned out by the speech of those offended, then that is how it is supposed to work. If those who are offended get drowned out by the speech of those who are offensive, the so be it. But when offensive speech or the criticism thereof gets shut down because of terror, then nobody wins.
Agreed... wholeheartedly.
I think some excitedly pro-Free speech folks (like moi) rubs certain folks the wrong way because it appears that we're clamoring to be free from criticism.
Which is so far from the truth actually... for blasphemous, ugly, slowed speech... the antidote is MORE SPEECH!
So how do you believe society should respond to those who enter a country willingly, refuse to obey local laws, and insist that the native culture be changed to better suit them - and even use violence to achieve their aim?
'Society' doesn't need to respond to those people. That's why we employ law enforcement.
So we don't attempt to address their concerns, help them integrate into society, etc. we just wait for violence and let the police take care of it?
insaniak wrote: But the shunning of muslims is hardly confined solely to those who are actively causing problems. Just look at the complaints that spring up every time someone lodges an application to build a mosque. Or the groups like the one behind this 'art' contest... They're not just trying to keep the extremists out. They're trying to keep islam out entirely.
That's not a 'welcoming' atmosphere.
Then I ask again; how does society respond to this?
Why wasn't the guy across the street put in prison? And while you should expect the guy to continue to act unreasonably, is that really justification for you and your neighbors to allow that lunatic to control what happens in the neighborhood? Terror wins?
See, that's exactly the point. There are better ways to deal with the situation other than to just keep doing the same thing and getting shouty when it continues to have the same result.
Particularly when that same thing has been proven to provoke a violent response.
Why wasn't the guy across the street put in prison? And while you should expect the guy to continue to act unreasonably, is that really justification for you and your neighbors to allow that lunatic to control what happens in the neighborhood? Terror wins?
See, that's exactly the point. There are better ways to deal with the situation other than to just keep doing the same thing and getting shouty when it continues to have the same result.
Particularly when that same thing has been proven to provoke a violent response.
Like what, exactly? This guy was already being watch and a court already refused the government's request to prevent him from travelling. Short of a crime, he couldn't be imprisoned.
Baxx wrote: To shut down all music in fear of pyromaniacs is also a high cost for alot of people, a much worse idea than to keep on rocking in the free world.
Nobody is doing the equivalent of shutting down all music. The cartoons are clearly legal and nobody is arguing that it should be otherwise. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
Nothing about what I stated was about legality. It was a response to something "not being the best idea". And what you commented on was a response that it certainly wasn't the worst idea and maybe even the best.
In practice, the people who are 'welcomed' are those who dress like us, and speak like us, and behave like us... and everyone else is either tolerated, or told to change their ways or get the hell out.
That might be your own, anecdotal experience, mine is quite different. In my experience we all realize we are all immigrants here at some point and no one is told to "change their ways or get out" everyone gets to be who they want to be and is welcome. Cultures are assimilated and in fact become part of the greater culture up here rather then being told to change or GTFO as you put it.
My experience in the states, UK, and europe has been the same namely that the west is a melting pot, not an assimilation factory where every culture comes in and comes out yankee doodle dandy *or else*
Freely expressing ideas in a free society is not a risky behavior on par with going down murder ally at night in that it is a dumb move that should expect violent action. In fact you are blaming the victim when you say that they should expect this kind of thing.
sure they can be criticized for how they did it, D-usa summed that up nicely.
That doesnt mean their actions were cause or effect, nor were their actions were wrong.
the *only* people who did anything wrong were the shooters, you seem to think the even organizers are also to blame.
pities2004 wrote: Remember that one time when people were drawing cartoons of Jesus and all the Christians armed themselves and killed a bunch of innocent civilians?
Oh wait that never happened.
Sure it happened. Many times, thousands of victims. But the protest just continued, the injustice was increasingly criticised, blasphemy rocketed and slowly, church lost the iron grip of society. This is part of the process of enlightenment and development of democracy. Today, you can say or draw anything you want about Jesus. Not a single christian starts killing. And every single day, people are making and enjoying tons of anti-christian art. So that never again shall religious fanatics kill those who disagree with them.
Citation needed.
Edit
Current event time frame.
Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.
I believe he's referring to the 30 Year's War, arguably pound for pound the bloodiest war in European history (including WWII). It was so bad it literally burned out the religious hardliners, setting the way for political and religious reformation, and the modern European states. It also almost ended when the Ottomans decided it would be an excellent time to conquer Europe...
ISIS takes credit for the attack. Question remains do we (US Government) acknowledge we have possible home grown terrorists that are willing to operate within the borders of the US.
easysauce wrote: That might be your own, anecdotal experience, mine is quite different.
Then it would seem that only one of us is paying attention to the news.
Our would you class the actions of the group behind this 'art' contest as 'welcoming' to Muslims?
the *only* people who did anything wrong were the shooters, you seem to think the even organizers are also to blame.
No, just that they acted like donkey-caves, and what happened was a completely unsurprising reaction to that, given recent events.
You are doing that thing where you judge the entire group by a small # of people.
Not all muslims are terrorists, just because SOME are, does not justify us hating them all.
In the same manner, most people welcome muslims, that a few do not, does not justify muslims killing anyone. Besides which, drawing a cartoon of mohammad does not equate to being unwelcoming to muslims, in the same manner that a non christian does not have to follow the strict orthodox practices of christians in order to be considered "welcoming" to them.
You are equating that these people have to follow orthodox religious laws like the no drawing mohammad rule in order to be "welcoming" which is a completely asinine concept. May as well say "the states doesnt practice sharia law, look how much it hates muslims and does not welcome them!"
What ever the ideas that were expressed, getting shot over it is not the logical outcome and not to be expected thing no matter how much you want to try to spin it.
There were *numerous* other methods they muslim shooters could have used to get their point across available to them in our society.
they can protest, they can start their own groups, they can just not look at the cartoons.
You are acting like their only option was to shoot people, and you are trying to justify it, as well as blaming the victim.
You should pay attention yourself if you are missing that they had a plethora of other options besides shooting people.
WE dont expect anti christian, anti gay, anti straight, anti atheist, anti abortion (or pro abortion) ect conferences to get shot up, but for some reason you hand waive it off when muslims shoot up a place for drawing cartoons they do not like.
I often see people characterize the even, organizers or attendants as "idiots" or "donkey-caves". But what is the justification for such negative remarks? I just watched a few minutes from the video of the event, and I didn't see idiots or donkey-caves there.
Also, I saw multiple times that some have the view that the only reason for this event is to provoke inflammatory hatred. I never saw any justification for this either. I find it completely unrealistic to say such a thing.
Baxx wrote: I often see people characterize the even, organizers or attendants as "idiots" or "donkey-caves". But what is the justification for such negative remarks? I just watched a few minutes from the video of the event, and I didn't see idiots or donkey-caves there.
You'll have to excuse us if we doubt that a group called "Stop Islamization of America" acted out of good faith and genuine desire to reform Islam.
Further, I'd argue that they're douchebags because they pour petrol on an incendiary issue. The issue of young Muslims becoming radicalized isn't going to be helped at all by taunting them and confirming their belief that "the West" has no respect for them at all.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Further, I'd argue that they're douchebags because they pour petrol on an incendiary issue. The issue of young Muslims becoming radicalized isn't going to be helped at all by taunting them and confirming their belief that "the West" has no respect for them at all.
I would argue that anything else than showing we respect them as people but certainly do NOT respect their belief is not helping.
Baxx wrote: I often see people characterize the even, organizers or attendants as "idiots" or "donkey-caves". But what is the justification for such negative remarks? I just watched a few minutes from the video of the event, and I didn't see idiots or donkey-caves there.
You'll have to excuse us if we doubt that a group called "Stop Islamization of America" acted out of good faith and genuine desire to reform Islam.
Further, I'd argue that they're douchebags because they pour petrol on an incendiary issue. The issue of young Muslims becoming radicalized isn't going to be helped at all by taunting them and confirming their belief that "the West" has no respect for them at all.
right, and maybe all those uppity people trying to change the way we think about gays, abortion, politics, ect should also just keep it shut?
the "west" should respect the ideals of islam, and practice strict orthodox muslim law by not allowing mohammad to be depicted.
But when some people go out and kill people, thats a sign of respecting western ideals?
When your idea of "respecting" muslims is to force everyone to practice a rule in their orthodox religion by not depicting mohammad, you have crossed over from "respecting their ideals" (which would constitute allowing them to have these ideals without fear of repercussion) to forcing people to *adopt* muslim beliefs.
You dont respect christianity by forcing everyone to take sunday mass, you respect it by leaving it alone and doing your own thing. Even if you disagree with it.
thats what respect is, what you are talking about is forcing everyone else to practice one particulars groups religious nuttery.
expecting no one to draw mohammad is no different then expecting everyone to take sunday mass.
Baxx wrote: I often see people characterize the even, organizers or attendants as "idiots" or "donkey-caves". But what is the justification for such negative remarks? I just watched a few minutes from the video of the event, and I didn't see idiots or donkey-caves there.
You'll have to excuse us if we doubt that a group called "Stop Islamization of America" acted out of good faith and genuine desire to reform Islam.
Further, I'd argue that they're douchebags because they pour petrol on an incendiary issue. The issue of young Muslims becoming radicalized isn't going to be helped at all by taunting them and confirming their belief that "the West" has no respect for them at all.
And that US watchdog groups consider them an "Active Hate group" especially after their actions in New York and the violence against Muslims who wanted to rebuild a mosque near ground zero. So I doubt this is a sincere exchange of ideas and not flat-out hate-filled bigotry. I know a lot of Muslims and they are good people living their lives, and guess what, Islam is not 'going away' but it is progressing the same way other orthodox religions did. So why not support those who take the good aspects into our culture and denounce destructive ones without doing so in a pointlessly bigoted way attempting to incite hate and violence.
If anything they were trying to be a martyr... I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted violence to break out. The responses of the people in the video when the police chief tries to tell them there has been a shooting, you hear people happy and almost cheering when they go "it was a muslim right?" as if they got the response they intended.
If anything they were trying to be a martyr... I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted violence to break out. The responses of the people in the video when the police chief tries to tell them there has been a shooting, you hear people happy and almost cheering when they go "it was a muslim right?" as if they got the response they intended.
I think that's the only way you can reasonably read the fact that they had SWAT on location, right?
Baxx wrote: I often see people characterize the even, organizers or attendants as "idiots" or "donkey-caves". But what is the justification for such negative remarks? I just watched a few minutes from the video of the event, and I didn't see idiots or donkey-caves there.
You'll have to excuse us if we doubt that a group called "Stop Islamization of America" acted out of good faith and genuine desire to reform Islam.
Further, I'd argue that they're douchebags because they pour petrol on an incendiary issue. The issue of young Muslims becoming radicalized isn't going to be helped at all by taunting them and confirming their belief that "the West" has no respect for them at all.
And that US watchdog groups consider them an "Active Hate group" especially after their actions in New York and the violence against Muslims who wanted to rebuild a mosque near ground zero. So I doubt this is a sincere exchange of ideas and not flat-out hate-filled bigotry. I know a lot of Muslims and they are good people living their lives, and guess what, Islam is not 'going away' but it is progressing the same way other orthodox religions did. So why not support those who take the good aspects into our culture and denounce destructive ones without doing so in a pointlessly bigoted way attempting to incite hate and violence.
If anything they were trying to be a martyr... I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted violence to break out. The responses of the people in the video when the police chief tries to tell them there has been a shooting, you hear people happy and almost cheering when they go "it was a muslim right?" as if they got the response they intended.
SPLC considers anyone who has a conservative voice as a hate group now. They've changed from what they used to be. Don't agree with them on gay marriage-hata!
Baxx wrote: I often see people characterize the even, organizers or attendants as "idiots" or "donkey-caves". But what is the justification for such negative remarks? I just watched a few minutes from the video of the event, and I didn't see idiots or donkey-caves there.
You'll have to excuse us if we doubt that a group called "Stop Islamization of America" acted out of good faith and genuine desire to reform Islam.
Further, I'd argue that they're douchebags because they pour petrol on an incendiary issue. The issue of young Muslims becoming radicalized isn't going to be helped at all by taunting them and confirming their belief that "the West" has no respect for them at all.
And that US watchdog groups consider them an "Active Hate group" especially after their actions in New York and the violence against Muslims who wanted to rebuild a mosque near ground zero. So I doubt this is a sincere exchange of ideas and not flat-out hate-filled bigotry. I know a lot of Muslims and they are good people living their lives, and guess what, Islam is not 'going away' but it is progressing the same way other orthodox religions did. So why not support those who take the good aspects into our culture and denounce destructive ones without doing so in a pointlessly bigoted way attempting to incite hate and violence.
If anything they were trying to be a martyr... I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted violence to break out. The responses of the people in the video when the police chief tries to tell them there has been a shooting, you hear people happy and almost cheering when they go "it was a muslim right?" as if they got the response they intended.
SPLC considers anyone who has a conservative voice as a hate group now. They've changed from what they used to be. Don't agree with them on gay marriage-hata!
The Irony about SPLC is that under it's own criteria, it's also a hate group.
Baxx wrote: I often see people characterize the even, organizers or attendants as "idiots" or "donkey-caves". But what is the justification for such negative remarks? I just watched a few minutes from the video of the event, and I didn't see idiots or donkey-caves there.
You'll have to excuse us if we doubt that a group called "Stop Islamization of America" acted out of good faith and genuine desire to reform Islam.
Further, I'd argue that they're douchebags because they pour petrol on an incendiary issue. The issue of young Muslims becoming radicalized isn't going to be helped at all by taunting them and confirming their belief that "the West" has no respect for them at all.
And that US watchdog groups consider them an "Active Hate group" especially after their actions in New York and the violence against Muslims who wanted to rebuild a mosque near ground zero. So I doubt this is a sincere exchange of ideas and not flat-out hate-filled bigotry. I know a lot of Muslims and they are good people living their lives, and guess what, Islam is not 'going away' but it is progressing the same way other orthodox religions did. So why not support those who take the good aspects into our culture and denounce destructive ones without doing so in a pointlessly bigoted way attempting to incite hate and violence.
If anything they were trying to be a martyr... I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted violence to break out. The responses of the people in the video when the police chief tries to tell them there has been a shooting, you hear people happy and almost cheering when they go "it was a muslim right?" as if they got the response they intended.
SPLC considers anyone who has a conservative voice as a hate group now. They've changed from what they used to be. Don't agree with them on gay marriage-hata!
The Irony about SPLC is that under it's own criteria, it's also a hate group.
are they not just following the rules?
IE haters gonna hate?
That is really the crux of the issue though now, as some controversial, possibly offensive opinions are protected, while others are legally curtailed, based solely on the popular/powerful opinions of people rather then everyone having a free and open forum.
right, and maybe all those uppity people trying to change the way we think about gays, abortion, politics, ect should also just keep it shut?
If they can't use rational arguments but have to resort to fishing for emotional responses from their opponents then yes, they absolutely should. It's counter-productive and silly.
I wonder how long it's going to take for someone to misrepresent this comment as me calling for legal censorship.
When your idea of "respecting" muslims is to force everyone to practice a rule in their orthodox religion by not depicting mohammad, you have crossed over from "respecting their ideals" (which would constitute allowing them to have these ideals without fear of repercussion) to forcing people to *adopt* muslim beliefs.
Where do I want to "force" anyone to do anything? Quote or stop claiming I do.
expecting no one to draw mohammad is no different then expecting everyone to take sunday mass.
Is the West currently trying to stop young Christians from becoming radicalized Crusaders? No? Then they're not the same in reality. On paper yes, but not in practice.
Anyone who was aware of the Park51 issue in New York and the multiple attacks on muslims prompted by the words and actions of Geller knows her hands are not clean on this and she is an unapologetic anti-muslim bigot.
So excuse me why I don't try to take this one event as an isolated event through the eyes of "but, but free speech!" when she was directly responsible for inciting extremists to firebomb and vandalize mosques while claiming 'I am just free-speeching! I didn't do any violence!'
Hate groups are Hate groups... If this was a KKK art house where people made sculptures of black men raping white women or an Anti-Semitic poetry slam, there would be no traction for the type of speech from US populations, it would be seen as universally hate-speech and wouldn't have happened due to being unpopular.
Hate groups are Hate groups... If this was a KKK art house where people made sculptures of black men raping white women or an Anti-Semitic poetry slam, there would be no traction for the type of speech from US populations, it would be seen as universally hate-speech and wouldn't have happened due to being unpopular.
When you realize the New Black Panthers are a thing as are the Aryan Brotherhood and KKK, you realize your argument falls on its face.
Hate groups are Hate groups... If this was a KKK art house where people made sculptures of black men raping white women or an Anti-Semitic poetry slam, there would be no traction for the type of speech from US populations, it would be seen as universally hate-speech and wouldn't have happened due to being unpopular.
When you realize the New Black Panthers are a thing as are the Aryan Brotherhood and KKK, you realize your argument falls on its face.
Hate groups are Hate groups... If this was a KKK art house where people made sculptures of black men raping white women or an Anti-Semitic poetry slam, there would be no traction for the type of speech from US populations, it would be seen as universally hate-speech and wouldn't have happened due to being unpopular.
When you realize the New Black Panthers are a thing as are the Aryan Brotherhood and KKK, you realize your argument falls on its face.
If they can't use rational arguments but have to resort to fishing for emotional responses from their opponents then yes, they absolutely should. It's counter-productive and silly.
Cartoons, drawings and blasphemy are not counter-productive.
Unless you are the supreme judge of art?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: ...wow, guess you beat me to it. "Not allowing" is not the same as realizing that it's a bad idea given the circumstances.
Drawing mocking caricatures of mass-murderous military leaders is not a bad idea, specially during the current circumstances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is the West currently trying to stop young Christians from becoming radicalized Crusaders? No? Then they're not the same in reality. On paper yes, but not in practice.
Specify "the West". You are Swedish, you should certainly know of some examples depending of the range.
If they can't use rational arguments but have to resort to fishing for emotional responses from their opponents then yes, they absolutely should. It's counter-productive and silly.
Cartoons, drawings and blasphemy are not counter-productive.
Unless you are the supreme judge of art?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: ...wow, guess you beat me to it. "Not allowing" is not the same as realizing that it's a bad idea given the circumstances.
Drawing mocking caricatures of mass-murderous military leaders is not a bad idea, specially during the current circumstances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is the West currently trying to stop young Christians from becoming radicalized Crusaders? No? Then they're not the same in reality. On paper yes, but not in practice.
Specify "the West". You are Swedish, you should certainly know of some examples depending of the range.
baxx beat me to it!
and yes mr walrus, when you have a group shooting people over cartoons, its the shooters problem, not the artists, drawing a cartoon is not asking for it. And yes, despite you not wanting to be called out for promoting censorship, thats exactly what you are doing. Not doing something because its a bad idea and might get you shot by irrational people is not a good reason to curtail free speech, there are plenty of loonie toons out there, we do not curtail free speech to accommodate the loonies in other groups so we should not curtail free speech to appease radical muslims.
its not free speech/thought if you are only free to speak and say things that everyone agrees with.
You also seem to think drawing a cartoon is equal to fireing the first shot, which it is not, its not starting *anything* to any rational person.
The irrationality of the shooters is the beginning and end to this event, no amount of ideas that clash with these radicals is justification for their actions as you imply by claiming the artists started it.
People call out Christians for their hypocrisy all the time through various art medium, as they *should* be doing, this is how things get changed *without shooting people*. This is why most churches now welcome gays, dont cast people out for premarital sex, or stone people to death for blasphemy any more.
Shooting people is just the new form of stoning people to death, drawing cartoons is an acceptable way of trying to communicate ideas or change peoples minds regardless of if you personally approve of the cartoon.
That you see absolutely no justification for the cartoon, but continue to try to justify the shooting with a "but they started it by drawing a cartoon and having opinions!" is absurdity.
Muslims should not be a protected class above any criticism who get to dictate what ideas people can have or what cartoons people can draw.
easysauce wrote: When your idea of "respecting" muslims is to force everyone to practice a rule in their orthodox religion by not depicting mohammad, you have crossed over from "respecting their ideals" (which would constitute allowing them to have these ideals without fear of repercussion) to forcing people to *adopt* muslim beliefs.
And that would suck. I don't know how I could possibly get through my day without drawing Mohammed at least once or twice.
Look, nobody is expecting everyone to adopt Muslim beliefs. Just to show a little respect for them... because the current lack of respect is a very large part of the problem that muslim countries have with the west.
Instead of saying 'Can't draw Mohammed? Huh, that's a bit odd...' we jump straight to 'You can't tell me what to do! Not being allowed to draw someone is a stupid rule!' and then we do everything we can to ridicule it.
Expecting people to show a modicum of respect for others' beliefs isn't forcing people to adopt those beliefs. Just to not be donkey-caves.
You dont respect christianity by forcing everyone to take sunday mass, you respect it by leaving it alone and doing your own thing. Even if you disagree with it.
Indeed. But that's not what happened here. What happened here was that someone disagreed with something that a religious group believes in, and so went out of their way to be obnoxious about it.
Leaving it alone would have meant, you know, leaving it alone.
Not taking sunday mass because you disagree with it is fine. Setting up an art contest to mock those who do take sunday mass is gakky thing to do.
expecting no one to draw mohammad is no different then expecting everyone to take sunday mass.
Except for the part where the latter results in you doing something that you don't want to do, while the former just results in you not drawing somebody.
expecting no one to draw mohammad is no different then expecting everyone to take sunday mass.
Except for the part where the latter results in you doing something that you don't want to do, while the former just results in you not drawing somebody.
thats a false statement and it is hypocritical, forcing someone to do something, or not to do something, is the same end result. You are forcing your belief on another person.
While you personally might not care about not drawing mohammad, plenty of artists and political commentators feel its apt to do so. The list of things you personally can do without doing is 100% irrelevant. You might not want to own a ferrari, doesnt mean that a ferrari ban isnt curtailing someones freedom of choice.
Its a curtail on free speech and you know it, just as if someone said "no more presidents in political cartoons, presidents are above that"
I could easily say that rejecting mandatory mass isnt a big deal, cause hey, your just drinking free wine and eating free bread, who doesnt like a free snack after all? Same with taking the lords name in vain, hey, we are just expecting you to NOT say
"jesus christ" inappropriately or we will shoot you, soo totally ok right? Cause its ok to shoot people if we are just asking them not to do anything and you dont really need to swear right?
some radical christians might just want you to abstain from gay marridge too... by your logic thats fine and dandy, because they are not forcing you to do anything, they are just forcing you to not do something, and after all, you probably dont want to get a gay marridge ytourself everyday, so why shouldnt society in general bow to the whims of a radical religious group?
While you personally might not care about not drawing mohammad, plenty of artists and political commentators feel its apt to do so. The list of things you personally can do without doing is 100% irrelevant. You might not want to own a ferrari, doesnt mean that a ferrari ban isnt curtailing someones freedom of choice.
People own Ferrari's because they want to own Ferrari's.
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
[/youtube]
I could easily say that rejecting mandatory mass isnt a big deal, cause hey, your just drinking free wine and eating free bread, who doesnt like a free snack after all?
You've clearly never taken the Eucharist if you think anyone would be in it for a "free snack."
at the end of the day, there is a 1st amendmant that protects the artists right to free speech.
As of today, there is no amendmant protecting radicals rights to shoot people who express opinions that they do not like.
dooly, you miss the point, people eat every day, eating an extra sip of wine and bread isnt a "huge deal" nor is abstaining from blaspheming in the lords name.
yet you would never try to justify christians shooting people who blasphemed the same way you are justifying the radical muslim shooters actions in this case by claiming that the artists "started it"
easysauce wrote: thats a false statement and it is hypocritical, forcing someone to do something, or not to do something, is the same end result. You are forcing your belief on another person.
Sure. In the same way that my neighbour's desire to sleep 'forces' me to not play loud music late at night. Or the way my desire to not annoy my Christian friends 'forces' me to not use the Lord's name as a swear word around them. Or the way my community's desire to have a clean neighbourhood 'forces' me to clean up after my dog. Or the way the wish of everyone else on the bus to not throw up 'forces' me to bathe occasionally.
That's how society works. We make concessions to the sensibilities and wishes of those around us, because that way we all have a better chance of getting along.
Sure, I should have the 'right' to stand behind someone on the bus and make constant jokes about his hair... but I don't, because outside of my own amusement, that would serve no purpose other than to piss him off.
This idea that your personal right to act like an donkey-cave should trump the wishes or beliefs of everyone else is just lunacy.
To be clear, here, I'm not suggesting that everyone should be required to follow muslim rules. I'm saying that requirement shouldn't be necessary, because we should be making an effort to not be donkey-caves in the first place.
If you feel strongly enough about someone else's beliefs that you feel they should be changed, there are other ways to go about it, that show some respect for the people who hold those beliefs. Ridicule is rarely a vehicle for positive change.
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
So, to carry that line of thinking to a different example:
Do people burn US flags do so just to agitate those who think it should not be burned (except in proper disposal)?
Or perhaps they burn the US flag as a valid expression of protest against one or more things they believe the flag represents?
Perhaps drawing the ol' Prophet of Allah is done in a similar vein?
Regardless of how offensive I think either are, I'm not allowed to stomp the feth out of those doing so, let alone shoot them, because it is their right to do so.
easysauce wrote: thats a false statement and it is hypocritical, forcing someone to do something, or not to do something, is the same end result. You are forcing your belief on another person.
Sure. In the same way that my neighbour's desire to sleep 'forces' me to not play loud music late at night. Or the way my desire to not annoy my Christian friends 'forces' me to not use the Lord's name as a swear word around them. Or the way my community's desire to have a clean neighbourhood 'forces' me to clean up after my dog. Or the way the wish of everyone else on the bus to not throw up 'forces' me to bathe occasionally.
oh, sorry are people shooting at you over these things you do not do? You would legitimatly be afraid for your life if you used the lords name in vain right?
no?
then its not the same as when people shoot at you over it.
False equivalency at its best.
Someone being kept up byt your band, cannot leave their home to sleep, you force them to listen to it.
Muslims who dont like seeing mohammad pictured, dont have to look at it, no one is forcing them to look at it.
The only recourse they have legitimately, is to petition that media has a rating that states it might offend them so they can turn it off, just as people get warned a program might have sex/violence and can turn if off if they do not want to be exposed to such things.
Shooting people is not going to solve anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Ridicule is rarely a vehicle for positive change.
Ridicule, satire, comedy, are all perfectly *peacefull* and acceptable forms of protest or voicing an opinion regardless if if they are the most effective method or if they rub some people the wrong way.
Shooting people is whats not a vehicle for positive change.
its odd to see cartoonists being condemned by you more then people who are trying to kill them
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
So, to carry that line of thinking to a different example:
Do people burn US flags do so just to agitate those who think it should not be burned (except in proper disposal)?
Or perhaps they burn the US flag as a valid expression of protest against one or more things they believe the flag represents?
Perhaps drawing the ol' Prophet of Allah is done in a similar vein?
Regardless of how offensive I think either are, I'm not allowed to stomp the feth out of those doing so, let alone shoot them, because it is their right to do so.
or walked/stomped on.
Its Freedom of Speech. Though one has to be aware of getting into altercations if certain individuals take offense to it. Pro's and Con's
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
So, to carry that line of thinking to a different example:
Do people burn US flags do so just to agitate those who think it should not be burned (except in proper disposal)?
Or perhaps they burn the US flag as a valid expression of protest against one or more things they believe the flag represents?
Perhaps drawing the ol' Prophet of Allah is done in a similar vein?
Regardless of how offensive I think either are, I'm not allowed to stomp the feth out of those doing so, let alone shoot them, because it is their right to do so.
or walked/stomped on.
Its Freedom of Speech. Though one has to be aware of getting into altercations if certain individuals take offense to it. Pro's and Con's
I've wondered what the reaction would have been if the flag stompers were using a rainbow flag instead of Old Glory...
Probably then would be perceived as 'trying to agitate and should be curtailed' instead of a legitimate expression of free speech.
FOR THE RECORD: I don't condone stomping on either flag, I was just using an example.
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
So, to carry that line of thinking to a different example:
Do people burn US flags do so just to agitate those who think it should not be burned (except in proper disposal)?
Or perhaps they burn the US flag as a valid expression of protest against one or more things they believe the flag represents?
Perhaps drawing the ol' Prophet of Allah is done in a similar vein?
Regardless of how offensive I think either are, I'm not allowed to stomp the feth out of those doing so, let alone shoot them, because it is their right to do so.
or walked/stomped on.
Its Freedom of Speech. Though one has to be aware of getting into altercations if certain individuals take offense to it. Pro's and Con's
I've wondered what the reaction would have been if the flag stompers were using a rainbow flag instead of Old Glory...
Probably then would be perceived as 'trying to agitate and should be curtailed' instead of a legitimate expression of free speech.
FOR THE RECORD: I don't condone stomping on either flag, I was just using an example.
Same here
Those that do though can take the baggage that would entail afterwards. I for one can care less unless one attempt to remove my "flag" from my property. My flag for two knee caps sounds like a bargain
dooly, you miss the point, people eat every day, eating an extra sip of wine and bread isnt a "huge deal" nor is abstaining from blaspheming in the lords name.
I didn't miss any point. And if I did, it's because you articulated it poorly. You, however, clearly have no understanding of the Eucharist.
yet you would never try to justify christians shooting people who blasphemed the same way you are justifying the radical muslim shooters actions in this case by claiming that the artists "started it"
And not a single person here has tried to "justify....shooting people." Not a single one.
Do people burn US flags do so just to agitate those who think it should not be burned (except in proper disposal)?
Or perhaps they burn the US flag as a valid expression of protest against one or more things they believe the flag represents?
Honestly, I think it can be both, and is entirely contingent on the situation in which it's being burned. I think if they burn intentionally in front of soldiers, it's more about the former and less the latter. But I could be wrong.
Perhaps drawing the ol' Prophet of Allah is done in a similar vein?
Perhaps, but I have a lot of trouble believing that. A lot of them. Especially when the most common way Muslim women "protest" parts of Islam they disagree with is by not wearing a hijab.
Regardless of how offensive I think either are, I'm not allowed to stomp the feth out of those doing so, let alone shoot them, because it is their right to do so.
And you're absolutely right. No one here has said otherwise....
This rhetorical is getting incredibly old. You should probably retire it.
The argument that because the observer can't see purpose, limited purpose or one-dimensional purpose of a subject, then the subject has no purpose, limited purpose or one-dimensional purpose is outdated centuries ago.
Yet it pops up everytime someone gets killed for drawing one specific mass-murderer (not in other cases mind you).
I'm not sure if you still don't see anything else than provocation, inflammatory and hatred. Have you broadened your view during this discussion?
Blasphemy, caricatures and mockery of authorities is an old art form in Europe. It is necessary and vital to ensure freedom. In many ways, it is the litmus test of a free society. That's why it is constantly used to measure the state we're in. Every single day for decades if not centuries across most western countries.
Yet it pops up everytime someone gets killed for drawing one specific mass-murderer (not in other cases mind you).
This is pretty tiresome too, and makes it very clear where you stand. In my opinion, it also makes you sound like quite the bigot, but I'm not a big SJW so I'm unclear about the parameters of throwing around that word.
Blasphemy, caricatures and mockery of authorities is an old art form in Europe. It is necessary and vital to ensure freedom. In many ways, it is the litmus test of a free society. That's why it is constantly used to measure the state we're in. Every single day for decades if not centuries across most western countries.
Yes, you enlightened Europeans. Please, teach us more.
Yet it pops up everytime someone gets killed for drawing one specific mass-murderer (not in other cases mind you).
This is pretty tiresome too, and makes it very clear where you stand. In my opinion, it also makes you sound like quite the bigot, but I'm not a big SJW so I'm unclear about the parameters of throwing around that word.
Mass murderer? You should read the Quran some time. If you consider any "conqueror" type a mass murderer, then that fits. If you don't, it don't.
Thats ok actually. Buddha was a warrior originally. Then he realized the error of his ways. Many of the Old Testament kings could have been considered the same, David certainly.
Look, nobody is expecting everyone to adopt Muslim beliefs. Just to show a little respect for them... because the current lack of respect is a very large part of the problem that muslim countries have with the west.
Instead of saying 'Can't draw Mohammed? Huh, that's a bit odd...' we jump straight to 'You can't tell me what to do! Not being allowed to draw someone is a stupid rule!' and then we do everything we can to ridicule it.
Expecting people to show a modicum of respect for others' beliefs isn't forcing people to adopt those beliefs. Just to not be donkey-caves.
If nobody is expecting everyone to adpot to muslim beliefs, the world would be a few artists richer, don't you think? The lack of respect is a very large part of the problem that I have with muslim countries. So muslim countries can arrest, torture and execute minorities and who ever they wish, gays, heathens what ever. And now you argument for muslim countries having a problem with lack of respect due to some cartoons? Your morals are off the chart dude!
You expect me to show respect for mass-murdering pedophiles? Ok, if you show respect to my political belief and my genocidal ethnic cleansing political tyrant idol, I'll be happy to show respect to any and all authoritive figures you or anyone else have.
Yet it pops up everytime someone gets killed for drawing one specific mass-murderer (not in other cases mind you).
This is pretty tiresome too, and makes it very clear where you stand. In my opinion, it also makes you sound like quite the bigot, but I'm not a big SJW so I'm unclear about the parameters of throwing around that word.
Mass murderer? You should read the Quran some time. If you consider any "conqueror" type a mass murderer, then that fits. If you don't, it don't.
Oh, I'm plenty aware of Muhammad's history and the taking of Mecca. I think it's a very selective use of the term, again, to purposefully be inflammatory.
I said as much in an earlier post where I asked Enlightened-Euro there who else he considered 'mass-murderers.' He ignored it.
Again, as much as I hate to throw around the word "bigot" or "islamaphobe," as it's painfully overused today, he's making it pretty hard not to under the guise of "freedom of speech."
I'm completely for freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to be an donkey-cave. The choice to be an donkey-cave is entirely on the individual.
And not a single person here has tried to "justify....shooting people." Not a single one.
Actually everyone stating that the artists convention had it coming or should not have had the convention is doing just that, if thats not what you and others meant, then its poor articulation on their part.
People are free to have conventions, stupid or otherwise, offensive or otherwise, no one is forcing anyone to go to them or view them.
When you claim they shouldnt have done the convention because it would provoke an attack (which was not its intended point, it was intended to show freedom of speech) then yes, that is justifying the shooting.
Many people in this thread have stated things to the effect that the convention shouldnt have happened at all because some people would get offended and might shoot people over it.
if the ideas are donkey cave material they will be ignored or countered with non donkey cave ideas, so while i personally think the convention was stupid, I also think the statue of the virgen mary made out of poo was stupid. yet no one is getting shot over poo virgen mary, but they are over any depiction of mohammad.
You expect me to show respect for mass-murdering pedophiles? Ok, if you show respect to my political belief and my genocidal ethnic cleansing political tyrant idol, I'll be happy to show respect to any and all authoritive figures you or anyone else have.
Mass murderer? You should read the Quran some time. If you consider any "conqueror" type a mass murderer, then that fits. If you don't, it don't.
Thats ok actually. Buddha was a warrior originally. Then he realized the error of his ways. Many of the Old Testament kings could have been considered the same, David certainly.
Yeah. I don't know the definition of mass murderer, but in my mind it includes killing dozens of people. You have read the Quran and can inform me that this is not the case for Muhammad?
And yeah, what you say about the Old Testament kings is nothing new to me. The Old Testament and bible in general is possible the worst moral text ever written. It is disgusting and makes me sick to read about the ethnic cleansing, the human sacrifice, the slavery, the rape, the injustice in name of some middle eastern war god. I don't know what your point was to draw in Old Testament into this discussion though (except make me even more noxious?).
When you claim they shouldnt have done the convention because it would provoke an attack (which was not its intended point, it was intended to show freedom of speech) then yes, that is justifying the shooting.
I never made that claim. Poor effort.
We did, however, say that it's perhaps believable that they wanted or expected an attack, as evidenced by the seemingly "joyful" reaction to the shooting and the fact that they had a SWAT team on employ.
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
So, to carry that line of thinking to a different example:
Do people burn US flags do so just to agitate those who think it should not be burned (except in proper disposal)?
Or perhaps they burn the US flag as a valid expression of protest against one or more things they believe the flag represents?
I would think it can be either, and at times I am sure it is also a bit of both.
Location would also be a factor that could help influence your decision when deciding what the motivation may be.
A flag burning protest in front of the US Capitol might be perceived differently than a flag burning protest in front of the local veteran's home.
The "Draw the Prophet" event was held at this particular location for a very particular reason: Muslims were there a year ago and had a "we support the Prophet" event in that building so the organizer specifically picked it for their "here is what we think of your Prophet" event.
Regardless of how offensive I think either are, I'm not allowed to stomp the feth out of those doing so, let alone shoot them, because it is their right to do so.
Exactly.
And if somebody does decide to stomp the feth out of people burning the flag, you shouldn't be expected to no longer criticize the people that burn flags just because they got stomped.
Yes, you enlightened Europeans. Please, teach us more.
You want me to teach you the entire history and development of freedom in Europe? Where should I start? Inquisition? Burning people alive? Beheading those who think differently? Torture and genocide on innocent people? Or you want me to go into modern age?
Imagine you and me standing in a political meeting, listening to some speech from some politician from some party. You are enthusiastic, you like what you hear. Me on the other hand, I see absolutely no value in it. Because of my viewpoint, I could say things like "this has only one purpose, a sole purpose of brainwashing sheep". It's my viewpoint. Now you have the job to tell me otherwise.
Or we could go to a concert, listening to Slayer. Your only impression would be that all this spectacle had only a single purpose. The only goal of this event is to cause provocation and inflammatory hatred to the world. At the same time, I would have the time of my life, enjoying some of the best music ever made in history of mankind. Now I have a job to tell you otherwise. How?? I would be interested in knowing wether you can understand that extreme metal has any value what so ever other than being purely provocative and only made for inflammatory hate.
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
So, to carry that line of thinking to a different example:
Do people burn US flags do so just to agitate those who think it should not be burned (except in proper disposal)?
Or perhaps they burn the US flag as a valid expression of protest against one or more things they believe the flag represents?
I would think it can be either, and at times I am sure it is also a bit of both.
Location would also be a factor that could help influence your decision when deciding what the motivation may be.
A flag burning protest in front of the US Capitol might be perceived differently than a flag burning protest in front of the local veteran's home.
The "Draw the Prophet" event was held at this particular location for a very particular reason: Muslims were there a year ago and had a "we support the Prophet" event in that building so the organizer specifically picked it for their "here is what we think of your Prophet" event.
Regardless of how offensive I think either are, I'm not allowed to stomp the feth out of those doing so, let alone shoot them, because it is their right to do so.
Exactly.
And if somebody does decide to stomp the feth out of people burning the flag, you shouldn't be expected to no longer criticize the people that burn flags just because they got stomped.
exactly,
criticize the heck out of the mohammad artists, call them out in the open and use legitimate peaceful methods to deal with it.
or just ignore the donkey caves.
at no point does shooting them over it occur to any rational person.
That people got shot over an idea, means we have an "irrational people who think violence is a solution " problem, not a problem with people speaking their minds (even if they are donkey caves who are wrong)
People own Ferrari's because they want to own Ferrari's.
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.
There's a pretty big distinction.
People draw caricatures of Stalin, Mussoline and Hitler because they want to break the illusion that these leaders are above criticism. And in risking lives to criticise such tyrants, the world is becoming more free. When oppressed by threats, the world becomes enslaved by religious fanatics.
The history of blasphemic art is important and vital to the freedom we have today. Without blasphemy we can never be free.
I can see no value what so ever in owning a ferrari. I can see great value in having freedom to draw what I like without that's being anyone elses business.
I think you have a different perspective, but I don't see how owning a ferrari is better than having freedom of expression.
When you claim they shouldnt have done the convention because it would provoke an attack (which was not its intended point, it was intended to show freedom of speech) then yes, that is justifying the shooting.
I never made that claim. Poor effort.
We did, however, say that it's perhaps believable that they wanted or expected an attack, as evidenced by the seemingly "joyful" reaction to the shooting and the fact that they had a SWAT team on employ.
Wanting an attack is incredibly different than insuring protection should one occur. Choose which one you are intending to mean here, and remember it was scheduled after another one, where dozens of people had just been shot.
Baxx wrote: If nobody is expecting everyone to adpot to muslim beliefs, the world would be a few artists richer, don't you think?
Where the shooters participating in this thread? I must have missed that part.
Context matters. The 'nobody' in that statement was 'nobody in this thread.' I don't generally claim to speak for the entire western world.
The lack of respect is a very large part of the problem that I have with muslim countries. So muslim countries can arrest, torture and execute minorities and who ever they wish, gays, heathens what ever. And now you argument for muslim countries having a problem with lack of respect due to some cartoons? Your morals are off the chart dude!
The cartoons are only the latest in a long string of nonsense aimed at muslims.
You've made avery large leap of logic here, though. Nowhere have I said that the way some people are treated in some muslim countries is something I would consider acceptable. What I am saying is that deliberately antagonising them is not the way to encourage change.
Context matters. The 'nobody' in that statement was 'nobody in this thread.' I don't generally claim to speak for the entire western world.
Yet you have no problem of claiming to speak for the entire muslim world? It's kind of difficult for me when english is not my first language and in one end of a line, you speak undefined about the forum, while in the end of that line you speak explicitly about entire muslim countries.
The cartoons are only the latest in a long string of nonsense aimed at muslims.
You've made avery large leap of logic here, though. Nowhere have I said that the way some people are treated in some muslim countries is something I would consider acceptable. What I am saying is that deliberately antagonising them is not the way to encourage change.
You say nonsense. What else would you concider nonsense?
"Who" are antagonising "them"? I'm only arguing for blasphemy as art and it's vital role for freedom.
So if I make criticising art of some mass-muderous dictator, let's say Assad or Yong-il, I would in reality just be spreading nonsens to antagonize north koreans or syrians?
I don't understand that at all. If I criticise some dictator I would do it with the utmost respect for the victims of such dictator.
Deliberatingly provocing homocidal maniacs is the only way to encourage change.
I don't need to paint miniatures and play with them and roll dice.
Therefore I see no reason why you would do the same.
Is it true you have no understanding of the long tradition of blasphemous art? And it's vital role in developing freedom in Europe?
I'm sure you don't need to play black metal. I get the feeling you're saying that there is no need for anyone else to play black metal either, just because you don't have the need for it.
Is that the argument here? I don't see a value in x, therefore x is worthless?
As far as I can see, x is only y. Therefore, x is only y to all others?
Baxx wrote:
Yet you have no problem of claiming to speak for the entire muslim world?
What?
So if I make criticising art of some mass-muderous dictator, let's say Assad or Yong-il, I would in reality just be spreading nonsens to antagonize north koreans or syrians?
Not necessarily, no.
However, if you make art that is offensive to a large number of Koreans, you're offending all the 'good' people as well as the mass-murdering dictator.
That's what seems to be getting lost here. All of the hate, and ridicule, and all of the other nonsense directed at muslims right now doesn't just target the extremists. Every muslim winds up getting tarred with the same brush, because we're so busy vilifying the entire religion for the actions of a minority.
Deliberatingly provocing homocidal maniacs is the only way to encourage change.
I can only assume that this statement was meant as a joke.
insaniak wrote: What I am saying is that deliberately antagonising them is not the way to encourage change.
whats more antagonizing,
killing people, or expressing ideas?
one side is (as you claim) deliberately doing something, that while offensive, is legal and not lethal. (they claim its free speech related and intended as such, you might disagree, but thats just your opinion its not a fact by any strech. the group stated numerous times they intended this to be about free speech.)
the other side, just as deliberately, is doing something offensive, illegal, and lethal. (what would you say the shooters "intentions" were then i wonder?"
Its big boy rules in this modern world we live in, just because someone offended you doesnt mean you get to shoot them, no matter how offensive it might be its just words/ideas.
Islam is not above criticism, even if people get violent when it is criticized.
its not freedom of speech if you only get to say things everyone agrees on.
However, if you make art that is offensive to a large number of Koreans, you're offending all the 'good' people as well as the mass-murdering dictator.
That's what seems to be getting lost here. All of the hate, and ridicule, and all of the other nonsense directed at muslims right now doesn't just target the extremists. Every muslim winds up getting tarred with the same brush, because we're so busy vilifying the entire religion for the actions of a minority.
Deliberatingly provocing homocidal maniacs is the only way to encourage change.
I can only assume that this statement was meant as a joke.
If anyone is offended by me drawing Kim Jung-il on top of a pile of corpses while eating dead children, sure I wouldn't think twice about offending them. If good people hold Kim Jung-il as a perfect human, I would not hesitate a second to worry wether they'll be offended by me depicting the truth about that mass-murdering tyrant dictator.
Sure it was a joke. There are alot of ways to encourage change. Provocation and blasphemy is a very important method to do so.
and express a lack of surprise that someone took the bait.
.
.
You both wrong.
