Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you got a couple hours to waste you can learn alot about this event:

 Jihadin wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 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...

At the two minute mark. Reminds me of that episode of the drawing situation

According to the news the shooters are dead, which is better than they probably deserve.

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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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.

nkelsch wrote:

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?

nkelsch wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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!

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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.

 easysauce wrote:


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.

 easysauce wrote:

the "west" should respect the ideals of islam, and practice strict orthodox muslim law by not allowing mohammad to be depicted.

...wow, guess you beat me to it. "Not allowing" is not the same as realizing that it's a bad idea given the circumstances.

 easysauce wrote:

But when some people go out and kill people, thats a sign of respecting western ideals?

"He started it" wasn't a valid excuse in first grade. It doesn't cut it in International Reliations either.

 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.

Where do I want to "force" anyone to do anything? Quote or stop claiming I do.

 easysauce wrote:


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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

This comment makes no sense.

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

This comment makes no sense.

Hate speech happens all the time.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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 wrote:

Unless you are the supreme judge of art?

This rhetorical is getting incredibly old. You should probably retire it.

Baxx wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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.

Indeed.

 insaniak wrote:

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?

Great post, Insaniak. Agree with everything you said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:


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.

There's a pretty big distinction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

[/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."

so its ok to be told what you cannot do,

but not ok to be told what you can do...

ok there...


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.

 cincydooley wrote:

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.