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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

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

 Jihadin wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

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

 easysauce wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:


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....

 cincydooley wrote:

Baxx wrote:

Unless you are the supreme judge of art?

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.

Baxx wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:

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.

 cincydooley wrote:

Baxx wrote:


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.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Do we have a deal?

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Baxx wrote:


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.

 cincydooley wrote:

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.

Baxx wrote:

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.

Oh, there it is!

 Frazzled wrote:

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?).

 easysauce wrote:


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.

 CptJake wrote:

 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?

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.

 cincydooley wrote:

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.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 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?

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)

Paganism needs to make a come back

 cincydooley wrote:


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.

People are free to have conventions, stupid or otherwise, offensive or otherwise, no one is forcing anyone to go to them or view them.

Except cat lovers, for they are truly evil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Paganism needs to make a come back

Thread win.

More on paganism:




Criticising authorities (specially religious authorities) is the only way to ensure freedom and to prevent attrocities.

 Jihadin wrote:
Paganism needs to make a come back

They have it figured out!

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.

Let's try and distilled what happened in few short sentances...

There was an attempted ASSASSINATION of Americans exercising freedom of speech on US fething soil.

I really don't care for the line of conversation that we "shouldn't" antagonize these peoples.

It's one of the main reason I was disappointed by Obama's U.N. speech when he said:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Feth that, as it's a disservice to our Freedom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
What I am saying is that deliberately antagonising them is not the way to encourage change.

So, how do you defend our Freedom of Expression? How do you prove it?

I know you're saying that we should be nice, and take the higher ground.... but, sometimes, you have to do it, to prove it.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

I know you're saying that we should be nice, and take the higher ground.... but, sometimes, you have to do it, to prove it.

Why?

I don't need to piss off my neighbours to prove to myself that it's possible. I know how annoying I can be when I put my mind to it.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:

Is it true you have no understanding of the long tradition of blasphemous art? And it's vital role in developing freedom in Europe?

You know that something being 'traditional' doesn't automatically make it a good thing to do, right?

Is that the argument here? I don't see a value in x, therefore x is worthless?

I don't recall making that argument, no.

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

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.