NationStates Jolt Archive

I am proud of my heritage, Canadian born, some Danish background. I am posting this if anyone is interested in knowing or discussing about the outbreaks that have happened lately. http://skender.be/supportdenmark/MohammedDrawings.jpg

I am proud of my heritage, Canadian born, some Danish background. I am posting this if anyone is interested in knowing or discussing about the outbreaks that have happened lately. http://skender.be/supportdenmark/MohammedDrawings.jpg

I don't agree with the drawings. I think the whole thing is in poor taste.

I actually thought the one with the running out of virgins was pretty funny.

I am neither for/against it.. I think it's wrong that they would boycott products however.

I actually thought the one with the running out of virgins was pretty funny.

It's a disturbing world view when you think your best chance of meeting a virgin is when you are dead and in heaven.

I actually thought the one with the running out of virgins was pretty funny.

That was a pretty good one.

It's a disturbing world view when you think your best chance of meeting a virgin is when you are dead and in heaven.

Yea, I'm suprised we haven't seen more of it. Espically from people who are desperate to touch another woman. :fluffle:

I actually thought the one with the running out of virgins was pretty funny.

Aye, same here. The rest seemed tasteless, and the communism one was just... wrong( Theocracy doesn't mesh with a secular Communist state ); seems the red scare hasn't been flushed out yet *shrug*.

Yea, I'm suprised we haven't seen more of it. Espically from people who are desperate to touch another woman. :fluffle:

The answer is moar porn.

These drawings are pretty insulting and not funny at all. I say it's an abuse of freedom of speech.

They weren't offensive enough for my tastes.

These drawings are pretty insulting and not funny at all. I say it's an abuse of freedom of speech.

abuse of freedom of speech = I didn't like them, so thereforth it's not freedom of speech.

abuse of freedom of speech = I didn't like them, so thereforth it's not freedom of speech.
Why is it so difficult to comprehend for you that just because one has the right to say something, it is not necessarily a good idea to do it?

It's essentially the same thing with those posters advocating violence: Just because you might have the right to make those posters doesn't make it a good and proper thing to do.

The Danish newspaper was poking the Muslim community. One little thing here, another little thing there. Denmark is a xenophobic place right now, and publishing these pictures as part of a non-existant debate fit right into that.
They created a controversy just for the sake of creating a controversy.

That may not be illegal, but it is pretty damn stupid, and I for one don't agree with it.

It's a disturbing world view when you think your best chance of meeting a virgin is when you are dead and in heaven.

What they leave out is that the 72 virgins are women only if you're a male homosexual.

There's a major difference between poking fun at Islam and threatening to launch another 9/11 at European nations, but obviously people can't see that.

Self-censorship is just as bad as official censorship.

"[In the West] Unpopular ideas can be silenced and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need of any official ban." - George Orwell

What they leave out is that the 72 virgins are women only if you're a male homosexual.

Damn fine print.

I just went out and bought a brick of Havarti imported from Denmark.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend for you that just because one has the right to say something, it is not necessarily a good idea to do it?

It's essentially the same thing with those posters advocating violence: Just because you might have the right to make those posters doesn't make it a good and proper thing to do.

The Danish newspaper was poking the Muslim community. One little thing here, another little thing there. Denmark is a xenophobic place right now, and publishing these pictures as part of a non-existant debate fit right into that.
They created a controversy just for the sake of creating a controversy.

That may not be illegal, but it is pretty damn stupid, and I for one don't agree with it.

Maybe because some people realize that if you allow a group of people to intimidate others into forfeting their freedom, under the threat of death or great bodily harm, that freedom will soon be lost forever. If people have to live under the thumb of respect my religion or I will kill you, then everything they do will have that same threat attached. It is a matter of standing up for their own freedom, and the freedom of speech.
Your position is appeasement. The equiviliant of feeding the crocodile and hoping it will eat you last, as I believe Mr Churchill said.

They weren't offensive enough for my tastes.

me either no references to gay sex or hermaphrodites or dominatrixes giving out spankings, might as well have been taken from the new yorker or something equally stuffy and staid.

I just went out and bought a brick of Havarti imported from Denmark.

haha Good for you! Guess I will have to settle for some dried salted herring though, I can't eat Havarti since I was the manager of a Hickory Farms store in High School. The only thing I ever ate so much of that it made me ill.

Your position is appeasement. The equiviliant of feeding the crocodile and hoping it will eat you last, as I believe Mr Churchill said.
You know what? I prefer appeasement to preemption.

And thus liberty dies...

You know what? I prefer appeasement to preemption.

A little respect goes a long way. This wouldn't even be an issue if the papers hadn't run the cartoons a second time.

A little respect goes a long way. This wouldn't even be an issue if the papers hadn't run the cartoons a second time.

They were hardly offensive. Look, people do stuff all the time to tee off other people - and you know what, most people don't go out and threaten mass murder. So why should we treat the Muslims any different? These people who are protesting need to CALM DOWN.

They were hardly offensive. Look, people do stuff all the time to tee off other people - and you know what, most people don't go out and threaten mass murder. So why should we treat the Muslims any different? These people who are protesting need to CALM DOWN.

Remind me to take a picture of a dog pissing on your parents' grave/Holy Book/(whatever's sacred to you) and when you get upset, I'll say, "It was my right to do it. My free expression. Calm down. It wasn't offensive."

Why is it so difficult to comprehend for you that just because one has the right to say something, it is not necessarily a good idea to do it?

It's essentially the same thing with those posters advocating violence: Just because you might have the right to make those posters doesn't make it a good and proper thing to do.

The Danish newspaper was poking the Muslim community. One little thing here, another little thing there. Denmark is a xenophobic place right now, and publishing these pictures as part of a non-existant debate fit right into that.
They created a controversy just for the sake of creating a controversy.

That may not be illegal, but it is pretty damn stupid, and I for one don't agree with it.

Well?

Can you claim Freedom of Speech; if you can't be stupid about it?

Remind me to take a picture of a dog pissing on your parents' grave/Holy Book/(whatever's sacred to you) and when you get upset, I'll say, "It was my right to do it. My free expression. Calm down. It wasn't offensive."

I am willing to bet he wouldn't kill you over it.....

I am willing to bet he wouldn't kill you over it.....

But he might punch me in the nose for it. If there were lots of him (clones! :eek: ), one of them might just decide to shoot me. A lot of them would protest, especially if I got it printed in a newspaper or displayed at an art gallery. And one of them might just decide to kill me over it or blow up the newspaper building.

You know what? I prefer appeasement to preemption.

I believe I would much prefer to die fighting for my freedom than to live under such a threat. That simply is not living. That is being allowed to live, and since allah means nothing to me, that is unacceptable. Appeasement always ends badly if you are the one doing the appeasing.

But he might punch me in the nose for it. If there were lots of him (clones! :eek: ), one of them might just decide to shoot me. A lot of them would protest, especially if I got it printed in a newspaper or displayed at an art gallery. And one of them might just decide to kill me over it or blow up the newspaper building.

Doubtful. There are two examples already. The Last Temptation of Christ and an art exhibit I think was title Christ Pissed. It was a Crucifix sitting in a jar of piss.

Nobody was killed or assaulted. Nor were buildings torched....

But he might punch me in the nose for it. If there were lots of him (clones! :eek: ), one of them might just decide to shoot me. A lot of them would protest, especially if I got it printed in a newspaper or displayed at an art gallery. And one of them might just decide to kill me over it or blow up the newspaper building.

Nope, you are of far greater value to them untouched and unharmed. They would race you to the papers and showcase your exploits as a perpetrator against them. They play the game better than you comprehend.

Doubtful. There are two examples already. The Last Temptation of Christ and an art exhibit I think was title Christ Pissed. It was a Crucifix sitting in a jar of piss.

Nobody was killed or assaulted. Nor were buildings torched....

If you can find where it says in the Bible that one is not supposed to piss on a cross, I'll give you that one.

Nope, you are of far greater value to them untouched and unharmed. They would race you to the papers and showcase your exploits as a perpetrator against them. They play the game better than you comprehend.

I'd like to know who "they" are and how it is that "they" would know that I was gonna take said photograph to the papers.

If you can find where it says in the Bible that one is not supposed to piss on a cross, I'll give you that one.

I didn't say cross. A crucifix is Christ on the cross......

I didn't say cross. A crucifix is Christ on the cross......

Or a crucifix.

They created a controversy just for the sake of creating a controversy.

That may not be illegal, but it is pretty damn stupid, and I for one don't agree with it.

By deliberately creating controversies progress is often made. That is why being controversial is allowed in our countries.

You may think this is stupid and useless - but how do you propose we "regulate" it then ?

Remind me to take a picture of a dog pissing on your parents' grave/Holy Book/(whatever's sacred to you) and when you get upset, I'll say, "It was my right to do it. My free expression. Calm down. It wasn't offensive."

Hyberole land! Comparing a holy book to my PARENTS DEATH is of course overexaggerated if you revere a fucking book that much. Secondly, drawing a satirical cartoon is now the equivalent of pissing on it? What the fuck are you on? Nowhere in that cartoon did it say ANYTHING stated along the lines, "let's kill all muslims and deport their asses back to their sandy oilfields" did you? A couple light jokes to say the least. Seriously, a bomb on Mohammad's turban was the most offensive, and guess what? That's humor for you. Deal with it. People poke fun at Christianity 24/7, yet Christians don't go to the street with signs demanding death and murder and terrorism against the perpretators. Pissed off? Yes. Lusting for blood? No.

And like Black Forrest said, I wouldn't go around and then say if you did such a thing: hey everybody, get a plane and let's kill every single person of your ethncitiy/nationality/general continent.

People need to stop taking religion so seriously. As the people on ytmnd would satirically comment, "religion is serious business."

Secondly, drawing a satirical cartoon is now the equivalent of pissing on it? What the fuck are you on? Nowhere in that cartoon did it say ANYTHING stated along the lines, "let's kill all muslims and deport their asses back to their sandy oilfields" did you? A couple light jokes to say the least.

Muslems obviously view it differently. A picture of Mohammed, no matter how he is portrayed simply offends them. That *you* consider that silly is your problem.

Of course, the only reason I can imagine that a portrait would offend them is that they fear that people would start to worship the man instead of Allah or his teachings. Which makes the non-portrayal demand quite irrelevant here.

Can a muslem shed some light on this ?

Hyberole land! Comparing a holy book to my PARENTS DEATH is of course overexaggerated if you revere a fucking book that much. Secondly, drawing a satirical cartoon is now the equivalent of pissing on it? What the fuck are you on? Nowhere in that cartoon did it say ANYTHING stated along the lines, "let's kill all muslims and deport their asses back to their sandy oilfields" did you? A couple light jokes to say the least. Seriously, a bomb on Mohammad's turban was the most offensive, and guess what? That's humor for you. Deal with it. People poke fun at Christianity 24/7, yet Christians don't go to the street with signs demanding death and murder and terrorism against the perpretators. Pissed off? Yes. Lusting for blood? No.

Hee. Hee. We weren't even talking about something that's actually been done. Only a hypothetical, and yet look at how angry you got? (Unless, of course, you just sling such words as "fuck" lightly.) My pissing you off has amused me. You don't think the newspapers were laughing it up when they saw the reactions of the Muslims, the second time?

Of course, you seem to not realize that it is strictly forbidden in Islam to create images of the Prophet Mohammad. To them, this is as irksome as what I just used as a hypothetical. Now imagine that I did it twice. Now how angry would you be?

And before you go lambasting me next time for comparing pissing on your parents' graves to pissing on a book, remember that it was you who suggested that something blasphemous to Muslims was equal to comedy. Of course, you probably still don't see how you're acting exactly like the Muslims.

People need to stop taking religion so seriously. As the people on ytmnd would satirically comment, "religion is serious business."

Good luck with that.

And, by the way, Christians have blown up clinics for religious reasons, because they felt like it, not because the clinics published anything anti-Christian twice. They've shot doctors for the same reason. It's why they blew up the Federal Building.

i heard shiites and sufies don't necessarily find pictures of mohammed offensive and you can find images of him for sale in any market in iran under the unoffended noses of the revolutionary guard.

So basicly the muslems are lying for their reasons to protest ? Because none of the cartoons I ahve seen actually mocks Islam.

There are plenty of offensive objects to every flavor of philosophy or belief system out there. I don't see any Shakers publicly demanding terrorism against those who procreate, do you? Bad example, there's only two left in the world but the point still stands. For example, I find communism absolutely odious and if I were to find a parody of capitalism by commie nuts, I'd be a bit pissed. Yet I wouldn't grab rifle, shoot in the air, and demand that the reds be executed.

The idea is that muslims need to understand that not everyone agrees with their religion and there is going to be parody of it in light of the fact that: 1) Israel-Palestine situation, 2) America in Iraq, 3) and the general stereotype that Muslims are terrorist loonies (which, sadly, is being pepetrated by the pro-violent protesters - every Muslim I know is not violent in the least at all). I'd love to see how they'd react to a Lisa Lampanelli spoofing of them, because if we allowed that, I'd forsee several 9/11's all over the damn place.

Tolerance is a two-way street. If we're going to tolerate Islam, then Islam should tolerate parody of the religion. We've been spoofing Christianity for quite some time and the Christians have learned to live with it. So, too, should Muslims.

Btw, I'm still befuddled as to how this gained any publicity. I'd expect perhaps blatant racist comments (eg, "sand monkey oil grubbers") to be a better attention-garnerer than a couple depictions of Mohammad from a Danish newspaper (seriously, who the hell cares about Denmark?).

Last comment is this. People will always strike out against Christians and tell them to deal with criticism of their religion by others. Yet, when it comes to pissing of Muslims, we are all too happy to accept violent threats as a feasible response. Ah, the hypocrisy.

So basicly the muslems are lying for their reasons to protest ? Because none of the cartoons I ahve seen actually mocks Islam.
sunnis(well mainline ones sufis are a branch of sunni) find any depiction of mohemmed offensive, but i think its definitely the content that's got the embassies a blazing.

<snip>

And none of this changes the fact that you're upset about some people using their freedom of speech.

Hee. Hee. We weren't even talking about something that's actually been done. Only a hypothetical, and yet look at how angry you got? (Unless, of course, you just sling such words as "fuck" lightly.) My pissing you off has amused me. You don't think the newspapers were laughing it up when they saw the reactions of the Muslims, the second time?

I didn't see this, and I don't feel like editing my previous post so I'll answer here. Yes, I do sling words like "fuck" around lightly.

Of course, you seem to not realize that it is strictly forbidden in Islam to create images of the Prophet Mohammad. To them, this is as irksome as what I just used as a hypothetical. Now imagine that I did it twice. Now how angry would you be?

Because it is strictly forbidden in Islam does not mean one thing at all. Denmark is not an Islamic nation. It has no relevance to them. It is an article on free speech. People criticize Islam every day in the world. Why can't people deal with this? In fact, why did this receive any publicity? Should've been something that just happened and passed on. It is the Muslims who are making it a mountain out of a molehill. If we tolerate Islamic beliefs, Islam should tolerate other people's rights to do as they wish.

And before you go lambasting me next time for comparing pissing on your parents' graves to pissing on a book, remember that it was you who suggested that something blasphemous to Muslims was equal to comedy. Of course, you probably still don't see how you're acting exactly like the Muslims.

I suppose we should criticize anyone who commits blasphemy against a religion? Particularly homosexuals, fornicators, and anyone who, oh, breaks the Commandments on a daily basis (I claim the last example)?

And, by the way, Christians have blown up clinics for religious reasons, because they felt like it, not because the clinics published anything anti-Christian twice. They've shot doctors for the same reason. It's why they blew up the Federal Building.

Muslims blew up the World Trade Center. 3000 people have died. There have been numerous attacks against Israel. Madrid and London are two more examples. How often do you hear about a Christian bombing of an abortion clinic? I too find pro-lifer bombers hypocritical, and will rightfully mock them. So what's your point?


And none of this changes the fact that you're upset about some people using their freedom of speech.

I'm upset that people are trying to equate murder to religious parody. It is freedom of speech, but to defend their OPINIONS as correct (that is, that they have every right to be so angry as to threaten murder) is an entirely different matter.

I am proud of my heritage, Canadian born, some Danish background. I am posting this if anyone is interested in knowing or discussing about the outbreaks that have happened lately. http://skender.be/supportdenmark/MohammedDrawings.jpg



Great. Another one of THESE threads! Can you people please stop this! There are like 4 or 5 of these things already!

Of course, you seem to not realize that it is strictly forbidden in Islam to create images of the Prophet Mohammad. To them, this is as irksome as what I just used as a hypothetical. Now imagine that I did it twice. Now how angry would you be?


And you overlook the fact we are not Muslims. Their rules don't apply to us.

It's one thing to ask to respect their ways and it's another to offer threats of murder.

And, by the way, Christians have blown up clinics for religious reasons, because they felt like it, not because the clinics published anything anti-Christian twice. They've shot doctors for the same reason. It's why they blew up the Federal Building.

To use your line of reasoning.

Why not show where in the Bible it told them to do that?

And you overlook the fact we are not Muslims. Their rules don't apply to us.

It's one thing to ask to respect their ways and it's another to offer threats of murder.

damn you for stating my opinions so concisely...:headbang:

To use your line of reasoning.

Why not show where in the Bible it told them to do that?

"You shall not murder"

Anything else?

Anything else?

Actually it's Thou Shalt not kill

And you are bypassing my argument.

Previously you said show me where you can't piss on the cross and then you argue that the Christians blew up clinics for Religious reasons.

Again show where in the Bible it says it's ok to do that....

Because it is strictly forbidden in Islam does not mean one thing at all. Denmark is not an Islamic nation. It has no relevance to them. It is an article on free speech. People criticize Islam every day in the world. Why can't people deal with this? In fact, why did this receive any publicity? Should've been something that just happened and passed on. It is the Muslims who are making it a mountain out of a molehill. If we tolerate Islamic beliefs, Islam should tolerate other people's rights to do as they wish.

It recieved publicity so that you'd tune into the news this evening. Pick up a newspaper in the morning. That's why it's there. Keep in mind the fact that you're helping make a mountain out of the molehill: as evidenced by this thread.

I suppose we should criticize anyone who commits blasphemy against a religion? Particularly homosexuals, fornicators, and anyone who, oh, breaks the Commandments on a daily basis (I claim the last example)?

Feel free to. I won't keep you from threatening to blow people up over it, nor will I say that it is not within your rights to say such things. Christian extremists say them everyday, after all. It's just that we're used to it, it doesn't sell papers, it doesn't get you to watch the evening news.

Muslims blew up the World Trade Center. 3000 people have died. There have been numerous attacks against Israel. Madrid and London are two more examples. How often do you hear about a Christian bombing of an abortion clinic? I too find pro-lifer bombers hypocritical, and will rightfully mock them. So what's your point?

How many times do you hear about black children from poor neighborhoods being kidnapped? Ever? It doesn't sell newspapers, it doesn't get covered. No one cares about it.

I'm upset that people are trying to equate murder to religious parody. It is freedom of speech, but to defend their OPINIONS as correct (that is, that they have every right to be so angry as to threaten murder) is an entirely different matter.

I'm not equating murder with religious parody. I'm equating freedom of speech with freedom of speech.

Actually it's Thou Shalt not kill

And you are bypassing my argument.

Previously you said show me where you can't piss on the cross and then you argue that the Christians blew up clinics for Religious reasons.

Again show where in the Bible it says it's ok to do that....

Actually, it depends on which version you're reading. Some say "Thou shalt not murder", &c.

OK, then show me where in the Qu'ran it says that it's OK to run airplanes into buildings.

And you overlook the fact we are not Muslims. Their rules don't apply to us.

It's one thing to ask to respect their ways and it's another to offer threats of murder.

The Geneva Conventions don't apply to us: We're not Europeans.

I'm upset that people are trying to equate murder to religious parody. It is freedom of speech, but to defend their OPINIONS as correct (that is, that they have every right to be so angry as to threaten murder) is an entirely different matter.

Why ? Saying murder is bad IS an opinion itself. Maybe the muslems believe that insulting Islam is a far greater crime. That that doesn't correspond to your moral system does not magically make them wrong and you right.

Of course, some *consistency* in the muslems claims would be nice.

The Geneva Conventions don't apply to us: We're not Europeans.

The Geneva Conventions are for GOVERMENTS.

That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Actually, it depends on which version you're reading. Some say "Thou shalt not murder", &c.

OK, then show me where in the Qu'ran it says that it's OK to run airplanes into buildings.

You really need to pick a position if you are going to defend something.

The Geneva Conventions are for GOVERMENTS.

That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The US never signed the Geneva Conventions, anyway.

So, the "rules of war" don't apply to us, but we follow them anyway. Why? Because it's the polite thing to do.

Why ? Saying murder is bad IS an opinion itself. Maybe the muslems believe that insulting Islam is a far greater crime. That that doesn't correspond to your moral system does not magically make them wrong and you right.

Of course, some *consistency* in the muslems claims would be nice.

I'm not a moral relativist (kinda), so let's not nitpick. It's pretty universally defined that murder is wrong. Their opinion is wrong. If their moral system hinges on murder in retribution to religious criticization, then there's seriously something effed up there...

The US never signed the Geneva Conventions, anyway.

So, the "rules of war" don't apply to us, but we follow them anyway. Why? Because it's the polite thing to do.

Again it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.


If we are too have freedom of speech then it can't involve being polite as it defines what is proper speech.

You really need to pick a position if you are going to defend something.

You didn't answer the question: A question grounded in the same rules of logic as the question you asked before then.

Again it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.


If we are too have freedom of speech then it can't involve being polite as it defines what is proper speech.

Must I connect all the dots for you?

The US follows the "rules of war" because it's polite. It's not nessesary to run around portraying Mohammad, is it? Don't you think we should maybe not do it, because it's impolite?

You didn't answer the question: A question grounded in the same rules of logic as the question you asked before then.

Again what postion are you going to defend?

So let's sum things up in my opinion, mmkay?

1: The Danish newspaper has every damn right to print what they want.
2: Muslims have the freedom of speech to protest.
3: Those Muslims, who are choosing a violent conduit (kill all Europeans, etc) to express their opinions, are wrong - and should not be defended.
4: People need to lighten up when it comes to religious humor...look at what it's done to us.:( Can't we all just go and play some Medieval: Total War?;) Seriously, this isn't a big issue...it's just an article in a newspaper from a little nation nestled in Europe. And it's not even groundbreaking.

The US follows the "rules of war" because it's polite. It's not nessesary to run around portraying Mohammad, is it? Don't you think we should maybe not do it, because it's impolite?

There are plenty of impolite things in the world that we violate. I'm sure some crazy Christianis consider it "impolite" to not be christian. I guess the polite thing to do would be to become christians so they aren't sad that we disrespected their belief system.:(

Again what postion are you going to defend?

My position is and always has been: Free speech is free speech. The content is irrelevant.

Perhaps if you stopped establishing new positions, I would stop having to set up new ones to counter them.

Must I connect all the dots for you?

The US follows the "rules of war" because it's polite. It's not nessesary to run around portraying Mohammad, is it? Don't you think we should maybe not do it, because it's impolite?

The Rules of War have nothing to do on the matter of freedom of speech and expression.

The US doesn't follow the rules of war simply to be polite. There is the motivation that their captured soldiers etc. will be treated nicely in return.

My position is and always has been: Free speech is free speech. The content is irrelevant.

Perhaps if you stopped establishing new positions, I would stop having to set up new ones to counter them.

Ahh accuse me of the very action you commit.

Why not define your "free speech" then....

So let's sum things up in my opinion, mmkay?

1: The Danish newspaper has every damn right to print what they want.
2: Muslims have the freedom of speech to protest.
3: Those Muslims, who are choosing a violent conduit (kill all Europeans, etc) to express their opinions, are wrong - and should not be defended.
4: People need to lighten up when it comes to religious humor...look at what it's done to us.:( Can't we all just go and play some Medieval: Total War?;) Seriously, this isn't a big issue...it's just an article in a newspaper from a little nation nestled in Europe. And it's not even groundbreaking.

1-Agree
2-Agree
3-They have the right to express their opinion that Westerners should be killed. Do they have the right to actually kill anyone? No. But they have the right to say that they want to.
4-Only if we can make Papal Jokes. :p

Ahh accuse me of the very action you commit.

Why not define your "free speech" then....

Free speech is being able to say whatever you want. Seems kinda logical, yes?

I'm not a moral relativist (kinda), so let's not nitpick. It's pretty universally defined that murder is wrong. Their opinion is wrong. If their moral system hinges on murder in retribution to religious criticization, then there's seriously something effed up there...

Why ? They probably agree that murder is very, very wrong. Doesn't mean they cannot believe something else is even worse...

Free speech is being able to say whatever you want. Seems kinda logical, yes?

Not always.

Is it correct to yell fire in a theater?

Not always.

Is it correct to yell fire in a theater?

Is it "correct"? No. Is it excercising free speech? Yes.

Isn't doing something that you know will anger people who have been stereotyped as violent analogous to yelling, "Fire!" In a theater? If it is not, isn't it at least akin to leaning over to the person next to you, a person you who you know is subject to suggestion and whispering, "I saw flames" in their ear?

Is it "correct"? No. Is it excercising free speech? Yes.

Isn't doing something that you know will anger people who have been stereotyped as violent analogous to yelling, "Fire!" In a theater? If it is not, isn't it at least akin to leaning over to the person next to you, a person you who you know is subject to suggestion and whispering, "I saw flames" in their ear?

The situations are different.

A fire is something you can't control thus panic will cause injuries if not kill.

Thus there are laws limiting your "free speech"

Anger is an emotion that "can" be controlled thus you are not allowed to burn buildings, kill people or assault people.

You raised the KKK in the other thread and said people walk past. Why are Muslims the exception?

The situations are different.

The situations are not different.

A fire is something you can't control thus panic will cause injuries if not kill.

Thus there are laws limiting your "free speech"

Your point is...?

Anger is an emotion that "can" be controlled thus you are not allowed to burn buildings, kill people or assault people.

Point?

You raised the KKK in the other thread and said people walk past. Why are Muslims the exception?

Muslim extremists are not the exception. But if I had to guess, the reason the media pays attention is because (as I've said before) it sells.

just to play devils advocate. if inciting a riot is a crime and not free speach, isn't it just as much an incitement to make people so mad at you that they riot as making them so angry they riot about something else?

The situations are not different.
Your point is...?

Point?

Muslim extremists are not the exception. But if I had to guess, the reason the media pays attention is because (as I've said before) it sells.

Ok what exactly are you debating?

Free speech is being able to say whatever you want.

No it isn't. It is the freedom to express any opinion you may have.
Which means that yelling "fire" in a theatre, to address the follow-up posts, does not fall under free speech.

No it isn't. It is the freedom to express any opinion you may have.
Which means that yelling "fire" in a theatre, to adress the followup posts, does not fall under free speech.

*falsely* yelling fire does not fall under free speech.

Now, how much legal time and effort is taken determining which times the yell of fire is false, and which times it's correct?

*falsely* yelling fire does not fall under free speech.

Neither does truthful yelling ;)

Now, how much legal time and effort is taken determining which times the yell of fire is false, and which times it's correct?

No idea. But it has nothing to do with free speech.

Neither does truthful yelling ;)



No idea. But it has nothing to do with free speach.

Are you sure about that? So, i don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if the said theatre is on fire and i am the first to notice it?

I'm pretty sure thats wrong you know.

i know i'm repeating myself but the important limitation on speach is not one of falsely causing a panic, but inciting a riot. is it any more acceptable to incite people to violence because you are advocating they riot, or you cause them to riot becauase of the rage you intentionally create against yourself by what you say? aren't both illegal speach?

Are you sure about that? So, i don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if the said theatre is on fire and i am the first to notice it?

Sure you can. But that right is not derived from "free speech".

Ok what exactly are you debating?

I could ask you the same question.

I could ask you the same question.

No need. I am not playing your game anymore.

No need. I am not playing your game anymore.

Mmkay.

Sure you can. But that right is not derived from "free speech".

Fair enough. My basic viewpoint is that no country has full freedom of speech and no country ever will. Coming on all ballistic about supposed threats to one tiny segment of the curtailed rights people do have is in my humble opinion a bit of a waste of time.

*falsely* yelling fire does not fall under free speech.

Now, how much legal time and effort is taken determining which times the yell of fire is false, and which times it's correct?

The reference to yelling fire is based upon a piece of dicta in a 1918 case which had nothing to do with fires, theaters or yelling. It was merely an illustrative example that a judge threw out in the opinion.

Therefore no time has ever been taken determining which times the yell is false. Ever.

The reference to yelling fire is based upon a piece of dicta in a 1918 case which had nothing to do with fires, theaters or yelling. It was merely an illustrative example that a judge threw out in the opinion.

Therefore no time has ever been taken determining which times the yell is false. Ever.

I'm aware that the yell, the fire and the theatre are indeed illustrative examples. I was just continuing using the metaphor. For example, the most recent case in the UK was the Nick Griffin/inciting racial hatred case. He was yelling "fire". He got away with it...

but i don't believe the theatre is burning there.

Dig?

The reference to yelling fire is based upon a piece of dicta in a 1918 case which had nothing to do with fires, theaters or yelling. It was merely an illustrative example that a judge threw out in the opinion.

Therefore no time has ever been taken determining which times the yell is false. Ever.
and its not the right type of limitation on speach for this situation. that limitation is based on creating a panic, the issue here is whether the provocation created by the cartoon is akin to inciting the criminal behavor that resulted from muslims reaction to it.

I am proud of my heritage, Canadian born, some Danish background. I am posting this if anyone is interested in knowing or discussing about the outbreaks that have happened lately. http://skender.be/supportdenmark/MohammedDrawings.jpg
American here.... so placing American values and viewpoints. take it as you will.

Freedom of speech does carry a responsibility. could they choose not to print those cartoons? yes, they choose to and must suffer the consiquences.

However, the reactions of the Muslims is rather overboard. instead of writing angry letters of protest, boycotting the newspaper, or seeking legal recourse, they chose violence. for a satirical cartoon depicting the view of islam that the fanatics are showing, all muslims are proving the cartoon true.

who is wrong? the muslims for resulting in violence when other means were available.

Is freedom of speech wrong? that is up to the speaker.

You know what? I prefer appeasement to preemption.

I'm sure that's what Neville Chamberlain said to Adolf Hitler. The result was something along the lines of 'peace in our time,' I recall.

I'm sure that's what Neville Chamberlain said to Adolf Hitler. The result was something along the lines of 'peace in our time,' I recall.

There should be a law against equating any modern situation with Munich era Europe. It's tired, it's flawed and it's predictable.

Of course, you seem to not realize that it is strictly forbidden in Islam to create images of the Prophet Mohammad.

Not strictly true. It is forbidden in certain strands of Islam to create images of the Prophet. And even then, you can create images of Mohammed as long as they show him prior to the visitation by Gabriel (because he wasn't the Prophet at that point). There are many, many depictions of the Prophet Mohammed by Islamic and Christian artists going back many hundreds of years

There should be a law against equating any modern situation with Munich era Europe. It's tired, it's flawed and it's predictable.

No, it's entirely relevant and to the point. The previous threads were talking about the benefits/drawbacks of appeasement.

Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler is simply a very famous example of what happened, in one particular example.

Anyway, the whole point of this thread is about freedom of speech and here you are suggesting we ban a particular form of expression merely because you don't like it :headbang:

No, it's entirely relevant and to the point. The previous threads were talking about the benefits/drawbacks of appeasement.

Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler is simply a very famous example of what happened, in one particular example.

Anyway, the whole point of this thread is about freedom of speech and here you are suggesting we ban a particular form of expression merely because you don't like it :headbang:

Heh, ok, i note the unintentional irony of my phrasing. Blame sleep deprivation.

However, i don't think it's relevant at all - Hitler wanted territory and was "appeased" with smaller amounts than he first asked for. The "muslim world" wants to be treated with respect. A very very small minority dream of world domination. If we were appeasing them, yes, fine, the point would be valid. If, however, we are listening to those who have legitimate reasons to be offended...

i don't really call it appeasement. I call it politeness.

I failed to see angry westerners going out in the streets in millions, burning flags and boycotting arab oil, burning mid-east ambassiesm craving that all muslims go to church every Sunday and that they stopped believing in false prophets. Guess why? It never happened.

Heh, ok, i note the unintentional irony of my phrasing. Blame sleep deprivation.

However, i don't think it's relevant at all - Hitler wanted territory and was "appeased" with smaller amounts than he first asked for. The "muslim world" wants to be treated with respect. A very very small minority dream of world domination. If we were appeasing them, yes, fine, the point would be valid. If, however, we are listening to those who have legitimate reasons to be offended...

i don't really call it appeasement. I call it politeness.


If true, the questions remain as follows.

Is there a categoric right to politeness questionmark.

My answer is NO.

Is there a categoric right to respect questionmark.

My answer is NO. Respect is a privilege.
Like prestige, hard to acquire, harder to keep, and never a right.

If true, the questions remain as follows.

Is there a categoric right to politeness questionmark.

My answer is NO.

Is there a categoric right to respect questionmark.

My answer is NO. Respect is a privilege.
Like prestige, hard to acquire, harder to keep, and never a right.

So you don't treat anyone with respect until you feel they have earned it?

Gosh, you must be quite a rude person to deal with day to day.

So you don't treat anyone with respect until you feel they have earned it?

Gosh, you must be quite a rude person to deal with day to day.


Lets say you sit in the street and beg me for a dollar so you can eat.

If you do so, you will most certainly find me rude, offensive, disrespectful... and extremely angry to boot.


Unless we#ve both indicated our willingess to have a voluntary relationship - example - by signing on for a public board, in dealing with me, it is a fair assumption that I am unwilling to contact you, and will decline any attempt by you to contact me.


Edit colon if you assume respect to be a right you must refuse to accept freedom of speech as a right. The things are mutually exclusive, as the bruhaha proves by mere existence.

I can find Freedom of Speech/Expression as a Human right.
I cannot find repect as a human right.
Don#t expect me to grant respect to you.
I don#t have to.
The decision to accord respect to you is mine, not yours, and you have no categorical claim to it.

If true, the questions remain as follows.

Is there a categoric right to politeness questionmark.

My answer is NO.

Is there a categoric right to respect questionmark.

My answer is NO. Respect is a privilege.
Like prestige, hard to acquire, harder to keep, and never a right.
These are not categorical rights, but they are reasonable expectations. Society couldn't function if their wasn't an assumption by most people that others deserve politeness and respect, at least until they prove themselves not worthy of it.

However, politeness is primarily about how one behaves towards someone, not about how one talks about them elsewhere. Since nearly all the rioters in Syria and elsewhere have never even seen Jyllands-Posten or the other papers which have carried the cartoon, they have no business claiming to be offended by them. They have no right to dictate what other people say to other audiences.

As for respect - people deserve respect as individuals (until they prove otherwise), and that includes respecting their right to believe what they choose. But the beliefs themselves have no right to respect (and have no feelings to hurt) - they can and should be judged on their merits.

These are not categorical rights, but they are reasonable expectations. Society couldn't function if their wasn't an assumption by most people that others deserve politeness and respect, at least until they prove themselves not worthy of it.

However, politeness is primarily about how one behaves towards someone, not about how one talks about them elsewhere. Since nearly all the rioters in Syria and elsewhere have never even seen Jyllands-Posten or the other papers which have carried the cartoon, they have no business claiming to be offended by them. They have no right to dictate what other people say to other audiences.

As for respect - people deserve respect as individuals (until they prove otherwise), and that includes respecting their right to believe what they choose. But the beliefs themselves have no right to respect (and have no feelings to hurt) - they can and should be judged on their merits.

As we#ve already proven 0n the I love libertarianism thread, society can be logically and philosophically proven to be incapable of existence, other than as a figment of imagination.

You are referring to expectations within a articificial construct whose legitimacy I deny since it cannot be said to be real.

And even if it were, an ASSUMPTION - or expectation reasonable or otherwise - is overridden by a right.

You say you may aproach me to beg, and then expect me to respect you.
I say I have the right to respond to it with fury, hate, scorn, and refusal.




I agree with your point that beliefs have no rights whatsoever.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend for you that just because one has the right to say something, it is not necessarily a good idea to do it?

It's essentially the same thing with those posters advocating violence: Just because you might have the right to make those posters doesn't make it a good and proper thing to do.
I think that you overestimate the number of people who like the cartoon. I don't. But I think that, contrary to the protesters who want the government to ban this cartoon, the permission of this cartoon is vital to preserving freedom of speech. I think that we need the occassional piece of offensive speech to remind us of that.

On the same note, what did you think of The Jerry Springer Opera (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4161109.stm)? How about Andres Serrano's Piss Christ?

Should Muslims' apparently low tolerance for criticism be respected any more than that of Christian fundamentalists?

You know what? I prefer appeasement to preemption.
What do you mean by that?

Remind me to take a picture of a dog pissing on your parents' grave/Holy Book/(whatever's sacred to you) and when you get upset, I'll say, "It was my right to do it. My free expression. Calm down."
You would be correct. It would be your right to do so.

I believe I would much prefer to die fighting for my freedom than to live under such a threat. That simply is not living. That is being allowed to live, and since allah means nothing to me, that is unacceptable. Appeasement always ends badly if you are the one doing the appeasing.
Well said.

"I prefer to die standing, rather than live on my knees." - Emiliano Zapata

abuse of freedom of speech = I didn't like them, so thereforth it's not freedom of speech.

To add to your arguement, the problem with true free speech is that we have to allow all forms of it, even the stuff only idiots would believe. I don't know enough about this story to really have an opinion--although the virgin joke was funny:D --but if you live in a country that allows free speech, you have to be willing to take a little healthy criticism (and in western nations, there's an admitted stereotype of Arab and Muslims, whom have larger immigrant populations in places such as Denmark).

If people go around saying that anything offensive is a "violation of free speech" there would be very little to laugh at around the world. To take Carlos Mencia's approach, you have to be willing to be made fun of from time to time to live in a democracy.

I just went out and bought a brick of Havarti imported from Denmark.


Thanks mate

Andres Serrano was the "artist" who submerged a crucifix in urine and called it "Piss Christ".

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html

Now, a lot of Christians said he was a phillistine and was going to burn in hell etc ... but noone set fire to the art gallery or threatened to butcher everyone from the artist's country of origin.

It's a disturbing world view when you think your best chance of meeting a virgin is when you are dead and in heaven.
agreed.... although, i did find that cartoon alone among the bunch rather funny.

It's a disturbing world view when you think your best chance of meeting a virgin is when you are dead and in heaven.
I think it's a bit more disturbing to think that the greatest reward you can get is the right to rupture the hymens of multiple young women, and to believe that such a reward is worth blowing yourself into bits. Talk about sexual insecurity.

So those are the actual drawings. I hate when Yahoo or something posts a news article like this and doesn't show the pictures.

So those are the actual drawings. I hate when Yahoo or something posts a news article like this and doesn't show the pictures.

I'm sure they didn't want to have some repercussion for posting the images, that's why I did a search for it. I think that this has all gotten out of hand and being from a country that pokes fun at itself all the time, I think that what Denmark did wasn't tactful, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

Things that I love about Denmark:
Our soccer team!
Lego! (It's Danish)
Pickled Herring
Red Cabbage
Vienerbrod
Vanilla Kranse
Havarti
Carlsberg (The beer's okay, but not of my tastes)

Want to add to my list? I'm sure there's more to be added.

Go to http://CagleCartoons.comto see the blatant hypocrisy that reaction to these depictions implies.

I think it's a bit more disturbing to think that the greatest reward you can get is the right to rupture the hymens of multiple young women, and to believe that such a reward is worth blowing yourself into bits. Talk about sexual insecurity.
You seem to be making more and more sense here lately. Stop it! You're scaring me! :p