NationStates Jolt Archive

Just close your eyes and pretend you're eating a chocolate woman. :D

Maybe if christ had been a woman?
Would that count as adultery?

"Mmm...sinfully delicious."

Would that count as adultery?

"Mmm...sinfully delicious."

Perhaps, but considering the severe shortage of people with the qualifications necessary to cast the first stone, you should be safe.

On the other side of that, what chocolate company would make a confection shaped like a naked man? I'd never be able to begin eating it.

Start small. Try a frozen chocolate covered banana first.
YES, I WENT THERE.

What? That I support freedom of speech? My supporting of freedom of speech sickens you?

Trolling (on the news papers part) may be utilizing freedom of speech, but it is not using it wisely

None I know of claims it's forbidden, strangely enough. And the discussions within Islam gets lively at times.

true, my uncle says if you want to debate about any Religion, learn about it, unfortunatly not many here are well informed

Start small. Try a frozen chocolate covered banana first.
YES, I WENT THERE.

Bad Kat. Evil Kat. Everyone: don't let the cute catgirl avatar fool you!:p

Why would some muslims react violently to such things?

Is somebody an islamophobic bigot if he asks these questions?

Why are somebody assuming that some muslims will react with violence?

Because some Muslims do react with violence. The same reason I would assume that some white people would react with violence to certain things. Or some black people. Or some Christians. Or some people with hinky knees. Seriously, you don't know the difference between an assumption and something evidenced?

When X has happened, it's not an assumption to conclude that X is possible. When X happens a bunch of times, it's not an assumption to conclude that X will happen again. Do I have to explain how logic works too?

Is that person not being islamophobic?

If somebody calls me by racial epithets, I don't react violently. But if you are saying that blacks would, aren't you being racist by that assumption?

Dude are you suggesting that no black people would? Or no white people would? You don't recognize the difference between someone of that persuastion would do X and a generalized claim about everyone of a persuasion?

Hmmm... not sure I can explain it to you if you honestly can't tell the difference between the general population and a single person.

give me a break. You go ahead and lump everybody as bigots and proceed to answer in "this is what you are thinking..this is what you really mean to say..this is what you...that is what you..." and then you make grand statements on how you treat individuals as individuals blah blah.

I could really do you a favor and ask you to quit complaining on how people are being bigots when they are not and if not for you, the knight in shining armor, all muslims would be dead because of us evil bigots dishing out collective punishment. How about that?

Everybody? All? Nope. I was talking about specific people. Seriously, I'm wondering if you're pretending. No one is this lost.

I'm responding to what specific people say. That is treating them as individuals. I'm extrapolating. That's a normal debate tactic. It's called logic. Welcome to the debate.

Trolling (on the news papers part) may be utilizing freedom of speech, but it is not using it wisely

Oh, look, some reason. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

Oh, look, some reason. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

Exactly I support these papers RIGHT to publish this 100 percent while still disapproving that they chose to do such.

Do I think they should be prosecuted or have any direct official consequences? no

Would I as a consumer take this into account on where and when to spend my money and hopefully impact their pocket book? Maybe

Noble, but mistakenly so. Fomenting unrest isn't the way to secure peace...

Well done.

A law should be enacted so that people who protest the cartoons can be deported, and people who "call for" violence against the cartoonists or news papers can be fined and jailed and then deported.

The good thing about publishing stuff like this is that it gets the enemy to self-identify, which makes him easier to catch and deal with.

Oh, their dedication to free speech? OK, let's see them print up a lot of swastikas.

Well, if they did, I doubt that there would have been a group of Jews who planned to kill the author.

no this is my logic: WE FORGOT ABOUT IT BY NOW
why bring it up again?

WTF kind of argument is that? Was that just a way to avoid acknowledging the point that was made?

Well done.

A law should be enacted so that people who protest the cartoons can be deported, and people who "call for" violence against the cartoonists or news papers can be fined and jailed and then deported.

The good thing about publishing stuff like this is that it gets the enemy to self-identify, which makes him easier to catch and deal with.

Yes, it is laws such as this that demonstrates our commitment to Free Speech!

Hey, wait a tic......

I don't excuse it. The entire religion doesn't practice bigotry though. Some sects do, but that's really neither here nor there. Some republicans are racist, but people who use that as a broad brush to attack them are equally idiotic.

Yes, but like Zilam said, it actually preaches violence against nonbelievers. There is no generalization made there, this is fact. What kind of religion is that, when the HOLY book tries to cast acts of violence in a positive light? Several times! Should I provide quotes?

Telling over a billion people that 3 of their batshit insane numbers are categorical proof that they're all homicidal pedophile worshippers is really going to work miracles in cutting down sympathy and recruitment for terrorist cells that go on the propaganda of "The West hates you and your beliefs, and would have you all killed if they could get away with it."

The most brilliant tactic since diverting resources from Afghanistan to go after Iraq.

:rolleyes:

So if these 3 were the only batshit insance members, the others will be pissed off, but not be batshit and want to kill even more people. So unless there are a lot more batshit members, there really isnt a probem. Because only people who are batshit insane will cause violence in response to some cartoons.

Whats the problem here?

The antagonism is deliberate. They know they'll successfully provoke an unstable fringe element of the group into committing a violent act, and when that violence occurs the media spotlight will suddenly focus on that and trumpet to effect of "See? We told you m0sl3mz r 3b1l! n00k d3m!"


And the difference is, somehow, even the most 3b1l fringe members of other 3b1l religions don't go out on the streets trashing everything in sight and chanting "death to a1l" in response to parodies of their religion. Which is odd, because it is MUCH more common to see, yet still provokes less acts of destruction (ie. 0)

All religion is reactionary, period.

I do not think that "child rapist" sounds much better than "pedophile"...

However, Mohammed did stay married to Aisha and apparantly did love her. It is also quite possible that he had no choice in the matter and had to consume the marriage to have it remain valid (and thereby being able to protect her).

LOL yeah right

None I know of claims it's forbidden, strangely enough. And the discussions within Islam gets lively at times.

Oh, you mean like when Muslims like Salman Rushdie have discussions?

Compare the reactions to 'The God Illusion' and 'The Satanic Verses'. The author of which book had to go underground for fear of his life? Again, it's those fringe elements, which don't represent the whole, but always seem to come from one particular whole.

They were 9th century nomadic desert people. Pedophile, molester? Do you know their customs, culture, how they survive, how they treat orphans?

Using 21st century morality and world view to defame their character doesn't make a good argument.

This works both ways of course,... you can't bring 9th century values for usage in the 21st century. Unless of course you're just trying to real hard to impress people with the argumentative skills of a soap box preacher.

Sorry but thats bullshit. Because the followers of him believe that that pedophile provides a perfect example IN THE CURRENT DAY! you can't bring 9th century values for usage in the 21st century. That was a cut-and-paste from your post above. But I guess it's okay to praise his actions and behavior and morals in the 21st century.

Damn, you should stay away from reading about European nobility - for that matter, don't read about many historical figures, especially the ones that lived more than a thousand years ago.

Read my post above.

Sorry but thats bullshit. Because the followers of him believe that that pedophile provides a perfect example IN THE CURRENT DAY! you can't bring 9th century values for usage in the 21st century. That was a cut-and-paste from your post above. But I guess it's okay to praise his actions and behavior and morals in the 21st century.

Just for confirmation,

When Muslims praise his actions, it actually refers to bedding 9 year olds and not something else?

Uh-huh. Black people are criminals. Yep, not racism implied there. How dare anyone suggest otherwise.

No, because Blacks have nothing in common other than their skin color, which tells us nothing about their beliefs or ideals. Muslims, on the other hand, have a belief system based on absolutely rotten ideology. I mean, just look at the implementation in the most muslim nations of the World. Look at Saudi Arabia. The tolerance shown for other religions. Yes, its a monarchy, but the majority of the residents actually want strict Islamic Law. Some even think they aren't strict enough!!! But Saudi is just a few million people, I shouldn't generalize about how a few million people are bigoted towards people of other religions, when I could be talking about how much worse the printing of a few cartoons is for the Muslims of the world (especially those in Saudi, I guess)

A. I mean, just look at the implementation in the most muslim nations of the World. Look at Saudi Arabia. The tolerance shown for other religions. Yes, its a monarchy, B.but the majority of the residents actually want strict Islamic Law. Some even think they aren't strict enough!!!

A. Saudi Arabia is not muslim, they are just retarded simpletons, who are very corrupted, you want to make friends in the middle east? overthrow the Saudi Family and divide the territory into 3 zones: Persian Gulf coast, Hejaz and the Najd territory
B. thats cus they they are not learned and civilized due to wahabi influence
C. i give up, anytime there is a thread like this, all sense and logic is thrown out the window, wait and see if my prediction comes true.
PS:
my prediction:
Muslims get mad, cut off Oil, US support Arabs for more oil, they get oil, Europe relies more on Russia for oil, Russia is the only one who gains

All that would make sense if European countries having anti-Nazi symbology / holocaust denial laws wanting to impose their laws on the the rest of the world, because it offends them.
Playing Devil's advocate here: One could argue the fact that they (the European countries) can - and have - arrested people who have for published holocaust-denying work outside of their countries.
Rather like imposing their own laws on the rest of the world, because it offends them.

A. Saudi Arabia is not muslim, they are just retarded simpletons, who are very corrupted, you want to make friends in the middle east? overthrow the Saudi Family and divide the territory into 3 zones: Persian Gulf coast, Hejaz and the Najd territory
B. thats cus they they are not learned and civilized due to wahabi influence
C. i give up, anytime there is a thread like this, all sense and logic is thrown out the window, wait and see if my prediction comes true.
PS:
my prediction:
Muslims get mad, cut off Oil, US support Arabs for more oil, they get oil, Europe relies more on Russia for oil, Russia is the only one who gains

Just for comparison, can we have an example of a 'real' Muslim country?

Sorry but thats bullshit. Because the followers of him believe that that pedophile provides a perfect example IN THE CURRENT DAY! you can't bring 9th century values for usage in the 21st century. That was a cut-and-paste from your post above. But I guess it's okay to praise his actions and behavior and morals in the 21st century.

I see,... so do you know what his true intentions of marrying Aisha, besides the usual pedophile drivel? And to add, do you know the workings of how to act as a Muslim personally? Do Muslims teach to be pedophiles?

Perhaps you have missed the cat for the whiskers?

I see,... so do you know what his true intentions of marrying Aisha, besides the usual pedophile drivel? And to add, do you know the workings of how to act as a Muslim personally? Do Muslims teach to be pedophiles?

Perhaps you have missed the cat for the whiskers?

Those making the paedophile argument focus on the consumation part, not the marriage part.

And the difference is, somehow, even the most 3b1l fringe members of other 3b1l religions don't go out on the streets trashing everything in sight and chanting "death to a1l" in response to parodies of their religion. Which is odd, because it is MUCH more common to see, yet still provokes less acts of destruction (ie. 0)

For you too, Hezballoh. I guess they are all illiterate and uneducated like the Wahabbis, as you said. But how come the illiterate freaks of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism don't go around destroying embassies, trashing the streets or issuing Fatwah when a cartoon pokes fun of their religion? :confused: You say these are the bad apples, so lets compare the bad apples of all groups. Which group of apples invariably come out as the rotten ones, all the time?

A. Saudi Arabia is not muslim, they are just retarded simpletons, who are very corrupted, you want to make friends in the middle east? overthrow the Saudi Family and divide the territory into 3 zones: Persian Gulf coast, Hejaz and the Najd territory
B. thats cus they they are not learned and civilized due to wahabi influence
C. i give up, anytime there is a thread like this, all sense and logic is thrown out the window, wait and see if my prediction comes true.
PS:
my prediction:
Muslims get mad, cut off Oil, US support Arabs for more oil, they get oil, Europe relies more on Russia for oil, Russia is the only one who gains

A. I agree with you. Okay, to point B. Were the Taliban Wahabis too? And what is your excuse for this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2nBM2YgBb8&feature=related) or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETrjbPWxyS8&feature=related). I#m pretty sure Hamas isn't Wahabi. I don't think I have ever seen anything this revolting in my entire life. Every person on the net should see this as a matter of education. For the first video, scroll to the end of the boys' graduation. Once another religion in the modern world comes up with something as sick as that, you can say bigot. And Hamas isn't some fringe group, it has the support of many on this forum, and many many more in the Arab world. These viedos (and there are many more where these came from) should be enough for you to judge those who support them.

PZ Myers said it best:

"The aggrieved Muslims are saying, "Mock our god and we will kill you." They have the goal of suppressing images they consider blasphemous.

The cartoonists are saying, "Threaten to kill us and we will mock your god." Obviously, they'd like to stay alive, but their goal in this context is to see their work disseminated widely.

Now ask yourself, who is achieving their goals? Who is winning?"

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1155/denmarkyd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
HURRAH FOR THE ARYAN RACE, THOSE DIRTY FUCKING ARABS CAN GET OUT!

Right?

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1155/denmarkyd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Yes, but like Zilam said, it actually preaches violence against nonbelievers. There is no generalization made there, this is fact. What kind of religion is that, when the HOLY book tries to cast acts of violence in a positive light? Several times! Should I provide quotes?

Christianity?

I'll tell you what. You provide quotes about Muslims. I'll provide similar quotes from Christianity. Fair?

By the way, see what's happening in this thread, people. This is why the newspapers were irresponsible. They help justify anti-Muslim sentiment by their actions. They excuse people like the above who are not so thinly-veiled bigots.

Christianity?

I'll tell you what. You provide quotes about Muslims. I'll provide similar quotes from Christianity. Fair?

By the way, see what's happening in this thread, people. This is why the newspapers were irresponsible. They help justify anti-Muslim sentiment by their actions. They excuse people like the above who are not so thinly-veiled bigots.

Ummmm it does seem strange though that you think one should not have anti Muslim sentiments?

Ummmm it does seem strange though that you think one should not have anti Muslim sentiments?

Why? No more than anyone should not have any bigotted sentiments.

Have anti-violent Muslim sentiment, if you like. Or anything else. Or offer a reasoned criticism of their beliefs. Having a general disdain for Muslims and believing from one many is irrational. What the above poster is doing and so many do is attack all Muslims because some are awful people. But you can do that with Christianity. Black people. White people. Gay people. Short people. Etc.

Christianity?

I'll tell you what. You provide quotes about Muslims. I'll provide similar quotes from Christianity. Fair?

By the way, see what's happening in this thread, people. This is why the newspapers were irresponsible. They help justify anti-Muslim sentiment by their actions. They excuse people like the above who are not so thinly-veiled bigots.

Of course that's fair.

While I'm digging those up, I am just curious, what is your view on Hamas? Just a simple question.

Should we also trade the videos of children's shows that incite children to kill Teh J005. I supplied you with two of one religion, and you can provide us with one from any religion you like. Really.....take your pick!

EDIT: No, that's not the newspapers fault, its the fault of those that tried to kill the writer. I think you forget who the irresponsible one here was. I wouldn't be out here rambling if it wasn't for this Oh-so-predictable response from the fringe elements of the Muslim community.

Denmark belongs to the Danes, and it is up to them if they want to let foreign people live there.

The foreigners in that country are guests, and if they are unwilling to respect their hosts, they have no right to expect that they'll be permitted to stay.

Living is a foreigner helps you understand both sides of this situation better.

Why? No more than anyone should not have any bigotted sentiments.

Have anti-violent Muslim sentiment, if you like. Or anything else. Or offer a reasoned criticism of their beliefs. Having a general disdain for Muslims and believing from one many is irrational. What the above poster is doing and so many do is attack all Muslims because some are awful people. But you can do that with Christianity. Black people. White people. Gay people. Short people. Etc.

No you cant. Because none of those would ALWAYS, INVARIABLY come out as the most extreme group. For all the reasons mentioned in my previous posts. Draconian laws in Saudi Arabia (execution or life imprisonment of homosexuals, extremely degrading treatment of women (they aren't allowed to DRIVE), utter intolerance of other religions (Hindu temples not allowed, idol worshippers)) which aren't draconian enough for the "fringe elements", Fatwah on a writer who expressed his views on his own religion, issued by the leader of an Islamic Country. Riots around the Muslim world for the printing of the cartoons. Shows made for children, with fucking Mickey Mouse, that tell the children of Palestine to kill the Jews, and that their ultimate goal in life should be martyrdom! What kind of a sick society teaches its children that death should be their goal? They are your own children, for fucks sake, why the hell would you want them to die?!?!?! Or a kindergarten graduation, where the boys carry guns, and say their goal in life is to kill the Jews. The newspapers should have just printed links to these real videos, which are FAR more telling than any fictional cartoons could ever be. Also, Hamas is a group that is supported by many Arabs. They obviously don't seem to mind their tactics of recruitment of child soldiers through television.

Are these all fringe elements, Jacobia? Then, as I have posted many many times, why is it always just the fringe elements of this one particular religion that are so horribly revolting. Fucking TV shows teaching children to murder AND die. BRAVO:headbang:

Of course that's fair.

While I'm digging those up, I am just curious, what is your view on Hamas? Just a simple question.

Should we also trade the videos of children's shows that incite children to kill Teh J005. I supplied you with two of one religion, and you can provide us with one from any religion you like. Really.....take your pick!

EDIT: No, that's not the newspapers fault, its the fault of those that tried to kill the writer. I think you forget who the irresponsible one here was. I wouldn't be out here rambling if it wasn't for this Oh-so-predictable response from the fringe elements of the Muslim community.

No, I don't forget. The 3 attempted murderers are being punished. The actions of the newspapers have nothing to do with them. You believe in collective punishment. It's called bigotry. You can be a bigot if you like, but have the balls to simply admit it.

No you cant. Because none of those would ALWAYS, INVARIABLY come out as the most extreme group. For all the reasons mentioned in my previous posts. Draconian laws in Saudi Arabia (execution or life imprisonment of homosexuals, extremely degrading treatment of women (they aren't allowed to DRIVE), utter intolerance of other religions (Hindu temples not allowed, idol worshippers)) which aren't draconian enough for the "fringe elements", Fatwah on a writer who expressed his views on his own religion, issued by the leader of an Islamic Country. Riots around the Muslim world for the printing of the cartoons. Shows made for children, with fucking Mickey Mouse, that tell the children of Palestine to kill the Jews, and that their ultimate goal in life should be martyrdom! What kind of a sick society teaches its children that death should be their goal? They are your own children, for fucks sake, why the hell would you want them to die?!?!?! Or a kindergarten graduation, where the boys carry guns, and say their goal in life is to kill the Jews. The newspapers should have just printed links to these real videos, which are FAR more telling than any fictional cartoons could ever be. Also, Hamas is a group that is supported by many Arabs. They obviously don't seem to mind their tactics of recruitment of child soldiers through television.

Are these all fringe elements, Jacobia? Then, as I have posted many many times, why is it always just the fringe elements of this one particular religion that are so horribly revolting. Fucking TV shows teaching children to murder AND die. BRAVO:headbang:

Seriously, you don't recognize how stupid this argument is? So if say there was a show that people all watch together with their families? Shows designed for families, that preached that New Orleans was punishment for all their debauchery? Nothing wrong there.

Collective punishment. You don't recognize that I am not responsible for people I'm don't endorse or agree with. Nor are you. Nor are the vast numbers of Muslims who don't agree with those shows or the people who support them or the countries that produce them. But hey don't let little nuances like reason and intellect get in the way of bigotry. Be a bigot. We'll just keep pointing while keeping the likes of you from having any power to do anything dangerous.

The "fringe" elements of many religions are revolting. It was long ago that "fringe" elements were blowing things up in England and Ireland. Blowing things up in the US. Killing people for being black or gay or Jews, etc. And they weren't the fringe of Islam, friend. When's the last time Muslims beat a gay man to death in the US? What about Christians? If you're gonna go for collective punishment, you're gonna be quite busy.

Denmark belongs to the Danes, and it is up to them if they want to let foreign people live there.

The foreigners in that country are guests, and if they are unwilling to respect their hosts, they have no right to expect that they'll be permitted to stay.

Living is a foreigner helps you understand both sides of this situation better.

"they"? There are laws. EVERYONE has to follow them. It doesn't matter if you are foreign or native. People don't break laws because they're foreign. They break them because they're people. There is no they. There's just me, you, him and her.

Ah, wouldn't that provoke more terror actions? This kind of terrorism state of mind can't be stopped with words/images.

From who? Who could possibly get so bent out of shape over a cartoon drawing that they would kill? And what kind of society would ever tolerate the existence of such people?

It sounds so unbelievable.

Seriously, you don't recognize how stupid this argument is? So if say there was a show that people all watch together with their families? Shows designed for families, that preached that New Orleans was punishment for all their debauchery? Nothing wrong there.

Collective punishment. You don't recognize that I am not responsible for people I'm don't endorse or agree with. Nor are you. Nor are the vast numbers of Muslims who don't agree with those shows or the people who support them or the countries that produce them. But hey don't let little nuances like reason and intellect get in the way of bigotry. Be a bigot. We'll just keep pointing while keeping the likes of you from having any power to do anything dangerous.

The "fringe" elements of many religions are revolting. It was long ago that "fringe" elements were blowing things up in England and Ireland. Blowing things up in the US. Killing people for being black or gay or Jews, etc. And they weren't the fringe of Islam, friend. When's the last time Muslims beat a gay man to death in the US? What about Christians? If you're gonna go for collective punishment, you're gonna be quite busy.

Seriously, YOU dont see how retarded your arguments is? You are comparing a person saying that New Orleans deserved what it got with people who support Hamas in spite of the fact that they incite their own children to kill the Joos.

Let me get this right: you are saying the people who support Hamas are NOT bigots? Really??? Yeah, okay, I support the Nazis, vote for the Nazis, maybe send them financial support, but AM NOT RESPONSIBLE for them :confused::confused::confused:

Like I said, show me ANYTHING from any other religion showing something that is disgusting on this scale.

I guess you don't want to admit your affinity for Hamas, eh? You can be supporting terrorists and murderous bigots all you want, but we will point and prevent people of your kind from ever getting any power before they do something even more dangerous.

When exactly, Jacobia, was the last time that the leader of a Christian nation issued an order to kill a Christian who picked apart the bible?

Whens the last time a Muslim beat up a gay man to death? Are you kidding? Being gay is an offense OFFICIALLY punishible by death in Saudi Arabia. Did you mean when was the last time a gay man was executed in public by Muslim authorities. I would have to check on that.

Which Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or....<pick religion> nation forbids its women from driving?

These are all official stances, you can't compare hate crime murderers in the US. There are laws against that in even the most fanatical Southern States. In Iran, where women are stoned to death for ADULTERY (would you like the link to that video too, I think I shall fetch it), its fucking POLICY. When was the last time a woman was stoned to death in a non Muslim nation???? And not punished for it, but rather CARRIED OUT the wishes of the law by performing this delightful deed.

From who? Who could possibly get so bent out of shape over a cartoon drawing that they would kill? And what kind of society would ever tolerate the existence of such people?

It sounds so unbelievable.

Well, you answered that yourself,... how can reason touch people like that? This isn't about tolerating their existence, this is about people provoking a rabid dog.

From who? Who could possibly get so bent out of shape over a cartoon drawing that they would kill? And what kind of society would ever tolerate the existence of such people?

It sounds so unbelievable.

Nothing is unbelievable when it comes to the magnitude of destruction Islam carries out on those of other religions, or even those of its own religion who commit haram, except maybe the voracity with which the supposedly nonviolent members support those who carry out such deeds.

And what is the solution to a rabid dog.

I think we all know that answer. Though the question is ... which one is the rabid dog?

Playing Devil's advocate here: One could argue the fact that they (the European countries) can - and have - arrested people who have for published holocaust-denying work outside of their countries.
Rather like imposing their own laws on the rest of the world, because it offends them.

You mean, they arrested somebody from some other country who was visiting their country? That would be wrong. They could have refused visa or something.

The example I would give is the liberal use of swastikas in large parts of Asia. I grew up in a home which would draw swastikas as kolams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolam) every morning. European tourists don't go berserk when they see it.

A few months ago, a guy opened a Hitler themed restaurant in Mumbai.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1913952.cms
NAVI MUMBAI: A new restaurant at Kharghar has been named Hitler's Cross and it was inaugurated in the presence of the whos who of Navi Mumbai on Friday evening.

A huge poster of the Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, adorned the inauguration function of the eating house, much to the surprise of the invitees.

The signage at the entrance also showed the Swastika encircled by the letter O in Cross. Bollywood actor Murli Sharma, who was among the guests at the inauguration, told TOI : "I found it amusing to see this poster of Hitler at the restaurant."

The mayor of Navi Mumbai, Manisha Bhoir, and former mayor, Sanjeev Naik, were among the chief guests at the launch.

I think protests from Jews etc made him change the name, but the protests were civil and Jews did not burn the Indian embassy in Israel.

Collective punishment. You don't recognize that I am not responsible for people I'm don't endorse or agree with. Nor are you. Nor are the vast numbers of Muslims who don't agree with those shows or the people who support them or the countries that produce them.

I can't say that I agree with this. As bystanders if we do not agree with a stance then we have an obligation to stand and be counted for not agreeing with it. I don't believe Baptists should handle snakes as proof of their faith, and I don't have a problem standing up and shouting to the rooftops that it is an abomination of the Baptist faith to teach such. The problem with the Muslim community is the glaring silence of those who "do not agree". Where are they? Who are they? They do owe all of society their voice so that the assumption is not made that they do in fact condone such 'fringe' activities.

Shortly after the London subway bombings the Imams in England released a statement (I paraphrase) that while they did not condone this particular act of terrorism they could not condemn all such acts as some where just. Helloooo, but no they are not just and never will be. But you quietly have a faith that denounces when it suits them.

I want a loud and long confirmation that the Muslim community world wide doesn't quietly approve of this nonsense like the Mickey Mouse bastardization. The rest of the world NEEDS to know they aren't endorsed by the majority of the community. Why the glaring silence??

Well, you answered that yourself,... how can reason touch people like that? This isn't about tolerating their existence, this is about people provoking a rabid dog.


And what is the solution to a rabid dog.

I think we all know that answer. Though the question is ... which one is the rabid dog?

Foaming at the mouth and attacking over a cartoon is a good sign of which one in my opinion.

I want a loud and long confirmation that the Muslim community world wide doesn't quietly approve of this nonsense like the Mickey Mouse bastardization. The rest of the world NEEDS to know they aren't endorsed by the majority of the community. Why the glaring silence??

Why else? Muslim society as a whole is on a corner, seeing the climate of the rest of the world is hostile to them... and vice a versa, the world sees them as a problem due to some actions of some factions. The Muslim society wants to see some change in the international world view, though most don't agree with the way the extremist doing it, but then again, they're the ones who are getting the spotlight.

Okay, in a tangent, why do terrorists (or any paramilitary activity like militias, freedom fighters and activists) do the things they do? Attention. Temper tantrum fueled rage, to make other people look their way. Why is that happening in the Muslim society,... let's see, because most of them fears that the western influence had corrupted their society and leaders (that's another topic altogether). Now, as a group of people squeezed between internal and external influences which none of them represent, nay, even hears their concern, is there any other way than to explode in anger?

Foaming at the mouth and attacking over a cartoon is a good sign of which one in my opinion.

Not that simple, the other side also quickly knee-jerked to free speech with foam in their mouth.

PZ Myers said it best:

"The aggrieved Muslims are saying, "Mock our god and we will kill you." They have the goal of suppressing images they consider blasphemous.

The cartoonists are saying, "Threaten to kill us and we will mock your god." Obviously, they'd like to stay alive, but their goal in this context is to see their work disseminated widely.

Now ask yourself, who is achieving their goals? Who is winning?"

That sounds agreeably reasonable. I always thought that the world works in manner simpler than beliefs, freedom and such... it works on personal selfish interests.

Oh, their dedication to free speech? OK, let's see them print up a lot of swastikas.

er why?

I guess on one hand its great that they using their freedom of speach. Of course some could say they are abusing it, but eh Im sick of treading ever so lightly around people in an attempt not to offend them.

Everybody? All? Nope. I was talking about specific people. Seriously, I'm wondering if you're pretending. No one is this lost.

I'm responding to what specific people say. That is treating them as individuals. I'm extrapolating. That's a normal debate tactic. It's called logic. Welcome to the debate.

When somebody else does extrapolation and hyperbole, that is bigotry. When you do it is debate. :)

When X has happened, it's not an assumption to conclude that X is possible. When X happens a bunch of times, it's not an assumption to conclude that X will happen again. Do I have to explain how logic works too?

Really?

When you assume that blacks would beat me up it is not racism, but when others assume that muslims would riot it is being a bigot.

Besides the analogy is lame. The newspapers are not printed and distributed in muslim countries. Calling a black as a '******' is universally accepted as a wrong thing. Drawing cartoons is not. People 'blaspheme' against other religions all the time.

Like I said, everytime a muslim says "La illaha il allah" (which is five times a day) it is offensive. It is blasphemy. It is against my religion. But I don't riot.

*making an argument if I were to be religious. I am now agnostic.

When somebody else does extrapolation and hyperbole, that is bigotry. When you do it is debate. :)

Heh. No hyperbole. It's the point. You're missing it. If my assumptions are wrong, feel free to correct me. There is a difference between extrapolating a logical argument to its conclusion and using a from one many fallacy. I know you don't the difference, but it's really the problem here.


Really?

When you assume that blacks would beat me up it is not racism, but when others assume that muslims would riot it is being a bigot.

Um? I'm assuming that there are individuals who would. And, no, I actually said that it wasn't bigotry to assume that some Muslims would react aggressively to the cartoons. Welcome to the point. I said explicitly it's rational to suggest that violent reactions would come from publishing the cartoons again, since it's happened in the past. Thanks for agreeing. Neither is bigotry. The difference between making sweeping generalizations based on the actions of factions and making a point about the actions of those factions is paramount.


Besides the analogy is lame. The newspapers are not printed and distributed in muslim countries. Calling a black as a '******' is universally accepted as a wrong thing. Drawing cartoons is not. People 'blaspheme' against other religions all the time.

Like I said, everytime a muslim says "La illaha il allah" (which is five times a day) it is offensive. It is blasphemy. It is against my religion. But I don't riot.

*making an argument if I were to be religious. I am now agnostic.

And to some Muslims, every time you pray to Christ it's against their religion and they don't riot, either. You're missing the point as usual. That some do it has no bearing on others. That some do is a reason to get mad at those some. It's not a reason to make gross generalizations about the religion as a whole.

Why else? Muslim society as a whole is on a corner, seeing the climate of the rest of the world is hostile to them... and vice a versa, the world sees them as a problem due to some actions of some factions. The Muslim society wants to see some change in the international world view, though most don't agree with the way the extremist doing it, but then again, they're the ones who are getting the spotlight.

Okay, in a tangent, why do terrorists (or any paramilitary activity like militias, freedom fighters and activists) do the things they do? Attention. Temper tantrum fueled rage, to make other people look their way. Why is that happening in the Muslim society,... let's see, because most of them fears that the western influence had corrupted their society and leaders (that's another topic altogether). Now, as a group of people squeezed between internal and external influences which none of them represent, nay, even hears their concern, is there any other way than to explode in anger?

Why is the rest of the world hostile to begin with? Because some few (I use the term lightly because I am not convinced it is a few) have used their religion as an excuse to destroy humanity? Used their religion as an excuse to teach that all life is not sacred only a Muslim's life is sacred?

I have yet to be convinced that most don't quietly agree. I saw entirely too many people dancing in the streets around the world on 9/11, same story on the cartoon days, same story on the days of any terrorist act making headlines. It is obscene. And though the children, women and old people dancing in the streets are not actually carrying bombs they are supporting it if nothing else by rejoicing at the horrors the 'fringes' are committing. They are the cheerleaders as such.

Christianity did not change without the prodding of society. Inquisitions were not relegated as obsolete by those in power without the influence of society to begin with. The 'fringe' isn't going to change until people, Muslims, demand it does. Until they outcast their own for destroying their own faith.

Islam is in the middle ages unfortunately, it is kicking and screaming as it is being brought to the current century. Much as all faiths have had growing pains this one is no different. They are just slow learners. All of which could be a smoother transition if the 10 million Muslims in the world stepped up and said "enough".

What gives them or anyone the right to explode in anger? Respect begets respect. I would be very happy for them to earn mine.

Why is the rest of the world hostile to begin with? Because some few (I use the term lightly because I am not convinced it is a few) have used their religion as an excuse to destroy humanity? Used their religion as an excuse to teach that all life is not sacred only a Muslim's life is sacred?

I have yet to be convinced that most don't quietly agree. I saw entirely too many people dancing in the streets around the world on 9/11, same story on the cartoon days, same story on the days of any terrorist act making headlines. It is obscene. And though the children, women and old people dancing in the streets are not actually carrying bombs they are supporting it if nothing else by rejoicing at the horrors the 'fringes' are committing. They are the cheerleaders as such.

Christianity did not change without the prodding of society. Inquisitions were not relegated as obsolete by those in power without the influence of society to begin with. The 'fringe' isn't going to change until people, Muslims, demand it does. Until they outcast their own for destroying their own faith.

Islam is in the middle ages unfortunately, it is kicking and screaming as it is being brought to the current century. Much as all faiths have had growing pains this one is no different. They are just slow learners. All of which could be a smoother transition if the 10 million Muslims in the world stepped up and said "enough".

What gives them or anyone the right to explode in anger? Respect begets respect. I would be very happy for them to earn mine.

Change? A largely Christian nation and other largely Christian allies attacked a semetic population deposing their rightful leadership and installing a new west-supported leadership. They're threatening another. Some Muslims react violently because they feel disempowered. Christians aren't. We attacked a country that wasn't Muslim and linked it to terrorism on the sole connection of skin color. Of course, Arab men and women are flocking to any organization that will fight against it.

Does that justify terrorism? Nope. But ignoring that we've greatly exasperated the problem and continue to, while claiming it's some drastic flaw in THEIR thinking is ludicrous. There is a significant faction in the US that would wipe Muslims off the earth if possible. Let's stop pretending that non-Muslims are docile creatures.

Why is the rest of the world hostile to begin with? Because some few (I use the term lightly because I am not convinced it is a few) have used their religion as an excuse to destroy humanity? Used their religion as an excuse to teach that all life is not sacred only a Muslim's life is sacred?

I have yet to be convinced that most don't quietly agree. I saw entirely too many people dancing in the streets around the world on 9/11, same story on the cartoon days, same story on the days of any terrorist act making headlines. It is obscene. And though the children, women and old people dancing in the streets are not actually carrying bombs they are supporting it if nothing else by rejoicing at the horrors the 'fringes' are committing. They are the cheerleaders as such.

Christianity did not change without the prodding of society. Inquisitions were not relegated as obsolete by those in power without the influence of society to begin with. The 'fringe' isn't going to change until people, Muslims, demand it does. Until they outcast their own for destroying their own faith.

Islam is in the middle ages unfortunately, it is kicking and screaming as it is being brought to the current century. Much as all faiths have had growing pains this one is no different. They are just slow learners. All of which could be a smoother transition if the 10 million Muslims in the world stepped up and said "enough".

What gives them or anyone the right to explode in anger? Respect begets respect. I would be very happy for them to earn mine.

I'm in no way agreeing with temper tantrum and unreasonable violence. What I posted was merely an observation, as a member of those you claimed "glared in silence" and as a member of those "who tried to step up and got silenced".

Oh yeah, there are more than 10 million Muslims out there that would likely do what you say, ... but then again,... we're hardly the ones who are news worthy enough to gain the spotlight and chance to speak.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v381/frostynorth/pyromaniac.jpg

I'm in no way agreeing with temper tantrum and unreasonable violence. What I posted was merely an observation, as a member of those you claimed "glared in silence" and as a member of those "who tried to step up and got silenced".

Oh yeah, there are more than 10 million Muslims out there that would likely do what you say, ... but then again,... we're hardly the ones who are news worthy enough to gain the spotlight and chance to speak.

^This

One guy bombs a clinic and another is preaching peace and tolerance. Guess which one the bigots are gonna see on the news?

Sadly I think you really believe that non-Muslims would like to "wipe" Muslims off the face of the earth. I don't believe that in the least.

I believe SOME would. See, I'm not going to make the kinds of generalizations you engage in. And, it's true. Some would absolutely wipe them from the earth. Fortunately, rational people don't use gross generalizations like saying that if part of a group is dangerous then we should blame the whole group.

I haven't seen anyone on the news casting down the people who want to destroy Muslims, therefore everyone is silently endorsing it, no?

Your logic sucks. It fails every time.

Seriously, YOU dont see how retarded your arguments is? You are comparing a person saying that New Orleans deserved what it got with people who support Hamas in spite of the fact that they incite their own children to kill the Joos.

Let me get this right: you are saying the people who support Hamas are NOT bigots? Really??? Yeah, okay, I support the Nazis, vote for the Nazis, maybe send them financial support, but AM NOT RESPONSIBLE for them :confused::confused::confused:

Like I said, show me ANYTHING from any other religion showing something that is disgusting on this scale.

I guess you don't want to admit your affinity for Hamas, eh? You can be supporting terrorists and murderous bigots all you want, but we will point and prevent people of your kind from ever getting any power before they do something even more dangerous.

When exactly, Jacobia, was the last time that the leader of a Christian nation issued an order to kill a Christian who picked apart the bible?

Whens the last time a Muslim beat up a gay man to death? Are you kidding? Being gay is an offense OFFICIALLY punishible by death in Saudi Arabia. Did you mean when was the last time a gay man was executed in public by Muslim authorities. I would have to check on that.

Which Christian, or Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or....<pick religion> nation forbids its women from driving?

These are all official stances, you can't compare hate crime murderers in the US. There are laws against that in even the most fanatical Southern States. In Iran, where women are stoned to death for ADULTERY (would you like the link to that video too, I think I shall fetch it), its fucking POLICY. When was the last time a woman was stoned to death in a non Muslim nation???? And not punished for it, but rather CARRIED OUT the wishes of the law by performing this delightful deed.


Fred Phelps exists. It is unfourtunate that the Fred Phelps's of Islam were put in power in A FEW COUNTRIES, and then manufactured consent.

Guess what? Fewer than a Quarter of Muslims are in the Middle East. You aren't railing against Indonesia. You somehow think you can judge all Muslims by Saudi Arabia and Iran. That would be comperable to judging all communists by the USSR or all Capitalists to Hitler. hell, it would be comperable to judging all Christians to Hitler.

And no one is supporting Hamas. But just because they were put in power in a desperate country doesn't mean you can somehow judge all Muslims by them. There isn't a hive-mind.

Change? A largely Christian nation and other largely Christian allies attacked a semetic population deposing their rightful leadership and installing a new west-supported leadership. They're threatening another. Some Muslims react violently because they feel disempowered. Christians aren't. We attacked a country that wasn't Muslim and linked it to terrorism on the sole connection of skin color. Of course, Arab men and women are flocking to any organization that will fight against it.

Does that justify terrorism? Nope. But ignoring that we've greatly exasperated the problem and continue to, while claiming it's some drastic flaw in THEIR thinking is ludicrous. There is a significant faction in the US that would wipe Muslims off the earth if possible. Let's stop pretending that non-Muslims are docile creatures.

Sadly I think you really believe that non-Muslims would like to "wipe" Muslims off the face of the earth. I don't believe that in the least. What I do believe is that the thinking world would like this errant poorly behaved tantrum throwing child to sit down and behave himself. We all understand that getting bad attention is better than no attention from an attention starved blame throwing child. A very simple lesson the most people understand by the time they are 6 years old.

The Imams and so forth are the piss poor parent who isn't disciplining his child and the rest of the world is suffering for his lack of belief that his 'child' can do any wrong. As I said it is time for Islam to grow up, and they will one way or another. I think we all recognize it is going to be painful, but it is going to happen.

Oh btw we haven't attacked a country at all. We successfully deposed a terrorist. For those that feel disempowered perhaps if they weren't being taught from birth that all that ails them is the fault of westerners there wouldn't be such a brainwashed easily manipulated society to begin with. Just shows you what a lack of edcuation and freedom can do for making a slave mentality among a countries society. Imagine all that money Saddam and Bin Laden spent on terrorism activities actually being poured into educating Muslims....but no it is much harder to enslave an educated mind. Their own leaders disempower their people. Blaming the west is an excuse, just like the cartoons are simply an excuse to posture and throw a tantrum.

Your judment of fail from someone completely obtuse is hilarious! :p

You either can't read or can't comprehend what you can read. I said that the silence sends a message of 'condoning' the terrorism. It does and to deny that it does is ignorant. Is that any clearer since you completely missed the point?

Really? And if they were speaking out, how would you know? Where would you hear it?

Your judment of fail from someone completely obtuse is hilarious! :p

You either can't read or can't comprehend what you can read. I said that the silence sends a message of 'condoning' the terrorism. It does and to deny that it does is ignorant. Is that any clearer since you completely missed the point?

I heard what you said and just addressed it. Here, let me help you out.

I haven't seen anyone on the news casting down the people who want to destroy Muslims, therefore everyone is silently endorsing it, no?

See, endorse is a synonym of condone. I talked about how non-Muslims are saying other non-Muslims are wrong (are silent) and according to you this is endorsing. You need any other help reading?

Meanwhile, many Muslims aren't silent. Unfortunately, bombers and threats get on the news, but preaching to your congregation or peaceful speeches generally don't, particularly when they're in another country.

Tell you what, watch the news today. Tell me how many stories involve violence or the threat of violence. Then tell me how many stories involve someone behaving peaceably. The second happens WAAAAAAAY more often. The first one makes the news.

Your argument from ignorance fails.

I believe SOME would. See, I'm not going to make the kinds of generalizations you engage in. And, it's true. Some would absolutely wipe them from the earth. Fortunately, rational people don't use gross generalizations like saying that if part of a group is dangerous then we should blame the whole group.

I haven't seen anyone on the news casting down the people who want to destroy Muslims, therefore everyone is silently endorsing it, no?

Your logic sucks. It fails every time.


Your judment of fail from someone completely obtuse is hilarious! :p

You either can't read or can't comprehend what you can read. I said that the silence sends a message of 'condoning' the terrorism. It does and to deny that it does is ignorant. Is that any clearer since you completely missed the point?

Heh. No hyperbole. It's the point. You're missing it. If my assumptions are wrong, feel free to correct me. There is a difference between extrapolating a logical argument to its conclusion and using a from one many fallacy. I know you don't the difference, but it's really the problem here.




Um? I'm assuming that there are individuals who would. And, no, I actually said that it wasn't bigotry to assume that some Muslims would react aggressively to the cartoons. Welcome to the point. I said explicitly it's rational to suggest that violent reactions would come from publishing the cartoons again, since it's happened in the past. Thanks for agreeing. Neither is bigotry. The difference between making sweeping generalizations based on the actions of factions and making a point about the actions of those factions is paramount.




And to some Muslims, every time you pray to Christ it's against their religion and they don't riot, either. You're missing the point as usual. That some do it has no bearing on others. That some do is a reason to get mad at those some. It's not a reason to make gross generalizations about the religion as a whole.

Who is generalizing here? Not me.

It is you who is generalizing anybody who dares to mention anything that doesn't pass muster according to you, as bigot/anti-islam etc.

There are only a few here who would fit that bill. By extrapolating/hyperbole ("debate" as you call it), you are just stifling debate and worse, you might be pushing people to that side.

Who is generalizing here? Not me.

It is you who is generalizing anybody who dares to mention anything that doesn't pass muster according to you, as bigot/anti-islam etc.

There are only a few here who would fit that bill. By extrapolating/hyperbole ("debate" as you call it), you are just stifling debate and worse, you might be pushing people to that side.

Mention anything? No. Use 3 Muslims as an excuse to insult and abuse Muslims in general? Yes. I know you're not following that bit, but please, get off the made up argument and trying talking about what is actually being said.

See, so far, you've suggested I said the opposite of what I said. Changed what I said. Misread what I said. How about a new thing? How about you try responding to the point. I know it's hard, but slow down, reread, and THEN respond. It's called rational behavior. Your welcome for the lesson.

I heard what you said and just addressed it. Here, let me help you out.



See, endorse is a synonym of condone. I talked about how non-Muslims are saying other non-Muslims are wrong (are silent) and according to you this is endorsing. You need any other help reading?

Meanwhile, many Muslims aren't silent. Unfortunately, bombers and threats get on the news, but preaching to your congregation or peaceful speeches generally don't, particularly when they're in another country.

Tell you what, watch the news today. Tell me how many stories involve violence or the threat of violence. Then tell me how many stories involve someone behaving peaceably. The second happens WAAAAAAAY more often. The first one makes the news.

Your argument from ignorance fails.



Silence on the subject is not acceptable. Blaming the news media for not covering sermons is a lame way of trying to slam my point. LOL The media isn't the issue.

The comments following London's bombing by the Muslim scholars and Imams in England are exactly the reason there is silence. You are free to not acknowledge the message. I don't have any problem with that, but to deny it is actually sending one is foolish.

Tell me just how do you propose to prove the second happens "WAAAAAAAY more often"? It would be interesting to me to know where you are getting your information. It isn't from the media obviously, so what you are attending Muslim sermons all over the world? You are documenting the ones for peace and the ones teaching hate?

I would like to think that is the truth, but I don't believe you frankly.

Who is generalizing here? Not me.

It is you who is generalizing anybody who dares to mention anything that doesn't pass muster according to you, as bigot/anti-islam etc.

There are only a few here who would fit that bill. By extrapolating/hyperbole ("debate" as you call it), you are just stifling debate and worse, you might be pushing people to that side.

Well said.

Silence on the subject is not acceptable. Blaming the news media for not covering sermons is a lame way of trying to slam my point. LOL The media isn't the issue.

Pardon? How do you propose you're going to hear the opinions of the Imams? Are you going to their sermons? They aren't being silent. You're just not hearing them. I'm not blaming the media. They give us what we are willing to pay for with advertising dollars. I'm saying that you're arguing from ignorance because the media has a natural bias toward the newsworthy. Frankly, peaceful people aren't newsworthy.


The comments following London's bombing by the Muslim scholars and Imams in England are exactly the reason there is silence. You are free to not acknowledge the message. I don't have any problem with that, but to deny it is actually sending one is foolish.

There wasn't silence. Again, this argument "if I don't hear them showing disdain and disapproval for these actions then they're condoning it" is argument from ignorance. What you don't hear or don't know does not an argument make.


Tell me just how do you propose to prove the second happens "WAAAAAAAY more often"? It would be interesting to me to know where you are getting your information. It isn't from the media obviously, so what you are attending Muslim sermons all over the world? You are documenting the ones for peace and the ones teaching hate?

I would like to think that is the truth, but I don't believe you frankly.

Pardon me? Are you kidding? You think that vast majority of people are just being constantly violent? And I wasn't talking about just Muslims. I was talking about PEOPLE. All PEOPLE. Despite the fact that vast majority of PEOPLE are generally just going about their lives completely oblivious to violence is not newsworthy.

Meanwhile, in your misunderstanding of my point you make it. You are just certain that the majority of Muslims are violent. You don't know. You admit you don't know. But you just like to assume it. Now it's on me to prove to you that those people aren't violent, despite the fact that if the 100s of millions of Muslims in the world were majoritively violent, you could kiss civilization goodbye.

I made the point that this behavior by the media was just creating another excuse for all the little bigots to attack Muslims in general for the behavior of three and that this was collective punishment, and amazingly all the little bigots show up and prove my point. I couldn't have provided better evidence if I'd have paid y'all. Thanks for that.

Silence on the subject is not acceptable. Blaming the news media for not covering sermons is a lame way of trying to slam my point. LOL The media isn't the issue.

The comments following London's bombing by the Muslim scholars and Imams in England are exactly the reason there is silence. You are free to not acknowledge the message. I don't have any problem with that, but to deny it is actually sending one is foolish.

Tell me just how do you propose to prove the second happens "WAAAAAAAY more often"? It would be interesting to me to know where you are getting your information. It isn't from the media obviously, so what you are attending Muslim sermons all over the world? You are documenting the ones for peace and the ones teaching hate?

I would like to think that is the truth, but I don't believe you frankly.

a majority of Palistineans want peace, according to PEW research. If there are a people on this earth that have more right to be angry, I don't know of them. They say they can understand violence but do not condone it. They blame Hamas and Isreal. They don't condone suicide bombing. That good enough?

Meanwhile, many Muslims aren't silent. Unfortunately, bombers and threats get on the news, but preaching to your congregation or peaceful speeches generally don't, particularly when they're in another country.


It occurs to me that it does not matter if there are peaceful speeches or not. The NEED for a peaceful speech is symptomatic in itself.

When Christianity, Judaism, or even Secular Humanism is mocked, there is no need for a priest, pastor, rabbi, or secular philosopher to tell their flocks "please don't go out and burn down the town tonite, it's not nice and it's counterproductive". But for some odd reason, it seems that we need Muslims to be calmed down.

Cultures change, but some things are cultural.

Collective Punishment is wrong, but the universe is remorseless, and imposes Collective Consequences. Frequently.

It occurs to me that it does not matter if there are peaceful speeches or not. The NEED for a peaceful speech is symptomatic in itself.

When Christianity, Judaism, or even Secular Humanism is mocked, there is no need for a priest, pastor, rabbi, or secular philosopher to tell their flocks "please don't go out and burn down the town tonite, it's not nice and it's counterproductive". But for some odd reason, it seems that we need Muslims to be calmed down.

Cultures change, but some things are cultural.

Collective Punishment is wrong, but the universe is remorseless, and imposes Collective Consequences. Frequently.

There are some in Islam who are VERY dangerous. Thus the need for the speeches. What does that have to do with those in Islam who aren't dangerous? Nothing unless you're a bigot.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=5270

http://www.muslim-lawyers.net/news/index.php3?aktion=show&number=78

http://www.mvp-us.org/

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_part_iii_statements_articles/0012211

Shall I keep going? Here's where you say these are the minority, creating an impossible to overcome request for evidence that defies reason.

Actually, they are not being punished for the Danish courts don't have enough hard evidence on them because the police acted before something could happen.

"The Danish Security and Intelligence Service said police arrested a 40-year-old Dane of Moroccan origin and two Tunisians. The Danish citizen is charged with a terrorism offense, the intelligence service said, and the Tunisians will be deported. Police have not yet released the names of the three."
[...]
"'Not wanting to take any undue risks [the intelligence service] has decided to intervene at a very early stage in order to interrupt the planning and the actual assassination,' the statement by Jakob Scharf, the agency's director general, said. 'Thus, this morning's operation must first and foremost be seen as a preventive measure where the aim has been to stop a crime from being committed.'"
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/denmark.cartoon/index.html

So basically, we actually can't prove they were guilty of anything. Interesting. But, hey, that's no reason why we can't fuel anti-Muslim sentiment.

Swastikas are an example of how a European nation (Germany, but maybe others, I'd have to look that up now) are not so zealously committed to freedom of speech as has been claimed.
Only in Europe. Europeans don't go around telling other countries not to use swastika.
Only explicitely in Austria and Germany, I believe.
This really is only true up to a certain point:

5. Freedom of expression
(1) Everyone has the right freely to express and to disseminate his opinion by speech, writing and pictures and freely to inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws, the provisions of law for the protection of youth and by the right to inviolability of personal honor.
(3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Germany

Section 86 Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations

(1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda:

1. of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; [...]
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
[...]
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#86

So printing a swastika ain't illegal when you do so for good reason.

The 3 attempted murderers are being punished.
Actually, they are not being punished for the Danish courts don't have enough hard evidence on them because the police acted before something could happen.

"The Danish Security and Intelligence Service said police arrested a 40-year-old Dane of Moroccan origin and two Tunisians. The Danish citizen is charged with a terrorism offense, the intelligence service said, and the Tunisians will be deported. Police have not yet released the names of the three."
[...]
"'Not wanting to take any undue risks [the intelligence service] has decided to intervene at a very early stage in order to interrupt the planning and the actual assassination,' the statement by Jakob Scharf, the agency's director general, said. 'Thus, this morning's operation must first and foremost be seen as a preventive measure where the aim has been to stop a crime from being committed.'"

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/denmark.cartoon/index.html

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=5270

http://www.muslim-lawyers.net/news/index.php3?aktion=show&number=78

http://www.mvp-us.org/

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_extremism_and_terrorism_part_iii_statements_articles/0012211

Shall I keep going? Here's where you say these are the minority, creating an impossible to overcome request for evidence that defies reason.

Islamic Exceptionalism on NSG. When a member of any other religion commits violence, they are the exception. Whenever Muslims call for peace, understanding and tolerance, they are the exception as well.

"I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Islamic faith and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department. "

The above was meant as a complaint.

"The fate of the world rests with the clash
between Muslims of the Middle East and the Christian
spirit throughout other parts of the world."

"You are seeing today an all out attempt
to marshal the forces of the opposition,
using not merely the Muslims, or their
fellow travelers-the deluded liberals, the
eggheads, and some of my good friends
in both the Democratic and Republican Parties
who can become heros over night in the eyes
of the left-wing press if they
will just join with the jackal pack"

Anyone know who said the above?

No, I don't forget. The 3 attempted murderers are being punished. The actions of the newspapers have nothing to do with them. You believe in collective punishment. It's called bigotry. You can be a bigot if you like, but have the balls to simply admit it.

First of all, you're making a ridiculous generalisation (which is what you've been complaining about). Even if some of the newspapers are motivated by bigotry or a desire to punish this doesn't mean they all are. Did you notice that Danish newspapers from across the political spectrum are publishing the cartoons, including those who decided not to last time? Your attempt to smear them all with the same brush is the kind of simplistic thinking I'd expect from someone like Andaras or Oceandrive, not an intelligent person like yourself.

Secondly, you have to realise that the attempted murder is about more than just killing one man: it's about intimidation. Suppose that the plot was discovered and nothing more was done: other cartoonists and editors would feel a lot more nervous, knowing that attempts had been made to murder journalists in the recent past. They'd understandably be more cautious about publishing anything which could be be construed as offensive or critical of Islam in the future, even if there were reasonable grounds for publishing it. In the same way that the Klu Klux Klan lynched individual blacks to scare the general population into keeping their heads down, so the extremists wanted to target one cartoonist to force the rest into self-censorship. A public show of defiance support for freedom of speech was the only way to fight the intimidation. It isn't about hatred of Muslims or collective punishment.

Also, as I've pointed out several times now, only two of the cartoons could be construed as calling Islam violent. Most of them were funny, and the kind of thing I'd expect to see in the editorial page of the Guardian or any other daily paper without any uproar. Even if the bomb-turban cartoon was out of line, the rest are either amusing or making valid criticisms of Islam. To quote Mohammed in my second favourite cartoon: "Relax guys, it's just some cartoons in some Danish newspaper."

EDIT: I'll be going out shortly, but I'll try to find time to check this thread tomorrow.

a majority of Palistineans want peace, according to PEW research. If there are a people on this earth that have more right to be angry, I don't know of them. They say they can understand violence but do not condone it. They blame Hamas and Isreal. They don't condone suicide bombing. That good enough?

Do you have a link?

First of all, you're making a ridiculous generalisation (which is what you've been complaining about). Even if some of the newspapers are motivated by bigotry or a desire to punish this doesn't mean they all are. Did you notice that Danish newspapers from across the political spectrum are publishing the cartoons, including those who decided not to last time? Your attempt to smear them all with the same brush is the kind of simplistic thinking I'd expect from someone like Andaras or Oceandrive, not an intelligent person like yourself.

I'm speaking to the OP. The OP said it was a victory for Freedom of Speech. If I was speaking to the editors, my argument would be different. There's not value to specifically referencing any of them. I'm responding to why it's not a victory for freedom of speech. And, frankly, it's not. There attempt for such a thing is misplaced. Calling someone a ****** to prove one can, doesn't prove you have freedom of speech. It only prove one is an idiot.

I did notice. So the actions of 3 Muslims, actions that apparently don't have enough evidence for a conviction, seemed like adequate justification for newspapers who before agreed that it's irresponsible and offensive to publish them, to stop caring though it continues to be true. However misplaced their intentions might be, they are engaging in collective punishment. They've not punished those three and punishing anyone else is wrong.
Secondly, you have to realise that the attempted murder is about more than just killing one man: it's about intimidation. Suppose that the plot was discovered and nothing more was done: other cartoonists and editors would feel a lot more nervous, knowing that attempts had been made to murder journalists in the recent past. They'd understandably be more cautious about publishing anything which could be be construed as offensive or critical of Islam in the future, even if there were reasonable grounds for publishing it. In the same way that the Klu Klux Klan lynched individual blacks to scare the general population into keeping their heads down, so the extremists wanted to target one cartoonist to force the rest into self-censorship. A public show of defiance support for freedom of speech was the only way to fight the intimidation. It isn't about hatred of Muslims or collective punishment.

What does that have to do with punishing Muslims in general by posting offensive cartoon? The way to fight the intimidation is to punish those doing the intimidation or intimidate them back, not set out to provoke them. There shotgun approach will only offend those who have no beef with them and provoke those who do. Completely and utterly pointless.



Also, as I've pointed out several times now, only two of the cartoons could be construed as calling Islam violent. Most of them were funny, and the kind of thing I'd expect to see in the editorial page of the Guardian or any other daily paper without any uproar. Even if the bomb-turban cartoon was out of line, the rest are either amusing or making valid criticisms of Islam. To quote Mohammed in my second favourite cartoon: "Relax guys, it's just some cartoons in some Danish newspaper."

EDIT: I'll be going out shortly, but I'll try to find time to check this thread tomorrow.

If they were being remotely responsible, in my opinion, they'd have left out the ones that are bigotted attacks on Muslims. But I'm funny like that.

What does that have to do with punishing Muslims in general by posting offensive cartoon?
By what bizarre leap of logic do you consider printing a cartoon to be "punishing" anyone?

By what bizarre leap of logic do you consider printing a cartoon to be "punishing" anyone?

Other blanketly insulting their professed beliefs and provoking the more unstable elements into violent reprisals which will then be harped on by media coverage and feed into the "Evil Moslemz" stereotype that's become the new Guilt Free Anti-Jewism Substitute since 9/11?

Hmm... I dunno...

:rolleyes:

Well done.

A law should be enacted so that people who protest the cartoons can be deported

Oh, you mean like the Nuremberg laws. Yeah I can guess you'd approve of that kind of thing. But aren't you supposed to be one of those champions of "freedom of speech?" Deporting people for exercising their constitutional rights doesn't seem to fit in with that. Maybe you'd care to admit that you don't care about freedom any more than you do about rights, or about not looking like a bigoted proto-nazi.

The good thing about publishing stuff like this is that it gets the enemy to self-identify, which makes him easier to catch and deal with.

Disgusting. Pissed off by cartoons = the enemy = deported. Luckily, most European countries don't seem to be regressing to your level of "thinking."

By what bizarre leap of logic do you consider printing a cartoon to be "punishing" anyone?

Yes, printing bigotry isn't a punishment. No. Not at all. I suppose you'd say the same if a black threatened to kill a cartoonist for making a cartoon and they not only printed the cartoons of that cartoonist that the black person was offended by but also a bunch other cartoons that were racist towards black people. Totally a leap of logic to see the problem there. Well, unless you actually attempt to follow logic.

This is your "logic"? Get this straight: Insulting my beliefs is not "punishing" me. If unstable people do stupid things, they are punishing themselves; nobody else is "punishing" them.

Insulting the beliefs of an entire population because you're upset with three of them is guilt by association. I'm sorry you fail to understand why that's an issue, but yes, it is issue.

It's kind of like why you don't yell fire in a theatre. In a perfect world, yelling fire would just cause people to leave in an orderly fashion. Unfortunately, there will certainly be some idiots who try to run out and end up trampling others. You don't have a responsibility to the idiots, but you do have a responsibility to those who get trampled.

Another example is how the newspaper keep making these gunman famous who explicitly say they did it to become famous. At some point, you become culpable for your inability to act responsibly.

Other blanketly insulting their professed beliefs and provoking the more unstable elements into violent reprisals which will then be harped on by media coverage and feed into the "Evil Moslemz" stereotype that's become the new Guilt Free Anti-Jewism Substitute since 9/11?

Hmm... I dunno...

:rolleyes:
This is your "logic"? Get this straight: Insulting my beliefs is not "punishing" me. If unstable people do stupid things, they are punishing themselves; nobody else is "punishing" them.

Yes, printing bigotry isn't a punishment. No. Not at all. I suppose you'd say the same if a black threatened to kill a cartoonist for making a cartoon and they not only printed the cartoons of that cartoonist that the black person was offended by but also a bunch other cartoons that were racist towards black people. Totally a leap of logic to see the problem there. Well, unless you actually attempt to follow logic.
I gotta disagree with you here, Joc.

Maybe it's because I'm American, and I know from experience that EVERYTHING pisses somebody off, but I simply don't agree that publishing something offensive constitutes "punishment" of anybody.

You have no right to not get your feelings hurt. You do not have a right to have your poor tender eyes protected from anything that might offend you. If another human being chooses to print something you don't like, you are not being punished.

Now, sure, somebody might go out of their way to piss you off by printing something offensive even after you objected to similar content. But that's still not punishment.

And I say this, remember, as a female bisexual atheist. By your standards I am "punished" every single time I turn on the TV, open a newspaper, flip on a radio, or exit my apartment. I am constantly and consistently bombarded by hateful, abusive, homophobic, sexist, anti-atheist material, despite the fact that I am active and vocal in my objections to such material.

Does it suck to live with that kind of crap? Sure. It's repetitive and boring as fuck, not to mention intensely annoying, to have to be constantly assaulted by other people's hangups. But such is life.

I gotta disagree with you here, Joc.

Maybe it's because I'm American, and I know from experience that EVERYTHING pisses somebody off, but I simply don't agree that publishing something offensive constitutes "punishment" of anybody.

You have no right to not get your feelings hurt. You do not have a right to have your poor tender eyes protected from anything that might offend you. If another human being chooses to print something you don't like, you are not being punished.

We're not talking about rights. Again, just because they have the right to print it doesn't make it right. What they printed was the equivalent of printing a black guy with a big slice of watermelon intended as a criticism of black people. Worse they did it to prove to black people that blacks aren't going to intimidate them out of publishing it. They've not broken the law or violated anyone's rights. But they're still wrong to do it.


Now, sure, somebody might go out of their way to piss you off by printing something offensive even after you objected to similar content. But that's still not punishment.

And I say this, remember, as a female bisexual atheist. By your standards I am "punished" every single time I turn on the TV, open a newspaper, flip on a radio, or exit my apartment. I am constantly and consistently bombarded by hateful, abusive, homophobic, sexist, anti-atheist material, despite the fact that I am active and vocal in my objections to such material.

You are. When I set out to offend you, then yes, that's exactly what happens and the people doing it are wrong.


Does it suck to live with that kind of crap? Sure. It's repetitive and boring as fuck, not to mention intensely annoying, to have to be constantly assaulted by other people's hangups. But such is life.

I find it interesting that you used the term "assaulted". Could it be that you're seeing at as an attack as much as I am? I think you are.

See, but worse, people are applauding them for assaulting you for their hangups. They're saying it's a defense of THEIR rights. And it's not. It's just their hangups. I'm not going to applaud them. Shame on them. It's obnoxious and irresponsible.

And you know that I go this way against any form of similar actions. Your occasional assault on Christianity that you feel is deserved because so many Christians are assholes. Or someone's assault on lesbians because they are destroying the fabric of our society. Or blah, blah, blah. It's not rational behavior and it should be objected to at every turn.

It's not pointless, it's routinely done as part of debate all the time. I mean loads of people on this forum have attacked Christianity because Jesus vaguely supported the laws of the old testament (basically attacking him for being a Jew), and thus supporting the stoning of adulterers etc... People will respond claiming that this is what was cultural norm of the time, others will then go on saying that this does not absolve him from criticism, since it's still part of doctrine, and is still supposed to be respected today, regardless of whether it is merely echoing the cultural norms of that time.
Actually, both are quite pointless. That someone engages in pointless activities time and time again doesn't change that fact.

And I hardly ever see that happening in debates about Christianity either.

I would agree IF the religion did not consider him a faultless spokesman for God and role model to all people for all times to come, rather than just a person who had some good insights for his particular time although they are quite outmoded now.
And does the religion really do that?

OP: Good. Maybe now the muslims will get over themselves and realize that they are no more special than anyone else. However, I don't think it's likely.
And here we go again with the sweeping generalizations...

Well done.
Oh, you mean like when Muslims like Salman Rushdie have discussions?
Not at all. I'm talking about debate and criticism, not fiction that leads to a political act of retaliation due to cold war policies and more.

Compare the reactions to 'The God Illusion' and 'The Satanic Verses'. The author of which book had to go underground for fear of his life? Again, it's those fringe elements, which don't represent the whole, but always seem to come from one particular whole.
And would the cultural, geographical and political environments of the day have no impact?

Read my post above.
Why? It was just silly and pointless.

Denmark belongs to the Danes, and it is up to them if they want to let foreign people live there.

The foreigners in that country are guests, and if they are unwilling to respect their hosts, they have no right to expect that they'll be permitted to stay.

Living is a foreigner helps you understand both sides of this situation better.
...and what of the Danish muslims then?

I think the newspapers made the right decision to reprint the cartoons. Stick it to the radicals.

Yes, printing bigotry isn't a punishment. No. Not at all.
Exactamundo. You've got it.
[quoting Bottle:] And I say this, remember, as a female bisexual atheist. By your standards I am "punished" every single time I turn on the TV, open a newspaper, flip on a radio, or exit my apartment. I am constantly and consistently bombarded by hateful, abusive, homophobic, sexist, anti-atheist material, despite the fact that I am active and vocal in my objections to such material.

You are. When I set out to offend you, then yes, that's exactly what happens and the people doing it are wrong.
Bullshit. Speaking as a male thoroughly-homosexual atheist, I am not "punished" because people keep publishing offensive material.

Tmut: I would agree IF the religion did not consider him a faultless spokesman for God and role model to all people for all times to come, rather than just a person who had some good insights for his particular time although they are quite outmoded now.

Gravlen: And does the religion really do that?

Yes, it does. On the comparative-religion board (where I first learned about NS), I argued for a long time with a liberal Muslim (friendly enough, I have no personal problems with her) who would frequently reject what extremist Muslims have to say on grounds that "the Qur'an doesn't teach that [see such-and-such a wording in this Sura]" or "Muhammad didn't really favor that [see such-and-such story in this Hadith]" but wouldn't give grounds on some other things I find abhorrent in Islam; and I had to ask, "Is there any case in which you could say, not that the Qur'an has been misinterpreted, but: the Qur'an is WRONG about this? Or Muhammad did that, but he was just WRONG?" And no, she agreed that she could never say that.

There are non-fundamentalist Christians, who don't think everything in their book is right; but apparently a "non-fundamentalist Muslim" is a contradiction in terms. You can be a liberal Muslim, by reinterpreting the old book (in my view, whitewashing the 7th-century primitivity of it), but to be a Muslim does mean believing that the book is 100% correct, and Muhammad was 100% speaking for God, and not just to a particular culture in a particular time, but to all people for all future time.

Exactamundo. You've got it.

Bullshit. Speaking as a male thoroughly-homosexual atheist, I am not "punished" because people keep publishing offensive material.

Well, hey, if it doesn't bother you, then it's all good, right. Collective punishment doesn't require that the people I intend to injure actually feel injured. If I say I'm calling black people niggers because one raped my sister, it's collective punishment, by definition. It's bigotry, by definition. That's what happened here. They published bigotted cartoons because of the actions of three radicals. It's no different.

Well, hey, if it doesn't bother you, then it's all good, right.
That isn't what I'm saying, but I doubt you are really trying to listen, anyway.
No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
If I say I'm calling black people niggers because one raped my sister, it's collective punishment, by definition.
No. "Punishment", BY DEFINITION, means doing an injury. In the case you cite, you are doing an injury to yourself, and only to yourself; if you start going out and taking violent actions against black people, that is different.

It's not "sticking it to the radicals." It's telling almost all Muslims "We know you're on their side, so suck on this sand-niggers!"

Oh, it's not punishment though. "Sticking it to" someone isn't intended as punishment, obviously. I love when people make my point for me. It's clearly being viewed as a shot at Muslims by both Muslims and non-Muslims and particularly by bigots. The newspaper has buffered the beliefs of those bigots and the idea of "sticking it to them" and by doing so acted irresponsibly.

It's not "sticking it to the radicals." It's telling almost all Muslims "We know you're on their side, so suck on this sand-niggers!"

It is only saying that to the Muslims who ARE on the bomb-throwers' side. Are you now claiming that is "almost all" of them? You used to claim the opposite.

That isn't what I'm saying, but I doubt you are really trying to listen, anyway.
No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

Which doesn't change their intent. It also doesn't excuse their actions. Most people couldn't actually accomplish kicking my ass, but they'd still be wrong to try. Intent has nothing to do with outcome.


No. "Punishment", BY DEFINITION, means doing an injury. In the case you cite, you are doing an injury to yourself, and only to yourself; if you start going out and taking violent actions against black people, that is different.

Name-calling is injurious. Insulting is injurious. Injury is limited to physical damage and it's not defined by success.

I think the newspapers made the right decision to reprint the cartoons. Stick it to the radicals.

It's not "sticking it to the radicals." It's telling almost all Muslims "We know you're on their side, so suck on this sand-niggers!"

Being insulted is a choice people make. As someone posted earlier we can all find things to be insulted about every single day of the week if we choose to let such things insult us. I listen to and read absolute garbage about Christianity day in and day out, I am not flipping out threatening the lives of others for their opinions. That is what is NOT acceptable.

You would enable the Muslims in reality. Why? It isn't an issue like you want it to be. Three people were expelled. Why should the entire population be insulted? Most especially if it is like you have repeatedly stated that all Muslims don't share the violence agenda? If the majority, as you claim are not violent, then certainly how could they be insulted and feel collectively punished for three who are connected with violence being expelled? If what you say is true then cartoons do not create violence in Muslims because they are peace loving people.

Which way is it?

You seem to think that "offence" and "violent reaction" are the same thing.

Insulting the beliefs of an entire population because you're upset with three of them is guilt by association. I'm sorry you fail to understand why that's an issue, but yes, it is issue.

It's kind of like why you don't yell fire in a theatre. In a perfect world, yelling fire would just cause people to leave in an orderly fashion. Unfortunately, there will certainly be some idiots who try to run out and end up trampling others. You don't have a responsibility to the idiots, but you do have a responsibility to those who get trampled.

Another example is how the newspaper keep making these gunman famous who explicitly say they did it to become famous. At some point, you become culpable for your inability to act responsibly.


Being insulted is a choice people make. As someone posted earlier we can all find things to be insulted about every single day of the week if we choose to let such things insult us. I listen to and read absolute garbage about Christianity day in and day out, I am not flipping out threatening the lives of others for their opinions. That is what is NOT acceptable.

You would enable the Muslims in reality. Why? It isn't an issue like you want it to be. Three people were expelled. Why should the entire population be insulted? Most especially if it is like you have repeatedly stated that all Muslims don't share the violence agenda? If the majority, as you claim are not violent, then certainly how could they be insulted and feel collectively punished for three who are connected with violence being expelled? If what you say is true then cartoons do not create violence in Muslims because they are peace loving people.

Which way is it?

I am coming to the conclusion you just want to lable everyone a bigot. Everyone is not a bigot. And wanting a sect of society to stop death threats and murder plots over their perceived insults is not an unreasonable undertaking, nor is it bigotted in any form or fashion.

As cliche as it may be, we each own our own emotions. And in the infamous words of the Eagles..."Get Over It"....it's a freakin cartoon.

Does it suck to live with that kind of crap? Sure. It's repetitive and boring as fuck, not to mention intensely annoying, to have to be constantly assaulted by other people's hangups. But such is life.Are you saying that they have the right to do that, but you'd rather they shut up? Cuz that's pretty close to what Jocabia is saying...

Being insulted is a choice people make. As someone posted earlier we can all find things to be insulted about every single day of the week if we choose to let such things insult us. I listen to and read absolute garbage about Christianity day in and day out, I am not flipping out threatening the lives of others for their opinions. That is what is NOT acceptable.

You would enable the Muslims in reality. Why? It isn't an issue like you want it to be. Three people were expelled. Why should the entire population be insulted? Most especially if it is like you have repeatedly stated that all Muslims don't share the violence agenda? If the majority, as you claim are not violent, then certainly how could they be insulted and feel collectively punished for three who are connected with violence being expelled? If what you say is true then cartoons do not create violence in Muslims because they are peace loving people.

Which way is it?

This has nothing to do with the expulsion. I'm sure many, many Muslims and many, many non-Muslims agree with punishing the guilty. If they were guilty, they should be expelled. Do you know what a strawman is?

Meanwhile, the cartoons were meant to insult them. That's the design of the cartoon every bit as much as a cartoon protraying a black man with a big slice of watermelon and a bucket of chicken is. That's what we're talking about. Please, please, try to follow along.

Being insulted is a choice, usually. So is being insulting. I'm chastising the papers for chosing to be insulting and endorse insulting people in a bigotted manner.

[QUOTE=PelecanusQuicks;13451019]I am coming to the conclusion you just want to lable everyone a bigot. Everyone is not a bigot. And wanting a sect of society to stop death threats and murder plots over their perceived insults is not an unreasonable undertaking, nor is it bigotted in any form or fashion.

Everyone wants that. Again, please look up strawman.

And conclusion suggests reason was employed. Please use the word assumption.


As cliche as it may be, we each own our own emotions. And in the infamous words of the Eagles..."Get Over It"....it's a freakin cartoon.
Who says people shouldn't get over it. It doesn't mean it's right. I don't think people should get upset if someone calls them a ******, but I certainly don't condone such behavior and you people are applauding the papers for doing the exact equivalent.

Are you saying that they have the right to do that, but you'd rather they shut up? Cuz that's pretty close to what Jocabia is saying...

Yes, exactly. I noticed that, too, particularly since she referred to it as an assault.

Gravlen: And does the religion really do that?

Yes, it does. On the comparative-religion board (where I first learned about NS), I argued for a long time with a liberal Muslim
Shi'a? Sunni? Sufist? Ibadiyya? Other?

(friendly enough, I have no personal problems with her) who would frequently reject what extremist Muslims have to say on grounds that "the Qur'an doesn't teach that [see such-and-such a wording in this Sura]" or "Muhammad didn't really favor that [see such-and-such story in this Hadith]" but wouldn't give grounds on some other things I find abhorrent in Islam; and I had to ask, "Is there any case in which you could say, not that the Qur'an has been misinterpreted, but: the Qur'an is WRONG about this? Or Muhammad did that, but he was just WRONG?" And no, she agreed that she could never say that.

There are non-fundamentalist Christians, who don't think everything in their book is right; but apparently a "non-fundamentalist Muslim" is a contradiction in terms. You can be a liberal Muslim, by reinterpreting the old book (in my view, whitewashing the 7th-century primitivity of it), but to be a Muslim does mean believing that the book is 100% correct, and Muhammad was 100% speaking for God, and not just to a particular culture in a particular time, but to all people for all future time.
Yet the understanding that Muhammad committed sins does exist among Sunnis...

And most muslims will still claim that Muhammed was human, and thus fallible. (Indeed some Sufi muslims view him as perfect though...)

Shi'a? Sunni? Sufist? Ibadiyya? Other?

Shhhhh. What kind of silly liberal thinks suggests that Muslims aren't one big homogenous group. If a Sunni does something wrong, Sulfists are equally responsible, just like Baptists have to answer for the Pope. Oh, wait...

Shhhhh. What kind of silly liberal thinks suggests that Muslims aren't one big homogenous group. If a Sunni does something wrong, Sulfists are equally responsible, just like Baptists have to answer for the Pope. Oh, wait...

:p

Damn this logic bone in my body!

*Shakes fist at*

This has nothing to do with the expulsion. I'm sure many, many Muslims and many, many non-Muslims agree with punishing the guilty. If they were guilty, they should be expelled. Do you know what a strawman is?

[QUOTE=PelecanusQuicks;13451019]Meanwhile, the cartoons were meant to insult them. That's the design of the cartoon every bit as much as a cartoon protraying a black man with a big slice of watermelon and a bucket of chicken is. That's what we're talking about. Please, please, try to follow along.

Being insulted is a choice, usually. So is being insulting. I'm chastising the papers for chosing to be insulting and endorse insulting people in a bigotted manner.



Everyone wants that. Again, please look up strawman.

And conclusion suggests reason was employed. Please use the word assumption.



Who says people shouldn't get over it. It doesn't mean it's right. I don't think people should get upset if someone calls them a ******, but I certainly don't condone such behavior and you people are applauding the papers for doing the exact equivalent.
I do not share your feeling that the two are equivalent. The original cartoons have a point, not only humor but to drive home that what is supposed to be a peaceful religion (as you have succinctly stated) is in fact being used as a basis for violence...in the form of bombings. The turban bomb speaks volumes for the exact perception that radical Muslims have left the world with. I will add sadly to that. It is sad that the perverse would do this to any faith...that is supposed to be peaceable. Isn't that part of the point of the original? That the religion has been perverted...or has been polluted by radical interpretation? That is what I see in it. Who is that message insulting to in reality?

If you are saying they have a right to be insulted because Muhammad is in pictoral form...well that is too bad because you are not going to stop anyone from drawing a picture. It is unrealistic to think you are going to stop that. The best any reasonable Muslim can hope for is that they themselves are never guilty of drawing such. That is about as far as that "insult" is going to hold any water. It is not within their rights to ask others to not draw pictures, to not have opinions, to not be free to believe as they choose.

You want to find insult here, there is no insult. Your example is an insult to a person based on their color, something they cannot and did not choose. Religious beliefs are something people choose. There is a big difference in your examples I don't find them equitable at all.

The entire issue about tolerance. Something it seems that is in short supply by some radicals. (If not all Muslims.)


You know I just disagree with your perception of things. I am glad the newspapers have not bowed to Allah. I appreciate their point.

You know I just disagree with your perception of things. I am glad the newspapers have not bowed to Allah. I appreciate their point.

What point was that, exactly? To demonstrate that they could do it? Everybody knew that, we got that the first time around. To support the artist? Yes - but was this the right way to do it? Maybe. When they knew that they would jump on people's toes again? Hmm...

Again, I support their right to do it, but I don't think it was right to do it.



BTW, reactions:

In Pakistan, some are burning the Danish flag tonight.

In Denmark, however:
Reaction from Muslim leaders was mixed. "There could have been other ways to do it without the drawing, which I personally do not like," said Abdul Wahid Petersen, a moderate imam, according to the Associated Press.

"We are so unhappy about the cartoon being reprinted," said Imam Mostafa Chendid, head of the Islamic Faith Community, which led Danish protests against the cartoons in 2006. "No blood was ever shed in Denmark because of this, and no blood will be shed. We are trying to calm down people, but let's see what happens. Let's open a dialogue."

But a Muslim politician in Denmark, 44-year-old Naser Khader (more...), told SPIEGEL ONLINE that something palpable had changed in the Danish political climate over the past two years. "Of course there's a fear of a new crisis; Islamists are unpredictable," he said. "And in some Muslim countries the people have not forgotten the Muhammad cartoons."

Khader is the head of a new centrist party called "Ny Alliance." His background is Syrian. He said Muslim leaders as well as Danish society overall seemed more cohesive in their response to the threat of violence: "The Muslims who have made statements since the arrests yesterday have spoken very moderately." In fact, he said, "The great majority of Danish Muslims have shown that they reject violence and live in harmony with Danish law." And the results have been good, judging from a recent poll that shows overall public opinion of Muslims in Denmark has changed for the better in the last two years.

"The crisis didn't hurt integration," said Khader, "it opened doors for us -- and in Denmark things have improved quite a bit in the meantime."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,535118,00.html

I do not share your feeling that the two are equivalent. The original cartoons have a point, not only humor but to drive home that what is supposed to be a peaceful religion (as you have succinctly stated) is in fact being used as a basis for violence...in the form of bombings. The turban bomb speaks volumes for the exact perception that radical Muslims have left the world with. I will add sadly to that. It is sad that the perverse would do this to any faith...that is supposed to be peaceable. Isn't that part of the point of the original? That the religion has been perverted...or has been polluted by radical interpretation? That is what I see in it. Who is that message insulting to in reality?

Yes, just like the perception that black people who eat chicken and watermelon have left the world left. Hmmm... aren't you in another thread complaining that people are doing exactly what you're doing? Whining about how that the radicals don't represent the whole. The things you SAY the cartoons say everyone knows. Perhaps we can have cartoons that let me know I have a penis, hopefully an offensive one. Because, you know, that's particularly productive.



If you are saying they have a right to be insulted because Muhammad is in pictoral form...well that is too bad because you are not going to stop anyone from drawing a picture. It is unrealistic to think you are going to stop that. The best any reasonable Muslim can hope for is that they themselves are never guilty of drawing such. That is about as far as that "insult" is going to hold any water. It is not within their rights to ask others to not draw pictures, to not have opinions, to not be free to believe as they choose.

Again, most Muslims aren't trying to STOP them. They are just asking that they show a little bit of respect and not do it.


You want to find insult here, there is no insult. Your example is an insult to a person based on their color, something they cannot and did not choose. Religious beliefs are something people choose. There is a big difference in your examples I don't find them equitable at all.

The entire issue about tolerance. Something it seems that is in short supply by some radicals. (If not all Muslims.)

You know I just disagree with your perception of things. I am glad the newspapers have not bowed to Allah. I appreciate their point.

So you can't be insulted on things you chose? Seriously? You don't really know what you're talking about do you?

I wish the newspapers hadn't bowed to the likes of you. Unfortunately...

Fortunately, for me, I won't be judged by your actions and those of radicals like you. Thank goodness. If only Islam got the benefits Christianity enjoys where radicals are recognized as that.

So if McCain comes out tomorrow displaying a shirt that shows Christ smoking weed and pounding one of the disciples in the anus, you'll not be offended or mad at McCain, yeah? You're not so weak as to be insulted, are you?

What point was that, exactly? To demonstrate that they could do it? Everybody knew that, we got that the first time around. To support the artist? Yes - but was this the right way to do it? Maybe. When they knew that they would jump on people's toes again? Hmm...

Again, I support their right to do it, but I don't think it was right to do it.



BTW, reactions:

In Pakistan, some are burning the Danish flag tonight.

In Denmark, however:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,535118,00.html

I think their point is that intimidation will not stifle freedom of speech or art. It isn't about that the newspapers could do it. As you said we all already know that. It is more about that they will do it and are not afraid of the threats thrown out there as a result. Threats that we all know are many times not idle ones. Whether we like it or not it is a battle of wills.

As far as the burning of the Danish flag, I don't like that but that is their form of free speech is it not? They are not physically harming anyone, just as a cartoon isn't.

Your logic is so circular that I got slightly dizzy just trying to read this mess.

It's not circular, it's inductive. If you assume there is a caring, perfect God (you do if you're a Christian), then you also assume he will not give a bad prophecy, and therefore anything that is a bad prophecy is either not a prophecy or is an incomplete, tampered with prophecy (OT). It's one assumption leading to another assumption, but it's an assumption you have to make if you believe in the Christian point of view, and therefore is not so much circular as arithmetic. There is an input involved (basic faith) and an output involved (theology).

And I would ask the same to people who make claims about Islam supporting violence.

I absolutely agree with you. This said, a person should not be threatened with violence for saying something, even if it's horribly wrong. Nobody should feel unsafe to think. After all, what if you're the one who's wrong? I'm not saying you are, and in fact, if you are wrong, then I'm wrong too, but nobody is right about anything 100% of the time, myself and this entire message board included.

Yes, just like the perception that black people who eat chicken and watermelon have left the world left. Hmmm... aren't you in another thread complaining that people are doing exactly what you're doing? Whining about how that the radicals don't represent the whole. The things you SAY the cartoons say everyone knows. Perhaps we can have cartoons that let me know I have a penis, hopefully an offensive one. Because, you know, that's particularly productive.





Again, most Muslims aren't trying to STOP them. They are just asking that they show a little bit of respect and not do it.


So you can't be insulted on things you chose? Seriously? You don't really know what you're talking about do you?

I wish the newspapers hadn't bowed to the likes of you. Unfortunately...

Fortunately, for me, I won't be judged by your actions and those of radicals like you. Thank goodness. If only Islam got the benefits Christianity enjoys where radicals are recognized as that.

So if McCain comes out tomorrow displaying a shirt that shows Christ smoking weed and pounding one of the disciples in the anus, you'll not be offended or mad at McCain, yeah? You're not so weak as to be insulted, are you?

You know I would venture you are drinking bong water babe. Cause your posts are getting more silly as they go along.

Rioting in the streets and death threats are not people asking that have a little respect and not do something...

Calling me a radical is absolutely hilarious. You don't even know me, so that is as stupid a remark as you have made yet today. Funny as hell, but stupid. It really doesn't get more laid back than I am. :p

I have never said someone shouldn't be insulted, I have said they have no right to destroy or threaten others if they are insulted. Being insulted is an emotional response and each of us is responsible for our reaction to such.

Sure I wouldn't like it if McCain did that. Would I be insulted? No, why should I be? His view isn't about me personally, nor does it threaten my beliefs. He is entitled to have his opinion on a t-shirt. I am free to ignore him. Which actually is my responsibility to do, unless he threatens my life. Then it is a new ball game.

I hate that you are not understanding this at all, but it is obvious you really truly don't. I am not laughing at you, but I am getting plenty of giggles in general. :D

You know I would venture you are drinking bong water babe. Cause your posts are getting more silly as they go along.

Rioting in the streets and death threats are not people asking that have a little respect and not do something...

You just totally, starkly, and glaringly contradicted your own generalized statement about how radicals don't reflect the whole, they just get the most attention.

Your hypocrisy gives you strength in your convictions, but not in your arguments.

You just totally, starkly, and glaringly contradicted your own generalized statement about how radicals don't reflect the whole, they just get the most attention.

Your hypocrisy gives you strength in your convictions, but not in your arguments.

Too funny, is a lack of comprehension contagious or what? Not what I said at all, but obviously the issue is with me it seems and being able to clearly explain something so that some in this audience can understand and not have the urge to over analyze. My apologies for whatever it is that is wrong here but I have not generalized, nor have I been unreasonable or a hypocrit. Nor have I tried to compare apples and oranges. I feel the radical Muslims who riot, threaten lives and issue death threats over a cartoon are wrong plain and simple. I feel Muslims who support such behavior are wrong. Frankly I feel anyone who supports such behavior is wrong. An opinion nothing more.

I feel the papers did the right thing. Just because you don't agree with me or my reasons doesn't make me a hypocrit or even wrong for that matter. It just means we don't agree, nothing more.

You just totally, starkly, and glaringly contradicted your own generalized statement about how radicals don't reflect the whole, they just get the most attention.

Your hypocrisy gives you strength in your convictions, but not in your arguments.

Too funny, is a lack of comprehension contagious or what? Not what I said at all, but obviously the issue is with me it seems and being able to clearly explain something so that some in this audience can understand and not have the urge to over analyze. My apologies for whatever it is that is wrong here but I have not generalized, nor have I been unreasonable or a hypocrit. Nor have I tried to compare apples and oranges. I feel the radical Muslims who riot, threaten lives and issue death threats over a cartoon are wrong plain and simple. I feel Muslims who support such behavior are wrong. Frankly I feel anyone who supports such behavior is wrong. An opinion nothing more.

I feel the papers did the right thing. Just because you don't agree with me or my reasons doesn't make me a hypocrit or even wrong for that matter. It just means we don't agree, nothing more.


The extremists are not the majority of the party by a long shot, the extremists just make the most headlines is all.

Bwahahaha.

You know I would venture you are drinking bong water babe. Cause your posts are getting more silly as they go along.

Rioting in the streets and death threats are not people asking that have a little respect and not do something...

Um, I said most Muslims. You're talking about a small percentage of Muslims. That you can't comprehend the word "MOST" is not a bong water problem.



Calling me a radical is absolutely hilarious. You don't even know me, so that is as stupid a remark as you have made yet today. Funny as hell, but stupid. It really doesn't get more laid back than I am. :p

I call all bigots radical. You are a bigot. That's enough.


I have never said someone shouldn't be insulted, I have said they have no right to destroy or threaten others if they are insulted. Being insulted is an emotional response and each of us is responsible for our reaction to such.

Who said they did? No one. The majority of people who are insulted by this aren't going to threaten others or destroy anything. They'll just be insulted, a form of injury, as a result of the actions of the papers. But, hey, it's progress that you're admitting that they should be insulted.



Sure I wouldn't like it if McCain did that. Would I be insulted? No, why should I be? His view isn't about me personally, nor does it threaten my beliefs. He is entitled to have his opinion on a t-shirt. I am free to ignore him. Which actually is my responsibility to do, unless he threatens my life. Then it is a new ball game.

I hate that you are not understanding this at all, but it is obvious you really truly don't. I am not laughing at you, but I am getting plenty of giggles in general. :D

Yes, it's a problem with everyone else's understanding. I'm sure that's it. That's the general argument when people begiin to lose. You poor guy. I sure hope someday the rest of NSG can catch with your scathing intelligence.

It also appears you don't comprehend the word "INSULT". This isn't going well for you. But you have done a decent job of demonstrating my point of the effect of the newspaper cartoon on bigots. Thanks for that.

I can't say that I agree with this. As bystanders if we do not agree with a stance then we have an obligation to stand and be counted for not agreeing with it. I don't believe Baptists should handle snakes as proof of their faith, and I don't have a problem standing up and shouting to the rooftops that it is an abomination of the Baptist faith to teach such. The problem with the Muslim community is the glaring silence of those who "do not agree". Where are they? Who are they? They do owe all of society their voice so that the assumption is not made that they do in fact condone such 'fringe' activities.

Shortly after the London subway bombings the Imams in England released a statement (I paraphrase) that while they did not condone this particular act of terrorism they could not condemn all such acts as some where just. Helloooo, but no they are not just and never will be. But you quietly have a faith that denounces when it suits them.

I want a loud and long confirmation that the Muslim community world wide doesn't quietly approve of this nonsense like the Mickey Mouse bastardization. The rest of the world NEEDS to know they aren't endorsed by the majority of the community. Why the glaring silence??

There any many Muslims protesting actions like these. Whether it be at home, at the mosque, or at a rally, Muslims talk all the time about how extremists ruin things for everyone. The reason you never hear about it is because no one gives a shit (and people wouldn't be able to use Muslims as a scapegoat anymore either). Does CNN constantly bombard you with interviews with good Christians, doing good things? The right answer here is no, and they don't do the same for Muslims, because it's business as usual (unless you're implying that all Muslims are bad, a.k.a. bigotry), and it's not interesting.

Well, with the same logic, there can never be a just bombing. Christian's who support the use of bombs in war are also bad. Bombing is indiscriminate, killing many who have done nothing wrong in the same way that suicide attacks do. You cannot support one and be against the other. And ultimately, a few imams in Britain cannot speak for the rest of Islam.

It does not approve of it, it simply does not get coverage. There is no glaring silence. I mean really, after 9-11, every single Muslim regime with the exception of Saddam's (and considering Bush's father messed him up, it's not surprising) denounced the attacks. Is that not enough? Do you want us to apologize for something we did not do, and do it forever? It's not like we're the fucking babysitters of terrorists, we don't have them on a fucking dog leash.

Shi'a? Sunni? Sufist? Ibadiyya? Other?
Sunni, born in England, converted to marry an Egyptian, mostly resides in Egypt now.

Yet the understanding that Muhammad committed sins does exist among Sunnis...
And most muslims will still claim that Muhammed was human, and thus fallible. (Indeed some Sufi muslims view him as perfect though...)
Interesting. I have not encountered any such. Admitting the fallibility of Muhammad is a positive step; admitting the fallibility of the Qur'an I think would be more difficult.

Which doesn't change their intent. It also doesn't excuse their actions. Most people couldn't actually accomplish kicking my ass, but they'd still be wrong to try. Intent has nothing to do with outcome.
Name-calling is injurious. Insulting is injurious. Injury is limited to physical damage and it's not defined by success.
I see no point in continuing the semantic battle with you about what is "injury", but no, I do not consider "insult" to be an "injury".
The INTENT of the newspapers is to defy the murderous among the Muslims, who think that physical violence is an appropriate response to the intangible "injury" of feeling insulted. They feel that it may deter future attempts at intimidation (you are pretending that the three who were arrested are the only three of their kind out there) by showing that it will fail of its purpose, and indeed backfire.
Whether other Muslims choose to feel insulted is their own decision.

Showing my support for Denmark and showing my problems with Islam has nothing to do with Nazi racial myths....:rolleyes:

Nice try though.

It cracks me up that it's so offensive to racists for people to simply react to them as *gasp* racists. If you wanna be racist, fine, but stop trying to dress it up. It's like putting a skirt on a pig.

HURRAH FOR THE ARYAN RACE, THOSE DIRTY FUCKING ARABS CAN GET OUT!

Right?
Showing my support for Denmark and showing my problems with Islam has nothing to do with Nazi racial myths....:rolleyes:

Nice try though.

My post did two things.

1. Support Denmark.

2. Show that I'm upset with Islam in Europe.

Which part of those two things connects to Nazi racial mythology?

Please...I'd love to see you answer this without wiggling out like a snake....

Um, first, I didn't say it. Second, do you think this thread is in a vacuum. Everything you write is context for your next post. You want to keep white people pure. Let's not pretend like it's any different, k?

I see no point in continuing the semantic battle with you about what is "injury", but no, I do not consider "insult" to be an "injury".

The law and the dictionary does. But, hey, you know better than both.


The INTENT of the newspapers is to defy the murderous among the Muslims, who think that physical violence is an appropriate response to the intangible "injury" of feeling insulted. They feel that it may deter future attempts at intimidation (you are pretending that the three who were arrested are the only three of their kind out there) by showing that it will fail of its purpose, and indeed backfire.
Whether other Muslims choose to feel insulted is their own decision.
Whether it's the design of the cartoon is an insut to Muslims is not their decision. It was intended as such. That it's insulting was how this all started and why it was every published. They were instending to be insensitive and insulting. That's always been the game. How Muslims react doesn't change how irresponsible and bigotted their behavior is.

It cracks me up that it's so offensive to racists for people to simply react to them as *gasp* racists. If you wanna be racist, fine, but stop trying to dress it up. It's like putting a skirt on a pig.
My post did two things.

1. Support Denmark.

2. Show that I'm upset with Islam in Europe.

Which part of those two things connects to Nazi racial mythology?

Please...I'd love to see you answer this without wiggling out like a snake....

My post did two things.

1. Support Denmark.

2. Show that I'm upset with Islam in Europe.

Which part of those two things connects to Nazi racial mythology?

Please...I'd love to see you answer this without wiggling out like a snake....

I think the Aryan thing was a joke...


But regardless, everyone knows youre a racist.

Hmm...it seems we already started playing "let's put words in people's mouths" and nobody told me!

What "everyone knows" hardly matters to me. ("Everyone" = Leftist NSG, it seems)

Go to a dictionary and look up the word Racism. Ok? Now tell me how having problems with Islam is racist?
Oh, dear God. Do you think we're all goldfish who forget what you say every time we go around the bowl. Seriously, why are you so afraid of simply being honest? You're racist. So what? The world won't explode if you admit it, yet for some ungodly reason you're terrified of simply copping to a wildly obvious truth.

The law and the dictionary does. But, hey, you know better than both.
The ordinary usage among English-speakers does not. The saying "That is adding insult to injury" would hardly make sense if the two were the same. By jousting about the word-usage you are evading the central point: being insulted is not in the same category as getting shot. There are those in the Muslim world (whatever number: I will concede "not all or even a majority" if you will concede "A lot more than just those three") who think violent response to an insulting drawing is appropriate: they need to be slapped down hard.
Whether it's the design of the cartoon is an insut to Muslims is not their decision.
It is intended to be insulting to murderous Muslims. Whether other Muslims decide to identify themselves with the murderers is their own choice.

You want to keep white people pure.
Hmm...it seems we already started playing "let's put words in people's mouths" and nobody told me!
But regardless, everyone knows youre a racist.
What "everyone knows" hardly matters to me. ("Everyone" = Leftist NSG, it seems)

Go to a dictionary and look up the word Racism. Ok? Now tell me how having problems with Islam is racist?

Bad Kat. Evil Kat. Everyone: don't let the cute catgirl avatar fool you!:p

Aw now, Jim, it took you this long to figure it out? :D

The ordinary usage among English-speakers does not. The saying "That is adding insult to injury" would hardly make sense if the two were the same. By jousting about the word-usage you are evading the central point: being insulted is not in the same category as getting shot. There are those in the Muslim world (whatever number: I will concede "not all or even a majority" if you will concede "A lot more than just those three") who think violent response to an insulting drawing is appropriate: they need to be slapped down hard.

It is intended to be insulting to murderous Muslims. Whether other Muslims decide to identify themselves with the murderers is their own choice.

Equivocation. There are different forms of injury. Injury, as in the usage for punishment, does not require physical harm.

So what if being insulted is not in the same category as being shot? We're talking about insulting insulting innocent people. What does beingg shot have to do with it?

It was intended to be insulting to Muslims. It makes no attempt to restrict it to those that are murderous. The idea of drawing a picture of their prophet is insulting to all Muslims and the idea of putting a bomb on his head is bigotted and intentionally so. It plays up a stereotype. I'd venture that those that are murderous were less insulted, because to them it's true.

So what if being insulted is not in the same category as being shot? We're talking about insulting insulting innocent people. What does beingg shot have to do with it?
Uh, we are talking about a case of attempted murder, remember?

Good

The ordinary usage among English-speakers does not. The saying "That is adding insult to injury" would hardly make sense if the two were the same. By jousting about the word-usage you are evading the central point: being insulted is not in the same category as getting shot. There are those in the Muslim world (whatever number: I will concede "not all or even a majority" if you will concede "A lot more than just those three") who think violent response to an insulting drawing is appropriate: they need to be slapped down hard.

It is intended to be insulting to murderous Muslims. Whether other Muslims decide to identify themselves with the murderers is their own choice.

This is untrue, it is intended to be insulting to Muslims, period. And we do take insult, just that some of us don't really give a shit what some idiotic cartoonist with no decency says about Islam.

Oh, it's not punishment though. "Sticking it to" someone isn't intended as punishment, obviously. I love when people make my point for me. It's clearly being viewed as a shot at Muslims by both Muslims and non-Muslims and particularly by bigots. The newspaper has buffered the beliefs of those bigots and the idea of "sticking it to them" and by doing so acted irresponsibly.

So easy to say that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. No matter how often you repeat it (and believe me, it's getting to the point where the word doesn't have any meaning any more after it and bigotted have been used by you 16 times in this one thread) it does not mean that anyone who makes an observation about the situation that you don't approve of actually is one.

I'd seriously go reread my own posts if I were you and see who's doing much of the name calling in this thread. And why is it being used? not to inform, not to debate, but to make ad hominems against people. "Your opinion means nothing because you're a bigot!"

This is untrue, it is intended to be insulting to Muslims, period. And we do take insult, just that some of us don't really give a shit what some idiotic cartoonist with no decency says about Islam.

So it's insulting. It's a newspaper making a point. They could make the point a different way, but in their country apparently they have the right to make it this way.

So it's insulting. It's a newspaper making a point. They could make the point a different way, but in their country apparently they have the right to make it this way.

Never said that they didn't have the right to be insulting, but Muslims have the right to be offended as well. And I don't see anything wrong with protesting the message of the cartoons, so long as it's peaceful (which is how most protest it).

So easy to say that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot. No matter how often you repeat it (and believe me, it's getting to the point where the word doesn't have any meaning any more after it and bigotted have been used by you 16 times in this one thread) it does not mean that anyone who makes an observation about the situation that you don't approve of actually is one.

I'd seriously go reread my own posts if I were you and see who's doing much of the name calling in this thread. And why is it being used? not to inform, not to debate, but to make ad hominems against people. "Your opinion means nothing because you're a bigot!"

It's not about disagreeing with me. Lots of people disagreed with me. Some of them were bigots. It's just a descriptive term. Some people were giving real criticisms of the teachings of the Quran. Some were criticisizing the general reaction to Muslim threats. Some were simply suggesting that calling it bigotry is overreating. It's not a stretch to suggest that saying that when someone insults all Muslims to prove a point to a few of them that it's bigotry.

I sometimes call basketball players, basketball players, too.

Never said that they didn't have the right to be insulting, but Muslims have the right to be offended as well. And I don't see anything wrong with protesting the message of the cartoons, so long as it's peaceful (which is how most protest it).

k, was there some question that the muslims would protest? Or if any government would not allow them to?

k, was there some question that the muslims would protest? Or if any government would not allow them to?

Well, some people on this thread have suggested that those who protest shoudl be rounded up and deported, so I would say so.

We're not talking about rights. Again, just because they have the right to print it doesn't make it right. What they printed was the equivalent of printing a black guy with a big slice of watermelon intended as a criticism of black people. Worse they did it to prove to black people that blacks aren't going to intimidate them out of publishing it. They've not broken the law or violated anyone's rights. But they're still wrong to do it.

Sure, I think they're wrong. I think they're assholes.

Doesn't mean they're "punishing" somebody.


You are. When I set out to offend you, then yes, that's exactly what happens and the people doing it are wrong.

I don't think that's always the case. I think there are many, many situations in which the right thing to do is to offend some people.


I find it interesting that you used the term "assaulted". Could it be that you're seeing at as an attack as much as I am? I think you are.

Um, brilliant deduction? Yes, it often feels like an attack. Sometimes it's a deliberate one, sometimes just casual assholery. So?


See, but worse, people are applauding them for assaulting you for their hangups. They're saying it's a defense of THEIR rights. And it's not. It's just their hangups. I'm not going to applaud them. Shame on them. It's obnoxious and irresponsible.

This is actually kind of perfect timing, because V-day just passed. See, while I was in college a friend of mine directed the Vagina Monologues on campus. A couple of frats decided to protest it by writing snippy letters to the school newspaper about how hearing the word "vagina" made their dicks shrivel up. A religious club demanded that the posters for the play be edited to remove the offensive v-word. A whole lot of people got butt-hurt and claimed to be offended.

So the play producer took out a full-page add in the paper that simply said "VAGINA" in huge letters.

I liked that.


And you know that I go this way against any form of similar actions. Your occasional assault on Christianity that you feel is deserved because so many Christians are assholes.

Gimme a break, Joc. You, of all people, know that I go after Christianity because I think CHRISTIANITY is bunk.

The fact that some Christians are assholes simply means that Christians are humans, and, like all humans, sometimes they are assholes. I attack Christianity because I have a beef with Christianity.


Or someone's assault on lesbians because they are destroying the fabric of our society. Or blah, blah, blah. It's not rational behavior and it should be objected to at every turn.
My open and honest defense of homosexual rights offends a crapton of people. I know it does. According to you, this makes me every bit as much a bigot as the people who say lesbians are destroying the fabric of society.

Can you see why I'm not agreeing with you, here?

Are you saying that they have the right to do that, but you'd rather they shut up? Cuz that's pretty close to what Jocabia is saying...
Personally, I'd rather people say that shit if it's what they're thinking.

I just hope the poor guy doesn't get killed.

While I am all for the freedom of speech, and all that jazz, I don't feel we need to open up that can of worms again..The uproar was bad enough the first time around.

Showing my support for Denmark and showing my problems with Islam has nothing to do with Nazi racial myths....:rolleyes:

Nice try though.
I don't think that using a blonde-haired, blue-eyed young girl with a Danish flag on it, and "Eurabia? No thanks!" helped your cause.

They ought to put the cartoonist in a large room, like a gymnasium, and invite anyone who wants to kill him to bring a knife and come in, one at a time, and then shoot anyone who goes in and goes after him.

A win win situation, the barbarians get to be martyrs, and Denmark is relieved of its barbarian problem, one by one until there are none left.

By what bizarre leap of logic do you consider printing a cartoon to be "punishing" anyone?

Oh it is called logical extrapolation..you know DEBATE. Or is it rhetoric. Could be hyperbole. I dunno, I could be confused. All I know is I must be a bigot.


:p

Interesting. I have not encountered any such. Admitting the fallibility of Muhammad is a positive step; admitting the fallibility of the Qur'an I think would be more difficult.

IMO, mainstream sunni view is that Muhammed (PBUH and all that jazz) was infallible (after the revelation of course).

Some (who cannot reconcile the hadiths with the thinking they absorbed from their upbringing in 'modern' society) theorize that while Muhammed was infallible, the guys who wrote the hadiths down were infallible (hence the 'weak hadiths' and 'strong hadiths' concept in islamic jurisprudence).

The Shias go even farther and claim infallibility of their Imams. Since their 12 Imam is in occultation and they place less credibility on hadiths (written mostly by sunni scholars), they practice ijtihad while most sunnis assume that all they need to know is already in Qur'an and Sunnah...both sourced from the infallible Muhammed.


Of course, you might know all this..I am typing because I have nothing else to do now.

Personally, I'd rather people say that shit if it's what they're thinking.That's not really comparable to publishing pictures of a prophet then, though.

Other blanketly insulting their professed beliefs and provoking the more unstable elements into violent reprisals which will then be harped on by media coverage and feed into the "Evil Moslemz" stereotype that's become the new Guilt Free Anti-Jewism Substitute since 9/11?

Hmm... I dunno...

:rolleyes:

Have you actually read them yet, or are you still talking out of your arse about something you know nothing about?

They ought to put the cartoonist in a large room, like a gymnasium, and invite anyone who wants to kill him to bring a knife and come in, one at a time, and then shoot anyone who goes in and goes after him.

A win win situation, the barbarians get to be martyrs, and Denmark is relieved of its barbarian problem, one by one until there are none left.

Yes, because it's perfectly just for police to cause crimes just so they can rack up their scorecard on harming criminals.

OH WAIT IT ISN'T, and this is your idea of being "funny." But it doesn't work, because your obvious hatred and bigotry means it's not a joke, it's just you spewing hatred and bigotry and trying to cover it with a weak-ass attempt at humor.

So let me answer your "suggestion" with another - if you can't back up your bigotry with anything but unfunny jokes and stupid arguments, you should STFU.

I'm speaking to the OP. The OP said it was a victory for Freedom of Speech. If I was speaking to the editors, my argument would be different. There's not value to specifically referencing any of them. I'm responding to why it's not a victory for freedom of speech.

If you want to change your argument then that's fine, but that's not what you said earlier:

No, I don't forget. The 3 attempted murderers are being punished. The actions of the newspapers have nothing to do with them. You believe in collective punishment. It's called bigotry. You can be a bigot if you like, but have the balls to simply admit it.

Publishing the cartoons is collective punishment.
Collective punishment is bigotry.
Therefore you're smearing the newspapers, and everyone who supports the publication as a bigot.

Even if you're not, you're still smearing me as a bigot which is both inaccurate and unnecessary...

And, frankly, it's not. There attempt for such a thing is misplaced. Calling someone a ****** to prove one can, doesn't prove you have freedom of speech. It only prove one is an idiot.

Firstly, publishing an image of Mohammed isn't even comparable to using the N word to someone's face, it's a ridiculous comparison:

1. No Muslim is forced to read the cartoons if they don't want to (and I linked to the picture rather than posting it to preserve their right not to), wheras the whole point of using the N word to somebody is that they personally hear it and are hurt by it.

2. There is no legitimate purpose to using racial epithets, wheras there is legitimate purpose to satire and humour. Several of the cartoons illustrate legitimate criticisms of Islam, others are just plain funny. The fact that newspapers are apparently expected to find justifications for legitimate humour and satire beyond their quality is a sad indicator for the state of free speech.

3. None of the cartoons come close to the use of the N word in terms of bigotry: the artist behind the bomb-turban has already clarified that it was intended as a commentary on how Islam is being distorted to justify violence, not an accusation of violence against all Muslims.

I did notice. So the actions of 3 Muslims, actions that apparently don't have enough evidence for a conviction, seemed like adequate justification for newspapers who before agreed that it's irresponsible and offensive to publish them, to stop caring though it continues to be true. However misplaced their intentions might be, they are engaging in collective punishment. They've not punished those three and punishing anyone else is wrong.

What does that have to do with punishing Muslims in general by posting offensive cartoon? The way to fight the intimidation is to punish those doing the intimidation or intimidate them back, not set out to provoke them. There shotgun approach will only offend those who have no beef with them and provoke those who do. Completely and utterly pointless.

Publishing the cartoons is not collective punishment of Muslims any more than taking Jerry Springer: the Opera on tour around the country was collective punishment of Christians. It's a collective show of support for the target.

You're missing my point with regard to intimidation: simply punishing the criminals isn't enough to reassure publishers and cartoonists because they now know their lives are at risk. Publishing the cartoons is the media equivalent of Gay Pride groups becoming more flamboyant and over the top when they're opposed: it's a way of shoring each other up.

If they were being remotely responsible, in my opinion, they'd have left out the ones that are bigotted attacks on Muslims. But I'm funny like that.

So you're only objecting to some of the cartoons? Which ones do you consider to be bigotted attacks on Muslims and which don't you have a problem with?

Well, some people on this thread have suggested that those who protest shoudl be rounded up and deported, so I would say so.

Hmm, well those people just sound ignorant and probably should be ignored.

IMO, mainstream sunni view is that Muhammed (PBUH and all that jazz) was infallible (after the revelation of course).

Some (who cannot reconcile the hadiths with the thinking they absorbed from their upbringing in 'modern' society) theorize that while Muhammed was infallible, the guys who wrote the hadiths down were fallible [my correction] (hence the 'weak hadiths' and 'strong hadiths' concept in islamic jurisprudence).
What I usually find from Muslims is the doctrine that *all* prophets were morally perfect, as: the argument will be made in support of the doctrine that the Tanakh as the Jews have it has been distorted, and that only the Qur'an contains the true picture, that David is depicted as committing sins, but David was a prophet of God, so he could never have done such things.

I don't think that using a blonde-haired, blue-eyed young girl with a Danish flag on it, and "Eurabia? No thanks!" helped your cause.
There's no way of telling if she has blue eyes....Go look at the picture. Jumping to conclusions just so they can "benefit" your weak/nonexistant arguement??? Nah, you wouldn't...:rolleyes:

It IS pro-Denmark because I'm trying to show my support for Denmark, what the fuck should I have looked for, a Romanian flag? Many Danish people are blonde. A MUCH larger percentage of that population are blonde when they are children, thus using a blonde child would be a fine representation of a Danish child...but really, you're putting way too much thought into this.

The Eurabia no thanks part shows my problems with Islam.

So....what part of that had anything to do with nazis or aryanism?

I see that you're an American, so you may not know that 'Eurabia' is usually used in European circles to denote fear of the growing demographic of Muslims and brown people in general. As such it has racist connotations and I'd rather the free speech side of this debate was not tarred with that brush...
I know very well what it is. It's the growing feel that Islam is invading, taking over and shifting the political and social demographics of Europe.

I used it with this intention.
Your "problems" with Islam are your own bigotry
Well I'll just snip the irrelevant parts. Whatever you want to call it....it has been stated by various posters that having an issue with Islam is not "racism".

Case closed.

The Eurabia no thanks part shows my problems with Islam.

So....what part of that had anything to do with nazis or aryanism?

Your "problems" with Islam are your own bigotry, which is also a prominent feature of nazis and aryans and racists and, in fact, terrorists themselves.

But I know, I know - hating Jews means you're a bigoted nazi, hating Muslims is just fine and dandy.

The Eurabia no thanks part shows my problems with Islam.

I see that you're an American, so you may not know that 'Eurabia' is usually used in European circles to denote fear of the growing demographic of Muslims and brown people in general. As such it has racist connotations and I'd rather the free speech side of this debate was not tarred with that brush...

Firstly, publishing an image of Mohammed isn't even comparable to using the N word to someone's face, it's a ridiculous comparison:

1. No Muslim is forced to read the cartoons if they don't want to (and I linked to the picture rather than posting it to preserve their right not to), wheras the whole point of using the N word to somebody is that they personally hear it and are hurt by it.

2. There is no legitimate purpose to using racial epithets, wheras there is legitimate purpose to satire and humour. Several of the cartoons illustrate legitimate criticisms of Islam, others are just plain funny. The fact that newspapers are apparently expected to find justifications for legitimate humour and satire beyond their quality is a sad indicator for the state of free speech.

3. None of the cartoons come close to the use of the N word in terms of bigotry: the artist behind the bomb-turban has already clarified that it was intended as a commentary on how Islam is being distorted to justify violence, not an accusation of violence against all Muslims.

Set everything else aside for a moment. You just hit the nail on the head. This here is the ENTIRE problem. You start out by admitting there is no other purpose to using racial epithets (an assumption that is completely unsupportable, but one I happen to like in these circumstances) and then defend this action by seperating it from a racial epithet. There is no Muslim that is going to feel like there is any difference between the cartoon of a bomb in a turban and calling them a sandnigger or a terrorist or the like. YOU think it's different but to a huge population of the world, it's really not.

And a large population could equally support a racial epithet along the same lines. That's my problem. You can't have it both ways. Either you'd support it if this was a cartoon of a black person with chicken and watermelon with a superblack face and a giant smile as a response to threats from 3 black people. Or you're a hypocrite.

Now, I'll say some people here, mostly Bottle, have made some great arguments. But if you're going to claim it would be wrong if it was aimed at the wrong people and right when it's aimed at the right people, it's a losing argument. These cartoons, some of them, had all the satire of the cartoon about black people I described. That is, they had none. Either perpetuating stereotypes and attacking groups as a response to the actions of a tiny portion of that group is wrong, or it isn't.

(Bottle, I admit you kind of sold me with the VAGINA thing. I think this is much more grievious, but I'll admit it would necessarily be bigotry. However, I maintain that MANY people in this thread are obviously bigots, which is why this turned into a criticism of Islam for so many of them, rather than a discussion about the publishing of the cartoons, like Agenda, myself and Bottle are talking about.)

I know very well what it is. It's the growing feel that Islam is invading, taking over and shifting the political and social demographics of Europe.

I used it with this intention.

Well I'll just snip the irrelevant parts. Whatever you want to call it....it has been stated by various posters that having an issue with Islam is not "racism".

Case closed.

Saying Arab and Muslim are equivalent IS. You can say "case closed" all you like, but your racism and bigotry are transparent. Play word games, if it turns you on, but no one is fooled.

You used a racist connotation because you're a racist, and you're concerned with how "European" the countries are, how pure their blood is against the infusion of dirty immigrants, who you hate.

That is similar to nazism and aryanism because racism is similar racism.



You've demonstrated that you don't simply have "an issue" with Islam; you are bigoted, hateful, you generalize and stereotype. So no, simply having an issue is not racist. YOU are racist.

Case closed.

I find it hilarious that while claiming he's not racist he argues that saying something about Arabs is equivalent to saying something about Muslims. I laughed.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/1155/denmarkyd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The random CD cover thread is elsewhere. Also, you're supposed to use the last four words of the quote, not just two.

I see that you're an American, so you may not know that 'Eurabia' is usually used in European circles to denote fear of the growing demographic of Muslims and brown people in general. As such it has racist connotations and I'd rather the free speech side of this debate was not tarred with that brush...

Honestly, you're not. I can't imagine that anyone would lump everyone arguing that this wasn't a bigotted action into the same group. Your quote, which I didn't look at the context for, certainly appears to to do that, but I think it's pretty clear to everyone that there is a spectrum of arguments here, on both sides.

I know very well what it is. It's the growing feel that Islam is invading, taking over and shifting the political and social demographics of Europe.

I used it with this intention.

You used a racist connotation because you're a racist, and you're concerned with how "European" the countries are, how pure their blood is against the infusion of dirty immigrants, who you hate.

That is similar to nazism and aryanism because racism is similar racism.

Well I'll just snip the irrelevant parts. Whatever you want to call it....it has been stated by various posters that having an issue with Islam is not "racism".

Case closed.

You've demonstrated that you don't simply have "an issue" with Islam; you are bigoted, hateful, you generalize and stereotype. So no, simply having an issue is not racist. YOU are racist.

Case closed.

I know very well what it is. It's the growing feel that Islam is invading, taking over and shifting the political and social demographics of Europe.
Ignoring your afore-mentioned ignorance that 'Arab' doesn't equate to 'Muslim', could you explain why a slogan such as "Eurabia? NO, thanks!" is any less unnaceptable than "African-America? NO, thanks!"?

Or "Jew-nited States of America? NO, thanks!"?

Or any other intolerrable (and gramatically poor) slogan?

I know very well what it is. It's the growing feel that Islam is invading, taking over and shifting the political and social demographics of Europe.

I used it with this intention.



Translation: Europe is becoming impure because of teh ebil brown muslims.


Youre a racist.

I know very well what it is. It's the growing feel that Islam is invading, taking over and shifting the political and social demographics of Europe.

Translation: Europe is becoming impure because of teh ebil brown muslims.


Youre a racist.

Well, if you look over the census reports for the past few decades there has been a rapid increase in the number of immigrants coming from muslim countries. It could be termed an invasion, though obviously that term has connotations which are inflammatory, but the fact remains that the immigrants are doing what Atlantian islands is saying, they are exerting their influence upon the political scene. Now, if the European nations don't want this to continue they can change their immigration laws, as of now I haven't heard of anyone doing that.

Just because Atlantian islands is stating something that is going on doesn't mean that he's a racist, and it just shows how immature you are that you are trying to paint him as one merely because he speaks the truth.

Even if The Atlantian Islands also dislikes teh ebil white muslims ?

Were Nazis racists for attempting the genocide of Jews? He didn't say a Muslim Europe? No, thanks. He said Arabs.

Translation: Europe is becoming impure because of teh ebil brown muslims.


Youre a racist.

Even if The Atlantian Islands also dislikes teh ebil white muslims ?

Well, if you look over the census reports for the past few decades there has been a rapid increase in the number of immigrants coming from muslim countries. It could be termed an invasion, though obviously that term has connotations which are inflammatory, but the fact remains that the immigrants are doing what Atlantian islands is saying, they are exerting their influence upon the political scene. Now, if the European nations don't want this to continue they can change their immigration laws, as of now I haven't heard of anyone doing that.

Just because Atlantian islands is stating something that is going on doesn't mean that he's a racist, and it just shows how immature you are that you are trying to paint him as one merely because he speaks the truth.Yeah, because this is the first time that most of us debate with TAI, a guy from Florida who's telling Europeans what their problems are...

As usual, my usual enemies have gone on their "you're a racist and whatever you say somehow doesn't count because we called you racist!!!!!" campaign...totally ignoring the fact that I have a problem with Islam in Europe, regardless of ther race. There was a case when we were talking about the number of Swedes who converted to Islam, and I was disgusted. Now, if I was a nazi/aryan/racist/whatever you want to pull out of your ass, I wouldn't care because this has nothing to do with their ethnicity/race....and many true Nazis even prefer Islam to Christianity (they deem it too Jewish and weak:rolleyes:), but alas! I was against these "nordic/aryan/pure" (putting words in my mouth is fun, I guess huh?) bringing Islam even more into Europe. That had 100% nothing to do with their ethnicity or race.

Or another favorite that is commonly overlooked, is when I was for the SVP campaigning against the Islam that Balkan immigrants were bringing into Switzerland. OH! That's right..Balkan immigrants...WHITE people..... Again, if I was some kind of white nationalist..I'd say bring them in...they are white..just don't bring in Arabs.

But I'm NOT saying that so stop labelling me and putting words into my mouth before I put my cock in yours.

Set everything else aside for a moment. You just hit the nail on the head. This here is the ENTIRE problem. You start out by admitting there is no other purpose to using racial epithets (an assumption that is completely unsupportable, but one I happen to like in these circumstances)

I admit I phrased it badly, I probably should have said "There is no legitimate purpose to using racial epithets as a term of abuse".[/sidetrack]

and then defend this action by seperating it from a racial epithet. There is no Muslim that is going to feel like there is any difference between the cartoon of a bomb in a turban and calling them a sandnigger or a terrorist or the like. YOU think it's different but to a huge population of the world, it's really not.

But even then it's a (perceived) insult towards one man, even if that one man is universally idolised by Muslims. It's possible to insult Martin Luther King, Emmeline Pankhurst or Moses without being racist, misogynistic or anti-Semitic.

And a large population could equally support a racial epithet along the same lines. That's my problem. You can't have it both ways. Either you'd support it if this was a cartoon of a black person with chicken and watermelon with a superblack face and a giant smile as a response to threats from 3 black people. Or you're a hypocrite.

It's hard to see how such the Mohammed situation could be translated into racial terms, unless all black people refused to be portrayed in picture-form for cultural reasons, and a group of frustrated anthropologists commissioned made up drawings (not caricatures) of black people to illustrate (no pun intended) the problems they faced in trying to do their job...

Blackness is not an ideology, Islam is. As such, we must be free to criticise it.

Now, I'll say some people here, mostly Bottle, have made some great arguments. But if you're going to claim it would be wrong if it was aimed at the wrong people and right when it's aimed at the right people, it's a losing argument.

You keep making the same mistake by conflating religion and race: race is, at least to some extent, a physical phenomenon, whereas religion is about beliefs and ideas. Beliefs and ideas must be open to satire, unless you think that any cartoons mocking political ideologies are equivalent to racism? As you say, you can't have it both ways.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/files/images/04wahl.gif

www.buzzflash.com (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/wahl/029)

Is this cartoon, titled "The Happy Face of American Capitalism" equivalent to your racial charicature?

These cartoons, some of them, had all the satire of the cartoon about black people I described. That is, they had none. Either perpetuating stereotypes and attacking groups as a response to the actions of a tiny portion of that group is wrong, or it isn't.

Please pick one cartoon as explain how it's equivalent to your racial caricature. In particular, show that it has no legitimate value. I've already pointed out that the two cartoons which could be seen as portraying Mohammed as violent (which isn't really unreasonable anyway as apparently he was a rather successful leader and general) both make legitimate criticisms: the bomb-turban satirises the way in which Islam has been used as an excuse for violence, while the burkha one attacks the treatment of women in many Islamic countries and cultures.

But I'm NOT saying that so stop labelling me and putting words into my mouth before I put my cock in yours.As ever, the epitome of maturity.

Yeah, because this is the first time that most of us debate with TAI, a guy from Florida who's telling Europeans what their problems are...
Aha....so because I live in Florida doesn't mean I have never travelled (extensively), or never stuided abroad, or don't study International Politics as one of my majors, or don't keep many European friends or contacts from my travels there who I talk to about these issues...or don't or don't or don't.....

:rolleyes:

Give me a break.

From now on no non-American is allowed to comment on American news an what are problems are.....

No, that's fucking ridiculous, as is what you said.

Yes - since they actually believed Jews were a seperate race.



So ? Does he believe that Arabs are a race ? Or could it possibly be that "Arab" refers to a culture ?

I think that in reality the qualifiers should be reversed, the Jews are at least a culture, and probably could be considered a race. Arab, at least in my opinion would refer to a large unspecific race of people, like white or asian would. It certainly doesn't refer to one culture in particular, though many of those cultures have a lot in common (religion?)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13453914&postcount=409
This is exactly what I said, let's not confuse my words.

"I know very well what it is. It's the growing feel that Islam is invading, taking over and shifting the political and social demographics of Europe.

I used it with this intention."
Were Nazis racists for attempting the genocide of Jews? He didn't say a Muslim Europe? No, thanks. He said Arabs.
Yes - since they actually believed Jews were a seperate race.



So ? Does he believe that Arabs are a race ? Or could it possibly be that "Arab" refers to a culture ?

As ever, the epitome of maturity.
As ever....ignoring ALL the rest of my post for the one little statement at the end I put.... Perhaps go back and comment on the rest, instead of your little hit and run jab at my maturity....

As usual, my usual enemies have gone on their "you're a racist and whatever you say somehow doesn't count because we called you racist!!!!!" campaign...totally ignoring the fact that I have a problem with Islam in Europe, regardless of ther race.

Ok, so your not a racist then, just a plain old bigot. "ZOMG teh ebil moslams r invading europe and making it less pure!!!!111!!11!"

There was a case when we were talking about the number of Swedes who converted to Islam, and I was disgusted. Now, if I was a nazi/aryan/racist/whatever you want to pull out of your ass, I wouldn't care because this has nothing to do with their ethnicity/race....and many true Nazis even prefer Islam to Christianity (they deem it too Jewish and weak:rolleyes:), but alas! I was against these "nordic/aryan/pure" (putting words in my mouth is fun, I guess huh?) bringing Islam even more into Europe. That had 100% nothing to do with their ethnicity or race.

Ok, again, youre just an irrationally hateful bigot. "Zomg teh swedes are becoming less pure!!!111!!11"


But I'm NOT saying that so stop labelling me and putting words into my mouth

Ok, youre not a racist, just a hateful bigot. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

before I put my cock in yours.

How very mature of you.

Were Nazis racists for attempting the genocide of Jews?

Yes - since they actually believed Jews were a seperate race.

He didn't say a Muslim Europe? No, thanks. He said Arabs.

So ? Does he believe that Arabs are a race ? Or could it possibly be that "Arab" refers to a culture ?

Aha....so because I live in Florida doesn't mean I have never travelled (extensively), or never stuided abroad, or don't study International Politics as one of my majors, or don't keep many European friends or contacts from my travels there who I talk to about these issues...or don't or don't or don't.....

:rolleyes:

Give me a break.

From now on no non-American is allowed to comment on American news an what are problems are.....

No, that's fucking ridiculous, as is what you said.I'm still amazed at how you manage to maintain your hateful attitude even after all that.

Yeah, because this is the first time that most of us debate with TAI, a guy from Florida who's telling Europeans what their problems are...

Indeed. I've got absolutely no problem with criticising Islam when it's warranted, but all the Muslims I know well enough to talk politics with describe themselves as Socialists or Liberals: the idea that they all vote in one cohesive block is silly.

As ever....ignoring ALL the rest of my post for the one little statement at the end I put.... Perhaps go back and comment on the rest, instead of your little hit and run jab at my maturity....

Then learn to argue like a grown-up.

But I'm NOT saying that so stop labelling me and putting words into my mouth before I put my cock in yours.
Nice.

So, are you going to explain why a slogan such as "Eurabia? NO, thanks!" is any less unnaceptable than "Jew-nited States of America? NO, thanks!"?

As ever....ignoring ALL the rest of my post for the one little statement at the end I put.... Perhaps go back and comment on the rest, instead of your little hit and run jab at my maturity....Forgive me if I'm tired of debating the same points you bring up every time. So far, I've commented on your little CD cover and that little insult you tossed out. It's not a jab at your maturity. Penis jokes, how ever witty they may sound to you, aren't signs of a mature personality. I was merely pointing that out.

Nice.

So, are you going to explain why a slogan such as "Eurabia? NO, thanks!" is any less unnaceptable than "Jew-nited States of America? NO, thanks!"?
Sure...because Islamic immigration to Europe is changing the social and political demographics...is altering the culture and even may soon try to alter the laws....we've seen the stuff coming out of England "it's offensive to Muslims so it must be changed...". If someone were saying that they do not want millions of Israelis to move to America and would not one them altering the laws, culture, and society to one that reflects Israeli society, I would support them just the same with the "No thanks" against that aswell. I've been to Israel and while I support it's existance over the scum that throw themselves at Israeli hoping to explode in a public square packed with people, I don't exactly love the society and would not want it to replace American society.

(I use Israeli because that is the only example of a Jewish society....in which I'm equating to a Islamic society).
Then learn to argue like a grown-up.
Learn to argue. (address my points)
I'm still amazed at how you manage to maintain your hateful attitude even after all that.
I'm still amazed how you manage to STILL not address my points that I made about how I am against Islam.
Ok, so your not a racist then
Well, atleast you finally said that.


Ok, again, youre just an irrationally hateful bigot. "Zomg teh swedes are becoming less pure!!!111!!11"
Never argued about purity, but rather the further spread of Islam...



Ok, youre not a racist
Again, atleast you finally said that.


How very mature of you.
Thanks...however, atleast you [tried] to address my other points. (Left out the part about the white Balkan muslims though...did you?;))
Forgive me if I'm tired of debating the same points you bring up every time. So far, I've commented on your little CD cover and that little insult you tossed out. It's not a jab at your maturity. Penis jokes, how ever witty they may sound to you, aren't signs of a mature personality. I was merely pointing that out.
Actually, I bring them up as my defense because nobody has argued them down....You can comment on penis jokes till your blue in the face, that's why I write them...I just also would like you to comment on the meat and potatoes of my post aswell.

I'm still amazed how you manage to STILL not address my points that I made about how I am against Islam.
...
Actually, I bring them up as my defense because nobody has argued them down....You can comment on penis jokes till your blue in the face, that's why I write them...I just also would like you to comment on the meat and potatoes of my post aswell.
Hohono, I am not your monkey :D

Sure...because Islamic immigration to Europe is changing the social and political demographics...is altering the culture and even may soon try to alter the laws...
Jewish immigration, African (forced and voluntary) immigration, Chinese immigration, heck any immigration changes the social and political demographics, alters culture and laws.

That's one of the best parts about immigration; culture doesn't stagnate. You know: Ellis Island, Windrush and all that?

we've seen the stuff coming out of England "it's offensive to Muslims so it must be changed...".
We have?

There's no way of telling if she has blue eyes....Go look at the picture. Jumping to conclusions just so they can "benefit" your weak/nonexistant arguement??? Nah, you wouldn't...:rolleyes:
Oh, whoops, what a presumption.
It IS pro-Denmark because I'm trying to show my support for Denmark, what the fuck should I have looked for, a Romanian flag? Many Danish people are blonde. A MUCH larger percentage of that population are blonde when they are children, thus using a blonde child would be a fine representation of a Danish child...but really, you're putting way too much thought into this.
No, I don't think I am putting too much thought into this. Modern racism is about the subtler end of things, just as advertising and politics are.
The Eurabia no thanks part shows my problems with Islam.

So....what part of that had anything to do with nazis or aryanism?
Islam is a religion, Arabs are a race. You've made it quite clear in the past that you want racial purity in Europe and an end to Arab immigration there.

How's that any much different?

You seriously believe Arabs are a race and not an ethnic group or culture ?

I'm sorry, but what's the difference between ethnic group and race? They seem like the same thing to me.

Islam is a religion, Arabs are a race.

You seriously believe Arabs are a race and not an ethnic group or culture ?

You seriously believe Arabs are a race and not an ethnic group or culture ?
Race, Ethnic group, basically the same, no?

We have?

If by "it's offensive to Muslims so it must be changed..." he means "paranoid petty-bureaucrats make silly changes while local Muslims look on with a mixture of bemusement, amusement and exasperation", then yes. There have been a few genuine cases of inappropriate censorship because of Muslim outcry (like the illegal police reaction to the documentary Undercover Mosque, or the Cambridge students threatened with an incitement to racial hatred charge for publishing the Mohammed cartoons in a college newspaper), but they're outnumbered by the instances of right-wing fearmongering.

You seriously believe Arabs are a race and not an ethnic group or culture ?

'Arab' can be used to mean 'a descendant of the original Arabian tribes', or just somebody who's a citizen of a country where Arabic is an official language. It doesn't have such a rigid physical basis as 'white' or 'black' (although race is primarily a social construct anyway and has little genetic basis).

I now wait for the newspapers to display hard-core pornography on their front pages, and expect them to do so soon. I await breathlessly to see Goatsee on the news stands and 2 Girls 1 Cup on the TV during the next debate on morals in the west.

And, of course, I expect the FCC to lift their ban on words that has to be bleeped out too.

The F-word is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language.
So?

After all, there is free speech, and nobody has the right not to be offended.


As usual, my usual enemies have gone on their "you're a racist and whatever you say somehow doesn't count because we called you racist!!!!!" campaign...totally ignoring the fact that I have a problem with Islam in Europe, regardless of ther race.
So "irrational Islamophobe" would be more accurate.

We have?

Not really, no.

We do have some issues where people hyperactively have been afraid of offending others and done silly things, and a lot of misinformation.

I now wait for the newspapers to display hard-core pornography on their front pages, and expect them to do so soon.
Clearly you do not read the Bild, which just about does. It get criticised by feminists quite often for having topless women on the front page every day.

I now wait for the newspapers to display hard-core pornography on their front pages, and expect them to do so soon. I await breathlessly to see Goatsee on the news stands and 2 Girls 1 Cup on the TV during the next debate on morals in the west.

If they want to then I'll fight for their right to do so (although not necessarily on the newstands as the streets are public domain).

And, of course, I expect the FCC to lift their ban on words that has to be bleeped out too.


So?

After all, there is free speech, and nobody has the right not to be offended.

Damn right. If the channel in question isn't state funded the government has no business limiting the content unless it's slanderous, fraudulent, inciting violence or otherwise criminal. I'm glad we agree.

Except that none of the feminists have ever threatened to kill the editors.
If any of them did, I would expect other newspapers to show their solidarity.

Do you know any feminists? Im sure some of them did;)

Clearly you do not read the Bild, which just about does. It get criticised by feminists quite often for having topless women on the front page every day.
Except that none of the feminists have ever threatened to kill the editors.
If any of them did, I would expect other newspapers to show their solidarity.

Clearly you do not read the Bild, which just about does.
Proper hardcore? Really?

It get criticised by feminists quite often for having topless women on the front page every day.
Damn! Another reason to push the envelope! If they're criticised then I think all the other newspapers should do it too, in solidarity. Preferably some really demeaning stuff.

You know, just to show that they have no hope of stifling free speech by attacking it so directly :)

If they want to then I'll fight for their right to do so (although not necessarily on the newstands as the streets are public domain).
Why not on the newsstands? Surely you're not in favour of offense-free zones?


Damn right. If the channel in question isn't state funded the government has no business limiting the content unless it's slanderous, fraudulent, inciting violence or otherwise criminal. I'm glad we agree.
In all seriousness, we do agree. I was just arguing that it wasn't a good idea and that it was rather pointless earlier.

But I would really like to see the silly *beep* go, and for there to be no more million dollar fines for "Wardrobe malfunctions".

(Still makes me giggle :p)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13453914&postcount=409
This is exactly what I said, let's not confuse my words.

"I know very well what it is. It's the growing feel that Islam is invading, taking over and shifting the political and social demographics of Europe.

I used it with this intention."




As ever....ignoring ALL the rest of my post for the one little statement at the end I put.... Perhaps go back and comment on the rest, instead of your little hit and run jab at my maturity....
Hmmm... what arguments have you presented? You entered the thread with the ignorant assertion that Arabs and Muslims are the same thing. There's nothing to argue about. It provides nothing to the conversation other than evidence of your ignorance about Arabs.

Your claims about Islam isn't what we were discussing. We were correcting your racist assumption that a comment about Arabs is a comment about Muslims. What you said that image was supposed to mean it cannot mean and isn't an argument, it's a statement. Your statement hasn't been supported and has nothing to do with this thread. What does have to do with this thread is wild ignorance about Islam that fuels the racist and bigotted veiws about Arabs and Muslims.

If they're criticised then I think all the other newspapers should do it too, in solidarity.
If they're threatened with murder. You and Jocabia don't quite seem to note that part of this story.

Proper hardcore? Really?
No, softcore, though.

If they're threatened with murder. You and Jocabia don't quite seem to note that part of this story.

I note the part where they couldn't actually prove that happened. They didn't have enough evidence to convict them so they deported them. I noted that part.

Meanwhile, so? Even they threatened them with eternal torture it still wouldn't make what they did more responsible or reasonable.

I admit I phrased it badly, I probably should have said "There is no legitimate purpose to using racial epithets as a term of abuse".[/sidetrack]



But even then it's a (perceived) insult towards one man, even if that one man is universally idolised by Muslims. It's possible to insult Martin Luther King, Emmeline Pankhurst or Moses without being racist, misogynistic or anti-Semitic.



It's hard to see how such the Mohammed situation could be translated into racial terms, unless all black people refused to be portrayed in picture-form for cultural reasons, and a group of frustrated anthropologists commissioned made up drawings (not caricatures) of black people to illustrate (no pun intended) the problems they faced in trying to do their job...

Blackness is not an ideology, Islam is. As such, we must be free to criticise it.



You keep making the same mistake by conflating religion and race: race is, at least to some extent, a physical phenomenon, whereas religion is about beliefs and ideas. Beliefs and ideas must be open to satire, unless you think that any cartoons mocking political ideologies are equivalent to racism? As you say, you can't have it both ways.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/files/images/04wahl.gif

www.buzzflash.com (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/wahl/029)

Is this cartoon, titled "The Happy Face of American Capitalism" equivalent to your racial charicature?



Please pick one cartoon as explain how it's equivalent to your racial caricature. In particular, show that it has no legitimate value. I've already pointed out that the two cartoons which could be seen as portraying Mohammed as violent (which isn't really unreasonable anyway as apparently he was a rather successful leader and general) both make legitimate criticisms: the bomb-turban satirises the way in which Islam has been used as an excuse for violence, while the burkha one attacks the treatment of women in many Islamic countries and cultures.

First of all, printing a stereotype isn't a criticism. It's just a stereotype. Like I said, the "It's just a cartoon" cartoon would have been a great response. But it didn't go far enough, did it? Not for them. No, printing a stereotype really gets their message across, doesn't it. Islam is a religion, a culture and most who follow it were born into it. The ideas of Islam deserve criticism as ideas of Islam. The actions of certain sects means one should criticise those sects, not the entire religion. That people seem to care little about the existence of those different sects is exactly why it's so irresponsible to limit one's commentary to printing a stereotype and calling it legitimate commentary.

Except that none of the feminists have ever threatened to kill the editors.
If any of them did, I would expect other newspapers to show their solidarity.

They would?

*threatens the editors* :p

It's just a stereotype.
No, the existence of murderous Muslims is a very unfortunate public problem. It is of course a fact that "not all Muslims" (nor the majority) engage in these activities, but it remains a problem in need of public discussion. It is your OPINION that the religion of Islam itself is not to blame for the outgrowth of violent sub-sects; others have a different opinion. On other threads, there have been differing opinions expressed as to whether Christianity as a whole should be faulted for the existence of Phelps and such-like embarrassing outgrowths.

Why not on the newsstands? Surely you're not in favour of offense-free zones?

No, but I do think it's reasonable to keep public property reasonably 'child friendly'. I'm not interested in what people choose to do with themselves or other consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes (well, maybe I am interested... :p) but a child should be able to walk down the street without encountering anything overly graphic.

In all seriousness, we do agree. I was just arguing that it wasn't a good idea and that it was rather pointless earlier.

But I would really like to see the silly *beep* go, and for there to be no more million dollar fines for "Wardrobe malfunctions".

(Still makes me giggle :p)

Tell me about it. UK radio-stations don't tend to bleep, they just cut the word out completely and leave a pause in the lyrics.

If they're threatened with murder. You and Jocabia don't quite seem to note that part of this story.

All of the muslims whom now feel offended did that, eh?


No, I noted that. It's still pointless to provoke and deliberately offend all of the other muslims who didn't do just that. Call it a pointless and unproportional response if you like.

First of all, printing a stereotype isn't a criticism. It's just a stereotype. Like I said, the "It's just a cartoon" cartoon would have been a great response. But it didn't go far enough, did it? Not for them. No, printing a stereotype really gets their message across, doesn't it.

The whole point was to show support for the target of the plot, no? Publishing the cartoons and leaving his out would have given completely the opposite impression. Like it or not, the stereotype of the treatment of women under Islam holds true for many Muslim countries (not that Islam has a monopoly on misogyny of course, but misogyny has become closely intertwined with the religion in many areas). It's also indisputable that, rightly or wrongly, Islam is being used by some preachers to encourage violence. Both are reasonable issues to consider.

Islam is a religion, a culture and most who follow it were born into it. The ideas of Islam deserve criticism as ideas of Islam. The actions of certain sects means one should criticise those sects, not the entire religion. That people seem to care little about the existence of those different sects is exactly why it's so irresponsible to limit one's commentary to printing a stereotype and calling it legitimate commentary.

A cartoon lampooning Capitalism isn't likely to carefully distinguish between Randian Objectivism, the genteel laissez-faire liberalism of the Cato Institute and the European welfare-state is it? That's the kind of distinction which needs to be teased out in a written essay, it can't easily be expressed by a single frame cartoon, but does that mean that political cartoonists should hang up their brushes and stop? No, instead they'll pick a thread which is common to many of those ideologies (competition as a driver of progress for example) and focus on that, assuming that any Capitalists who don't support that thread will agree with their analysis.

And on that note I'm off to bed. 'Night all. :)

No, but I do think it's reasonable to keep public property reasonably 'child friendly'. I'm not interested in what people choose to do with themselves or other consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes (well, maybe I am interested... :p) but a child should be able to walk down the street without encountering anything overly graphic.
And there you're touching on my point. Reasonableness. It is, of course, not reasonable to react to the cartoons with violence and threats. But is it reasonable to deliberately repost the cartoons knowing that they will offend people, knowing that they will provoke, knowing they will rekindle old bad feelings, all because of the three people?

So my question will also be: Will this worsen the problems and divisions, or will it help in any way?
In my mind there was no question if there is free speech in Denmark, and no questions that threats of violence is unacceptable - something the state should show by punishing the responsible parties. But I still fail to see what this reposting would accomplish, what good was supposed to come from this.

Tell me about it. UK radio-stations don't tend to bleep, they just cut the word out completely and leave a pause in the lyrics.
Ugh, I hate that as much as the damned *bleep* :(

Ugh, I hate that as much as the damned *bleep* :(
I like what the Beasties do: change the lyrics, record one song for radio, one for the album.

So, for example: "All you klingons in your fuckin' house" changes to "All you klingons in your grandma's house". More time and effort, but worth it.

*sigh*

I can't believe there's people who still support appeasement of thugs like these Muslims. We appeased Napoleon, he still kicked out asses. We appeased Hitler, he still kicked out asses. What part of "They're still going to kick our asses" don't you guys understand?

*sigh*

I can't believe there's people who still support appeasement of thugs like these Muslims. We appeased Napoleon, he still kicked out asses. We appeased Hitler, he still kicked out asses. What part of "They're still going to kick our asses" don't you guys understand?

Who the fuck tried to appease Napoleon?


And "thugs like Muslims"? You just played into Joc's point. Ill save him the trouble. Bigot.

The Atlantian islands, this:<snip>But I'm NOT saying that so stop labelling me and putting words into my mouth before I put my cock in yours.
and this:
You can comment on penis jokes till your blue in the face, that's why I write them
leads to people failing to do this:

...I just also would like you to comment on the meat and potatoes of my post aswell.

You know this happens. If a poster makes a silly throw-away comment, people will zoom in on that and ignore the actual argument. Why do mods have to keep pointing this out to you? Cut it out and stick to the meat and potatoes.

Ok, so your not a racist then, just a plain old bigot. <snip>
Ok, again, youre just an irrationally hateful bigot. <snip>
Ok, youre not a racist, just a hateful bigot.<snip>
How very mature of you.

Flame, flame (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13445632&postcount=124) ... warning: Stop. Now.

-The only one which could potentially be seen as encouraging hatred of Muslims is the bomb turban one, and the cartoonist behind that has already said that it's a commentary on how Islam has been hijacked to justify terrorism, not an attack on the religion itself.

Also Muhammad looks like a Russian.

The Atlantian islands, this:
and this:

leads to people failing to do this:


You know this happens. If a poster makes a silly throw-away comment, people will zoom in on that and ignore the actual argument. Why do mods have to keep pointing this out to you? Cut it out and stick to the meat and potatoes.



Flame, flame (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13445632&postcount=124) ... warning: Stop. Now.


Would saying you're pretty when you're authoritative be inappropriate?

Ohhhh, so as long as we don't piss off anyone, freedom of speech is ok, but if we do, we are "asking for it".

That about sums it up. The papers are doing this special in protest. They wouldn't have run it normally, not out of fear, but out of respect. Not that it is really overinsensitive, but they are sending as a message to the people who want to kill the innocent man as "no you won't, we will print what we want." Its a giant middle finger to the people that wanted to murder the guy.

Who the fuck tried to appease Napoleon?

Pretty much every state on the continent. Alexander refused to even consider fighting Napoleon until Moscow was occupied.

And "thugs like Muslims"? You just played into Joc's point. Ill save him the trouble. Bigot.

Reading is your friend.

Reading is your friend.
Knights of Liberty likes to use the word "bigot" as if it's the magic word that ends any argument he doesn't personally agree with. Little does he know it actually holds no weight with people who don't agree with his definition of bigot.

Having said that..I agree with the points you make....many people would like to see the issues with Islam swept under the rug because it's a bit too taboo and it makes them feel a tad bit uncomfterable for them to discuss.

*sigh*

I can't believe there's people who still support appeasement of thugs like these Muslims. We appeased Napoleon, he still kicked out asses. We appeased Hitler, he still kicked out asses. What part of "They're still going to kick our asses" don't you guys understand?
Actually, we British kicked Napoléons arse.

Actually, we British kicked Napoléons arse.

Yes, my next post added "on the continent".

...many people would like to see the issues with Islam swept under the rug because it's a bit too taboo and it makes them feel a tad bit uncomfterable for them to discuss.
Perhaps some people, but not as many as you make out.

It's not that most folks on here are against criticisng certain practices or beliefs of Islam, far from it; it's that we object to your position that anything connected with Islam or immigration from non-white countries is necessarily bad.

Pretty much every state on the continent. Alexander refused to even consider fighting Napoleon until Moscow was occupied.
Incorrect, actually. That he hardly knew a war on until Moscow was captured is more accurate.

Incorrect, actually. That he hardly knew a war on until Moscow was captured is more accurate.

Let's call it "Voluntary blindness". It was denial.

Flame, flame (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13445632&postcount=124) ... warning: Stop. Now.


I find it amussing how blatant racism is acceptable, but calling someone out on blatant racism is not.

Knights of Liberty likes to use the word "bigot" as if it's the magic word that ends any argument he doesn't personally agree with. Little does he know it actually holds no weight with people who don't agree with his definition of bigot.

In order for us to be having an arguement, youd have to be saying something of substance.

But is it reasonable to deliberately repost the cartoons knowing that they will offend people, knowing that they will provoke, knowing they will rekindle old bad feelings, all because of the three people?
It is not just because of the three people. It is because there are many more than those three. Especially after the van Gogh murder, it is clear that these threats are serious.
So my question will also be: Will this worsen the problems and divisions, or will it help in any way?
In my mind there was no question if there is free speech in Denmark, and no questions that threats of violence is unacceptable - something the state should show by punishing the responsible parties.
That would be cold comfort to the families of the dead.
But I still fail to see what this reposting would accomplish, what good was supposed to come from this.
It will demonstrate to the murderously-minded that they cannot accomplish the intimidation that they intend. This will do more to prevent any murders
than punishing killers after the fact.

It is not just because of the three people. It is because there are many more than those three. Especially after the van Gogh murder, it is clear that these threats are serious.
It's still an extremely small minority. But you obviously believe that it still was resonable.

That would be cold comfort to the families of the dead.

It will demonstrate to the murderously-minded that they cannot accomplish the intimidation that they intend. This will do more to prevent any murders
than punishing killers after the fact.
What? That makes no sense at all. :confused:

If anything, this increases the risk of violence, it does not reduce it.

It's still an extremely small minority.
No, unfortunately it isn't.
If anything, this increases the risk of violence, it does not reduce it.
I'm not sure what it is you are failing to understand. Muslims (some Muslims; please don't start on "that's not all or most Muslims" and let us leave aside the question of how many: too many, is the point) threaten to kill Salman Rushdie, or his publishers, or bookstores that carry him; or van Gogh; or these cartoonists, etc. etc. because they believe that this will actually intimidate people from publishing such things. Make it plain to them that no such purpose will actually be accomplished, and you remove their motivation. You seem to be under the impression that these violent reactions are just uncontrollable emotionalism, rather than calculated.

No, unfortunately it isn't.
You're welcome to prove otherwise.

I'm not sure what it is you are failing to understand.
The point of republishing these cartoons.

Muslims (some Muslims; please don't start on "that's not all or most Muslims"
Then learn to avoid sweeping generalisations, mmm'kay?

and let us leave aside the question of how many: too many, is the point)
*Sigh*

One is too many. The point is that it's a minority.

threaten to kill Salman Rushdie, or his publishers, or bookstores that carry him; or van Gogh; or these cartoonists, etc. etc. because they believe that this will actually intimidate people from publishing such things. Make it plain to them that no such purpose will actually be accomplished, and you remove their motivation.
I don't see that at all in this case. If you keep pushing without provocation, the moderate elements will be alienated while the radical elements won't one day just decide to accept it. Rather, it will just feed the frenzy and provide them with even more motivation.

"See how they knowingly offend us, all of us. We have done nothing. This is an agressive act towards us all, especially those who were quiet during the first round of controvercy. You do realize that they will provoke us again and again if you just sit there. Will you just take it? Will you do nothing when your honour and the honour of the Prophet is sullied?"

That's how the radicals may see it. Their resolve will be strengthened, not weakened.

You seem to be under the impression that these violent reactions are just uncontrollable emotionalism, rather than calculated.
On the contrary: You seem to underestimate how calculated these reactions are. And you fail to see how republishing these cartoons is playing straight into the hands of the divisive elements who desire chaos and evidence on how the west (including the US and "the jews") are engaged in a more or less covert war against Islam. They give ammunition to those who would spread anger and fear, and indirectly gives motivation to radical elements.

A picture speaks 1000 words:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2277/the20jewvx1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

A picture speaks 1000 words:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2277/the20jewvx1.jpg
So true :

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/6807/gtfo3bp.jpg

A picture speaks 1000 words:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2277/the20jewvx1.jpg

And a movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw) says about 10,000 more.

http://www.sogospellovers.com/forums/images/smilies/1059599527.gif

So true :

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/6807/gtfo3bp.jpg

http://www.sogospellovers.com/forums/images/smilies/mfr_lol.gif

And a movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw) says about 10,000 more.

http://www.sogospellovers.com/forums/images/smilies/1059599527.gif

If the shoe fits....

Good thing you're only interested in making real arguments. I know how upsetting it would be if all you were doing was using bigotted picture spam.
Except what's funny is that the Muslims actually DO create pictures like that that appear in Muslim press...and the most famous of these was the Muslim cartoon contest in Tehran.....

Keep casting it aside all you want, but that picture does represent reality. Explain to me how it doesn't....

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm Check this out for all the factual refrences you'll ever need on this topic....

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASaw_14/5211_14.htm
Anti-Semitism in Arab Media Fuels Incitement and Terrorism, ADL Tells House Foreign Affairs Committee

For the record, I'm for freedom of speech so if these shit heads want to keep calling us Nazis, that's fine...just don't except them to be treated with respect or for us to not retaliate when their brainwashed citizens throw themselves at us hoping to kill some Jews.

A picture speaks 1000 words:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2277/the20jewvx1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Good thing you're only interested in making real arguments. I know how upsetting it would be if all you were doing was using bigotted picture spam.

Except what's funny is that the Muslims actually DO create pictures like that that appear in Muslim press

What's funny is your inability to think rationally. "The Muslims" are not the ones in this thread arguing how offensive your stupid bigotry is, so your picture isn't relevant. The only thing your picture does is show you don't care about rational arguments, all you want to do is smear Muslims. That's not just funny, it's hilariously ironic since you seem to dislike being labeled as a bigot, yet everything you do proves you are one.

Comedy gold, TAI. Watching you try to reason is like watching a small, helpless animal drowning in an oil fire. I feel guilty for laughing at it, but I still laugh.

Except what's funny is that the Muslims actually DO create pictures like that that appear in Muslim press...and the most famous of these was the Muslim cartoon contest in Tehran.....
Because isolated wankers represent everyone now?
Keep casting it aside all you want, but that picture does represent reality. Explain to me how it doesn't....
Saying that the Tehran Muslim Cartoon Contest represents the entire Arab press would be like saying that the Danish Press is similar to that all over Europe.

Neither is true.
http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm Check this out for all the factual refrences you'll ever need on this topic....

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASaw_14/5211_14.htm
Anti-Semitism in Arab Media Fuels Incitement and Terrorism, ADL Tells House Foreign Affairs Committee
The ADL is a Zionist circlejerk. 'Nuff said.
For the record, I'm for freedom of speech so if these shit heads want to keep calling us Nazis, that's fine...just don't except them to be treated with respect or for us to not retaliate when their brainwashed citizens throw themselves at us hoping to kill some Jews.
I'm pretty sure the whole Denmark thing wasn't about Jews...

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASaw_14/5211_14.htm
Anti-Semitism in Arab Media Fuels Incitement and Terrorism, ADL Tells House Foreign Affairs Committee
If the shoe fits....
Indeed.

Arab Portrail in Western Media Fuels Incitement and Islamophobia, Gravlen Tells NationStates General Posters

You're welcome to prove otherwise.
Our disagreement seems to be more about the definition of "small", which is a matter of opinion rather than fact: "0.1% of the Muslim world" sounds small, while "over a million Muslims" sounds large, although both say the same thing.
The only polling data I can find in a quick search is from Palestine, which may not be representative of the whole Muslim world, but it's what I have:
Poll of Palestinians on The Danish Cartoons Issue (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=28497)
7% agree "Western civilians should now become targets"
8% agree "Use all means, including violence"
Passive support of violence does not, of course, translate into active willingness to carry it out; but we can hardly expect accurate data on what fraction of these respondents are plotting acts of violence.
The point of republishing these cartoons.
Well, that's why I explained it to you three times. The question was, what part of my explanation were you having difficulty with?
Then learn to avoid sweeping generalisations, mmm'kay?
That is why I repeatedly, carefully keep on stating that I am not making a sweeping generalization. I am not sure what you want here: a blanket denial that any Muslims engage in violence over this kind of thing?
One is too many. The point is that it's a minority.
If it was just one, you could arrest the one, and be done with it. The point is that it is a substantial, large minority.
I don't see that at all in this case. If you keep pushing without provocation, the moderate elements will be alienated while the radical elements won't one day just decide to accept it.
I don't give a damn whether they "accept" it. The question is how to give them disincentives to express their non-acceptance through murder threats.
You have your judgment on what would be tactically best, but the people whose lives are on the line have made a different judgment.

Saying that the Tehran Muslim Cartoon Contest represents the entire Arab press would be like saying that the Danish Press is similar to that all over Europe.

Neither is true.


I think it's kinda cute that he goes one above even:
He claims that the Tehran Muslim Cartoon Contest represents the entire "Muslim press".

Even more untrue.

So true :

[img]-snip Ron McDonald with bwebz-

... that confuses me,... I'm in state of mixed feelings, ones that shouldn't ever be mentioned.

Muslims threaten to kill Salman Rushdie, or his publishers, or bookstores that carry him

just an aside...

I happen to know that until that incident, no one heard of Salman Rushdie or his books. infact, had the Ayatollah kept his mouth shut, that book (Satanic Verses) would've died the worse kind of death for any book.

but because of the threats, it became the number one best seller for months on end. and everyone who read that book says the same thing. "I read it to find out what all the fuss was about, it was a terrible book."

"0.1% of the Muslim world" sounds small, while "over a million Muslims" sounds large, although both say the same thing.
The only polling data I can find in a quick search is from Palestine, which may not be representative of the whole Muslim world, but it's what I have:
Poll of Palestinians on The Danish Cartoons Issue (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=28497)
7% agree "Western civilians should now become targets"
8% agree "Use all means, including violence"

That poll was a telephone survey of 1300 people, of which only 702 answered. Hey guess what, 7%, or even 8%, or even 15% of 702 does not, in fact, amount to 0.1% of the Muslim world.

Our disagreement seems to be more about the definition of "small", which is a matter of opinion rather than fact: "0.1% of the Muslim world" sounds small, while "over a million Muslims" sounds large, although both say the same thing.
The only polling data I can find in a quick search is from Palestine, which may not be representative of the whole Muslim world, but it's what I have:
Poll of Palestinians on The Danish Cartoons Issue (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=28497)
7% agree "Western civilians should now become targets"
8% agree "Use all means, including violence"
Passive support of violence does not, of course, translate into active willingness to carry it out; but we can hardly expect accurate data on what fraction of these respondents are plotting acts of violence.
You're right: It's not at all representative.

Well, that's why I explained it to you three times. The question was, what part of my explanation were you having difficulty with?
I find your explanation to be unconvincing, hence I keep repeatng my question.

That is why I repeatedly, carefully keep on stating that I am not making a sweeping generalization. I am not sure what you want here: a blanket denial that any Muslims engage in violence over this kind of thing?
No, just more accurate statements. Some muslims engage in violence. Several hundred people all over Pakistan are protesting.

...

Several hundred (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080215-119203/Pakistan-cartoon-protesters-burn-Danish-PM-effigy). Not thousands.

If it was just one, you could arrest the one, and be done with it. The point is that it is a substantial, large minority.
This has yet to be shown.

I don't give a damn whether they "accept" it. The question is how to give them disincentives to express their non-acceptance through murder threats.
And you think this is the way to go? Keep poking them, and they'll stop threatening you for poking them? Interesting idea...

You have your judgment on what would be tactically best, but the people whose lives are on the line have made a different judgment.
Yes. That doesn't make their decision a good one, however.

That poll was a telephone survey of 1300 people, of which only 702 answered. Hey guess what, 7%, or even 8%, or even 15% of 702 does not, in fact, amount to 0.1% of the Muslim world.

Polls are never conducted by getting responses from every single member of the population under study, for obvious practical reasons. Statistics is the science of determining by what margin a numerical result from a sample is likely to differ from the hypothetical result of surveying the whole population. The standard deviation on this result is square-root of (.07 times .93 over 702) = .0096, and a spread of two standard deviations on either side of the sample result is a "95% confidence interval". That is, we are 95% confident that the percentage who agree "Target Western civilians over the Danish cartoons" in the entire Palestinian population is not less than 5% nor more than 9%, since if either of those were true, a sample of 702 would be unlikely to give us the results we actually found, as unlikely as that a coin-toss of 10 balanced coins would give us a heads/tail split of 9 or 10 of one, 1 or 0 the other.

The chance that the true proportion, in the whole population, is actually less than 0.1% is a negligibly small 1/500,000,000,000 equivalent to tossing 38 coins and getting all heads.

That is, we are 95% confident that the percentage who agree "Target Western civilians over the Danish cartoons" in the entire Palestinian population

Thanks. The Palestinian population, not the Muslim population.


The chance that the true proportion, in the whole population, is actually less than 0.1% is a negligibly small 1/500,000,000,000 equivalent to tossing 38 coins and getting all heads.

What lovely little mathematical belly-dances you make. Meanwhile, back in reality, a phone survey of a few hundred Palestinians does not support your generalizations regarding the entire Muslim population. Moreover, this is even assuming the poll in question was done fairly and accurately, which I notice people who like poll results always assume and people who don't question.