French cartoon sparks protests by Niki2

We need more cartoons. Many more. If these j**koffs go ballistic over a few caricatures, maybe they'll commit mass suicide if we inundate the media with it( btw, why are they looking at cartoons anyway? They're supposed to be praying when not working, right?).

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured 'toons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:03 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You'd think by now the Western world would have gotten the message. But no...

And what message is that Niki?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:04 AM

I think, generally speaking, that the people who protest and start yelling "death" in response to a cartoon actually don't even really understand their prophet's own sense of humour. Or have read some of the prophet's more vulgar moments from the quran. This isn't exactly the first time he's been depicted mooning people.

On the other hand, people who deliberately just rile Muslims up are basically the IRL equivalent of trolls, only their provocations tend to kill more people.

So I'm going to suggest maybe both sides are really dumb.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, absolutely right on. But then, most of them are probably TOLD what the Prophet believed, etc., they don't learn it for themselves.

Nobody: The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up and get a sense of perspective? What exactly is gained by stuff like this French cartoon, except a bloated sense of importance by the guy who published it? It doesn't help anyone, it's not important enough to be worth all the death and destruction. Nobody in a western country is going to censor it, but anyone with half a brain would self-censor in the name of avoiding death and chaos to others.

That dumb film maker said he made the video (I still doubt there is an actual movie) "to stop Muslims from killing"...! That is sheer insanity. The French guy who put out the cartoons, in my opinion, did so for self-agrandizement; he'd done it before (and has the paper's offices bombed), so he knew what he was doing and what would result from it. What did he or anyone gain from it, exactly? These people take no responsibility for deliberately instigating violence.

For me it's not about fear of the Muslims who will act out, it's more than riling them up is just plain stupid. If there was a good reason to challenge their religious beliefs, that would be one thing. But these two examples are just plain idiotic, and people should know better by now. If it's IMPORTANT to challenge something, go for it...but for a stupid video and a couple of equally-stupid cartoons??? (Aside from which, neither example was even well done, they're both just poorly-produced trash, in my opinion.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:39 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up and get a sense of perspective?

Could it be that, some in France, and Europe in general, are sick and tired of having to kowtow to the whims of fanatical Muslims?

Who'd have thunk, the day where France leads the world in making fun of.... anyone.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:58 AM

There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people. In another thread recently, someone posted a religious figure Hindu/Christian/Buddhist/Some Others cartoon porn. What the hell is even the point of anyone drawing that?

Obviously, some people will always be idiots and publish offensive trash and garbage, and they have the right to. But why should we find any of their work admirable? Because we don't like the group they happen to target? Then when that group goes apeshit, we should feel smugly superior and encourage a bunch of self-aggrandizing copy cats to spiral the targets further into losing their cool at us?

This is playground bullshit. It's like a mean girl makes enough snide comments at another girl, who flips out and pulls some of her hair, and then the mean girl gets her friends to join in.

Guess what? I just compared this situation to a fight between MENTALLY DEFICIENT TEENAGE GIRLS.

Fuck all this. Both sides can ACT LIKE ADULTS, these immature social REJECTS.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up and get a sense of perspective? What exactly is gained by stuff like this French cartoon, except a bloated sense of importance by the guy who published it? It doesn't help anyone, it's not important enough to be worth all the death and destruction. Nobody in a western country is going to censor it, but anyone with half a brain would self-censor in the name of avoiding death and chaos to others.

That dumb film maker said he made the video (I still doubt there is an actual movie) "to stop Muslims from killing"...! That is sheer insanity. The French guy who put out the cartoons, in my opinion, did so for self-agrandizement; he'd done it before (and has the paper's offices bombed), so he knew what he was doing and what would result from it. What did he or anyone gain from it, exactly? These people take no responsibility for deliberately instigating violence.

For me it's not about fear of the Muslims who will act out, it's more than riling them up is just plain stupid. If there was a good reason to challenge their religious beliefs, that would be one thing. But these two examples are just plain idiotic, and people should know better by now. If it's IMPORTANT to challenge something, go for it...but for a stupid video and a couple of equally-stupid cartoons??? (Aside from which, neither example was even well done, they're both just poorly-produced trash, in my opinion.)

Um. Niki. How is this ANY different from telling young women to "not dress like whores" so as to avoid rape? Or it's just "plain stupid" for a young woman to go out at night? Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are always a "good reason" in and of themselves. We hold these truths to be self-evident...except o' course when we come up against a culture that will murder you for acting on 'em, then we slink away into our polite little hidie holes until they "grow up???" And to say neither was "well done" absolutely misses what purpose they serve. What about the outrage and offense quite rightfully felt by the cartoonist? What's the cartoonist supposed to do? Shut up until he can come up with a more elegant way to express his feelings? Because it would "save lives???"

Cartoons don't CAUSE deaths, Niki. They just don't. Wearing a dress never CAUSES rape. Radical fundamentalism is Totalitarian. Totalitarianism is the problem here, Niki, not bad art. The folks who kill over a cartoon are simply trying to further their Totalitarian agenda and there is no right way to tolerate that shit. Period.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:23 PM

Quote:
What's the cartoonist supposed to do? Shut up until he can come up with a more elegant way to express his feelings?

Like we can ever expect anyone to develop more intelligence and maturity than they already have. I peaked at five years old myself. No, stuff like this is a fact of life. Cartoonists simply are going to draw naked Mohammeds and terrible movie directors with a history of fraud will overdub footage with Mohammed as a child molester, and together they'll laugh at the forced outrage, all the time, forever.

But I still think both sides are total morons with nothing better to do and pitifully bad communication skills, and I think both sides are making the situation worse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:33 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people. In another thread recently, someone posted a religious figure Hindu/Christian/Buddhist/Some Others cartoon porn. What the hell is even the point of anyone drawing that?

You really didn't get the point of that? Its called contrast. That even the most offensive image possible, depicting 3 different faiths, no less - and not a single act of violence as a result.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:49 PM

Byte,

That's only 'cause you force the world into "two sides." There aren't two sides. There are never two sides. There's just people. And there's right and wrong. Some people will murder other people. And that's wrong. Period. There is no one on that side. That side is madness.

The source of violence and abuse is the abuser. Never the victim. Never. As soon as murder is on the table, the victim is in no position to make things worse. The victim in no way brought murder into the conversation. That's all on the killer. You're making the worst kind of false equivalence when you compare tasteless cartoonists and homocidal maniacs who kill over "blasphemy." You and the killers are both dehumanizing the cartoonist if you're gonna sit there and tell me these drawings are in any way the cause of riots and murder.

You call yourself an Anarchist and you condemn free speech in this way??? Tell me I'm misunderstanding you, please, 'cause so far as I can see you and Niki are way off the rails on this one.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:53 PM

I more didn't understand why it was a point that needed to be made. Some of 'em react violent? Durrr yeah? Fuckin' obvious? And now we have a goddamn travesty on my eyes out there, thanks a lot artists, that was so completely worth you guys doing.

That image does not reflect well on the character of the artists or human kind in general. Rah. Way to go. Fake enthusiasm. They want to make total jackasses of themselves, hey, that's their deal, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pat them on the back and call them pretty or like their art.

All of this is still the stupidest bunch a bullshit I've ever seen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:56 PM

Quote:
There are never two sides. There's just people. And there's right and wrong. Some people will murder other people. And that's wrong. Period. There is no one on that side. That side is madness.

Takes two to tango. We kill them, they kill us, we make shitty content with little to no artistic value about their religious figures, they kill us, and on it goes.

Why should I be sympathetic towards anyone involved in this? Gimme a good damn reason.

The artists are victims? ahahahaha. Pretty brave of them hiding behind a desk in a first world country while other people get killed. What they are is trolls and money grubbing opportunists. Starve more asswipes, I wouldn't buy your garbage if you paid me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:05 PM

STORYMARK

So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.

I think that people should consider consequences betfore doing anything, yes. But there should never be any restriction on their right to make art, no matter what anyone think of it.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:06 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
There are never two sides. There's just people. And there's right and wrong. Some people will murder other people. And that's wrong. Period. There is no one on that side. That side is madness.

Takes two to tango. We kill them, they kill us, we make shitty content with little to no artistic value about their religious figures, they kill us, and on it goes.

Why should I be sympathetic towards anyone involved in this? Gimme a good damn reason.

The artists are victims? ahahahaha. Starve more asswipes, I wouldn't buy your shit if you paid me.

" Huh" ? WE made what ?

Sorry, WE didn't make any damn thing. It was a handful of folks , making this vid, and even fewer ( one ? ) who cartoonishly dubbed in some coarse, pre-pubescent dialogue, from the best I can tell.

And I'm sorry, but in the past 11 years, the internet has been home to all manner of vulgar, anti Mohammed nonsense. Probably a lot worse than this. So ,why does THIS random, unknown 'film' spark all this ?

It doesn't. This crap about a video ? It's just an EXCUSE for them to riot and kill. It was never the REASON.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:08 PM

Quote:
So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.

I think that people should consider consequences betfore doing anything, yes. But there should never be any restriction on their right to make art, no matter what anyone think of it.

Oh eat your hat. When did I ever say they shouldn't be allowed to make their stupid awful garbage?

Them being artists and free speech, and their art still sucks. They aren't victims. Trolls are trolls, and both sides are beyond ridiculous here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:12 PM

Quote:
" Huh" ? WE made what ?

Sorry, WE didn't make any damn thing. It was a handful of folks , making this vid, and even fewer ( one ? ) who cartoonishly dubbed in some coarse, pre-pubescent dialogue, from the best I can tell.

Nonsense. I paid taxes for missiles that killed them. I voted in the last election. I'm absolutely responsible for all these deaths. And so are you and most of the other people here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:15 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
" Huh" ? WE made what ?

Sorry, WE didn't make any damn thing. It was a handful of folks , making this vid, and even fewer ( one ? ) who cartoonishly dubbed in some coarse, pre-pubescent dialogue, from the best I can tell.

Nonsense. I paid taxes for missiles that killed them. I'm absolutely responsible for all these deaths. And so are you and most of the other people here.

Again-- HUH?

I was talking about the stupid video. Now you're shifting the subject, and talking about missiles ? Hell, it was missiles WE PAID FOR which liberated those MF'ers in the first place. REMEMBER ???

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:16 PM

Lol yeah, they seem very free. Free to kill or be killed by a dozen different factions while each tries for military takeover of the country. Whoopdedoo. We're awesome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:16 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Nobody: The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up and get a sense of perspective? What exactly is gained by stuff like this French cartoon, except a bloated sense of importance by the guy who published it? It doesn't help anyone, it's not important enough to be worth all the death and destruction. Nobody in a western country is going to censor it, but anyone with half a brain would self-censor in the name of avoiding death and chaos to others.

That dumb film maker said he made the video (I still doubt there is an actual movie) "to stop Muslims from killing"...! That is sheer insanity. The French guy who put out the cartoons, in my opinion, did so for self-agrandizement; he'd done it before (and has the paper's offices bombed), so he knew what he was doing and what would result from it. What did he or anyone gain from it, exactly? These people take no responsibility for deliberately instigating violence.

For me it's not about fear of the Muslims who will act out, it's more than riling them up is just plain stupid. If there was a good reason to challenge their religious beliefs, that would be one thing. But these two examples are just plain idiotic, and people should know better by now. If it's IMPORTANT to challenge something, go for it...but for a stupid video and a couple of equally-stupid cartoons??? (Aside from which, neither example was even well done, they're both just poorly-produced trash, in my opinion.)

I wonder how different the western world would be now if no one ever challenged christianity?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:29 PM

Quote:

I wonder how different the western world would be now if no one ever challenged christianity?

Newsflash: maybe this isn't the way to challenge Islam. Or get them to listen to us about social issues and civil rights. Like at all. Maybe lewd drawings of Mohammed are really pointless and actually say nothing, and if we want to help the women over there or end the violence, there might be better methods.

Or maybe atheists back in the 1800s drew a metic ton of Jesus screwing a donkey cartoons. That really got us the respect and tolerance of the christians.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You call yourself an Anarchist and you condemn free speech in this way??? Tell me I'm misunderstanding you, please, 'cause so far as I can see you and Niki are way off the rails on this one.

I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"

Not so much a moral assessment as a logical one, or at least that's how it seems to me.

Oh, and in regards to being told what the Quaran contains versus reading it themselves, that is where and why I wholeheartedly support RAWA's attempt to spread literacy... although I am not sure it will make the difference they seem to think it will, cause Christians do not have the excuse of illiteracy and few enough of them have read the Bible.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:43 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by CHRISISALL:
We need more cartoons. Many more. If these j**koffs go ballistic over a few caricatures, maybe they'll commit mass suicide if we inundate the media with it( btw, why are they looking at cartoons anyway? They're supposed to be praying when not working, right?).

Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured 'toons

There's something to be said for that. Inundate 'em with it, and when they see that their world didn't come to a screeching halt, maybe they'll realize that their religion, like any other, can be criticized or made fun of.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
There's something to be said for that. Inundate 'em with it, and when they see that their world didn't come to a screeching halt, maybe they'll realize that their religion, like any other, can be criticized or made fun of.

OMG, you found some kind of serious point in what I posted jokingly? *falls off chair*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You call yourself an Anarchist and you condemn free speech in this way??? Tell me I'm misunderstanding you, please, 'cause so far as I can see you and Niki are way off the rails on this one.

I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"

Not so much a moral assessment as a logical one, or at least that's how it seems to me.

Frem, really? Byte is explicitely equating the drawing of tasteless cartoons and murder:

"Takes two to tango. We kill them, they kill us, we make shitty content with little to no artistic value about their religious figures, they kill us, and on it goes."

(Incidentally, I have never heard "takes two to tango" used except as a justification for abuse. It's kinda like that whole "for the greater good" thing.) Byte's hatred for the, I'm sorry, TRULY INNOCUOUS content of the cartoons has blinded her to the real issue here; which is the wholly incompatible values of a free society and a totalitarian society. In her estimation, these two "sides" are both at fault for murder.

Free speech means there is no wrong way to do free speech. Free speech is an end in itself. And free speech has never killed a single human being in the history of the world.

"Gee, that was kinda stupid?" Like Treyvon Martin wearing a hoodie stupid or rape victim dressing slutty stupid?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter wheTrere you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:20 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.

I think that people should consider consequences betfore doing anything, yes. But there should never be any restriction on their right to make art, no matter what anyone think of it.

Oh eat your hat. When did I ever say they shouldn't be allowed to make their stupid awful garbage?

Them being artists and free speech, and their art still sucks. They aren't victims. Trolls are trolls, and both sides are beyond ridiculous here.

Okay, if I misinterpreted you, I appologize. I think we are perhaps a bit closer in views on this than I had thought.

I don't really consider the maker of the film in question an artist, for what that's worth. He was not trying to create art - he was trying to piss people off. Which, granted, is often the purpose of art, but this was something else, I feel.

But I also tend to agree with Chris - we should all be wearing tee-shirts with cartoon Mohammed on them - it should become so commonplace it becomes irrelevant.

And I've never been a hat guy, though, so I have none upon which to munch.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:27 PM

HK: Stop calling the artists victims. They are trolls. I never once said they should stop trolling. I did compare what they did to murder, because, um, it kinda resulted in murder. Kinda like my paying taxes for the right to stay in this country and use free speech resulted in murder.

I don't think I argued that I'm going to stop speaking or paying taxes though. Though I only do the later because the long arm of the law will bust my ass if I tried it.

Oh hey! But would you like me to stop talking? Because I'm kinda tired of it anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:31 PM

Quote:
Okay, if I misinterpreted you, I appologize. I think we are perhaps a bit closer in views on this than I had thought

That's... Huh. I actually didn't expect anyone to apologize. I was on a major bitch rant there.

But, yeah, I didn't ever say that the artists should stop doing their thing, only that I thought this particular thing was kinda dumb and tasteless with a sprinkling of reckless.

But then, I'm kinda dumb and tasteless, with a sprinkling of reckless... Eh. Whatevs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 12:07 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people.... This is playground bullshit....I more didn't understand why it was a point that needed to be made.

I agree with some of what Byte said.

Quote:
I think that people should consider consequences before doing anything, yes.

Was the ENTIRE point I was making. Not censorship: disapproval. A wish that people had the sense to realize that what they did, just 'cuz they could do it, would bring about the deaths of other INNOCENT people.

The idea that the "movie" maker did to STOP Muslims from killing is as insane and stupid as his supposed "movie" is in the first place. Not only does the "movie" make no such point or even attempt to make any sense at all (which causes me to doubt the reason he gave for making it in the first place), but the cartoons are idiotic and make no point; they're just childish "neener neener"s.

If freedom of speech is available to everyone (including Byte and I), then fine: I DECRY THE IDIOCY OF DOING SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL FOR NO GOOD REASON, especially something which will cause the deaths of people who had no choice in the matter.

It's interesting how disapproval of what these people did is immediately called "kowtowing" to Muslims. There are legitimate things that need challenging, and legitimate ways to do it. I don't see either of these things as ANY attempt to "challenge" Islam, just, essentially, to treat it like shit.

Quote:
I wonder how different the western world would be now if no one ever challenged christianity?

Who ever challenged Christianity? I don't recall ever hearing of anyone challenging it...some had a different view of it and made their own "versions", but "challenged"? Not that I know of. Aside from which, this isn't "challenging" Islam; the "movie" (if there really is one) "disparaged" it (kindest term I can come up with), the cartoon "mocked" it...no challenges there.

Quote:
Newsflash: maybe this isn't the way to challenge Islam. Or get them to listen to us about social issues and civil rights. Like at all. Maybe lewd drawings of Mohammed are really pointless and actually say nothing, and if we want to help the women over there or end the violence, there might be better methods.

You go get 'em, girl; that's akin to the point I was making, but more direct. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but with those I quoted, I do.

Quote:
I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"

Thank you, Frem. Seems any statement negative to something is immediately considered "censorship" or "condemnation of free speech". Interesting, that.

Cav, if you truly consider those cartoons truly innocuous, then your view is different from mine. I found them tasteless at best, gross to be more realistic. I think a few million other people would find some of them gross and offensive, no matter what their religion.

I seem to remember a few movies about Christ and/or the Christian religion raising quite a furor. They didn't lead to violence, as far as I know, but I'm sure it never occurred to anyone that if we didn't have the rule of law and we lived in a country where violence is an everyday occurrence, those movies might well have caused violence. There's your basic difference. In Afghanistan, the punishment for stealing (when I was there) was the loss of the hand that allowed one to eat from the communal bowl--ergo, death. It was an accepted punishment. We wouldn't dream of such a thing. But we USED to kill people who were suspected of being witches. Remember the Inquisition? (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition--sorry, couldn't resist) We've evolved; so will they. But as things stand right now, huge societal differences exist.

Speaking of religion causing violence, even in our own society:

Quote:
A couple who got into a dispute over a theological point after watching ''The Passion of the Christ'' were arrested after the argument turned violent. Melissa Davidson, 34, and her husband, Sean Davidson, 33, were charged with simple battery on March 11 after the two called police on each other. They were released on $1,000 bail. According to a police report, Melissa Davidson suffered injuries on her arm and face, while her husband had a scissors stab wound on his hand and his shirt was ripped off. He also allegedly punched a hole in a wall. http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?156089-The-Passion-o
f-Christ-DOES-cause-violence

Abortion has brought about a LOT of violence in our country, law notwithstanding. So what is the difference between people who feel so strongly about abortion (which they relate to religion, correctly or not) that they become violent, and people who feel so strongly about their religion that they become violent? Neither is right; neither is good; both are reality. The difference is that Planned Parenthood and other clinics which provide abortion (along with all the other things they provide) are doing their job with no intention of causing violence to anyone; both artists in this situation are deliberately trying to provoke a reaction that they knew would be violent.

Freedom of speech, if you hadn't noticed, means I can decry something and Byte can hate something just as much as it means those "artists" can DO it. 'Nuff said.

ETA: I think the idea of lots and lots of people wearing t-shirts depicting Mohammed (if it were done in many countries) WOULD be a good idea...not nasty depictions of him, just pictures, since that seems to be the basic prohibition. They can't fight everyone, so I think it would go at least a ways toward moving things forward. Would help if Muslim scholars would speak up loudly and say there is NOTHING in the Q'ran about depicting Mohammed as being bad. Just MHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 1:18 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Oh hey! But would you like me to stop talking?

Not ever. Not even when we're on opposite sides of an issue. Once talking stops, so does any hope of reaching an understanding.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 1:35 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
HK: Stop calling the artists victims. They are trolls.

Do they become dead trolls or victims, like Theo Van Gogh, when some Islamo-zealot kills them ?

Saying what they do is akin to murder , because it RESULTS in murder, is like calling a girl who gets raped a rapist. I mean, if something she wore "resulted " in her getting raped, that's all on her, right ?

I tend to blame the perp, and not the victim. Crazy, I know.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 1:58 PM

This rape victim analogy so does not work! If the artists get murdered, then YES, they're a victim. But if they aren't murdered, they're a douchey troll! And probably still a douchey troll even when they are a victim. :/

It is possible to be a jerk and to be murdered at the same time. Not all victims are innocent, you know. And trying to accuse me of being pro-blaming the rape victim because I think these guys are jerks? Weak argument and a massive red herring and ad hominem fallacy.

The problem is you're equating what I'm saying to that I think people on either side of this tragic farce DESERVE to be either raped OR murdered. And I don't think either one. I hate that it happens, but some of this stuff, people being jerks, people getting murdered, round and round it goes, some of it is just an inevitable function of being human and living in such an awful sucky world. One thing leads to another sometimes. It is not something I can ignore when I think there was wrongdoing in the first place. A girl wearing a skimpy outfit, I think, is something different from this vileness on display. I must be unanimous in my contempt here.

A rape victim has my full sympathy. These opportunistic rabble-rousing asshats do not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 2:15 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE: A girl wearing a skimpy outfit, I think, is something different from this vileness on display. I must be unanimous in my contempt here.

Depends on the outfit, and the girl, huh?

j/k

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 2:23 PM

Quote:

Depends on the outfit, and the girl, huh?

j/k

...

I can't be certain what you're getting at here. But, no. It does not depend on the outfit or the girl. Whatever a rapist does to the girl is wrong.

Yet. In this case, how the crowd reacted was wrong, but drawing filth like this, I think, is wrong as well. The difference is, I don't think that there must be laws against everything people do that I might think is "wrong." I don't think that the ability to draw this stuff should be taken from them. I just think the work of these artists is ugly, repulsive, and shows appallingly bad character and judgement, and I don't particularly want to support them or encourage them in any way.

And that sentiment doesn't depend on the artist either. If Bill Watterson of Calvin and Hobbes fame ever drew something like this, I would think he is a massive jerk as well. And I also wouldn't think he deserves to die, any more than the victims of the mad crowd deserve to die.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If the artists get murdered, then YES, they're a victim. But if they aren't murdered, they're a douchey troll! And probably still a douchey troll even when they are a victim. :/

Byte, Star Trek was my religion when I was in my teens (and that's NOT overstating it!!), and when douchebags made fun, I ignored them and pitied them for their ignorance.
Why can't 'adults' of other faiths have the same tolerance for fools?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 2:28 PM

Well, I do think that both sides are behaving pretty terrible. Like I've already said.

And I thought the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist porn was disgusting as well. I don't really think highly of those artists either, even without them having caused massive protests.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I thought the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist porn was disgusting as well. I don't really think highly of those artists either.

Me either, but take away the right of someone to be an asshat, and a slippery slope that ends in the end of free speech is in sight. Plus, the penalties are way out of whack. If I don't like what someone says, I let them know, curse them out or ignore them. Killing them is off the table. It bespeaks of a small mind, and a truly, TRULY fearful heart.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 2:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
even without them having caused massive protests.

Whoah, WAIT there- they didn't CAUSE massive protests. Even if they MEANT that to happen, the dumasses reacting to what they deemed so important did.

That's it, I'm gonna go back in time & SLAUGHTER those who made fun of Trek for their infidel behaviour!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 2:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I thought the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist porn was disgusting as well. I don't really think highly of those artists either.
Me either, but take away the right of someone to be an asshat, and a slippery slope that ends in the end of free speech is in sight. Plus, the penalties are way out of whack. If I don't like what someone says, I let them know, curse them out or ignore them. Killing them is off the table. It bespeaks of a small mind, and a truly, TRULY fearful heart.

Chris, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I've been saying. :/

Thinking someone is a jerk is not the same thing as thinking they deserve to be killed or that free speech should be curtailed.

Nor is it the same thing as me thinking that these things happen, or that there's a such thing as cause and effect and people have responsibilities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
even without them having caused massive protests.
Whoah, WAIT there- they didn't CAUSE massive protests.

I'll have to disagree there. I think they have a responsibility here as to what happened. Just as if people had unexpectedly rioted over the Jesus/Buddha/Shiva porn.

You might be able to argue that the middle east is such a powder keg that if this didn't set them off, something else would have. But what you can't deny is that these cartoons and that movie DID set people off, which DID result in violence. And it was also pretty predictable that it would have that result if people became aware of it. That's the definition of reckless.

Quote:
Reckless, adj. 1. Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless

I would not outlaw recklessness, but that does not mean I approve of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 21, 2012 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You might be able to argue that the middle east is such a powder keg that if this didn't set them off, something else would have. But what you can't deny is that these cartoons and that movie DID set people off, which DID result in violence. And it was also pretty predictable that it would have that result if people became aware of it. That's the definition of reckless.

Responsibility/recklessness is subjective.
Short story time: When I was 22, I was riding my brand new bike through a rough part of my city when four brothers waved to me like they wanted directions or something. I've always had black friends, so I feared not & pulled over to see what they wanted, and promptly got kicked off my bike by a fifth dude I wasn't aware of. I grabbed my bike back & proceeded to mentally mark which knees I would attempt to break first when they all seemed to disengage. Cool, I got on my bike & rode away.
So, did I 'cause' them to attack me by being an idiot? Yes & no.
Personally yes & objectively no.
Let's look at this differently- If I had pulled over with greater, more experienced awareness, and had expected them to try and jump me, and WANTED them to so I could straight up kick all their asses, THEN who would be reckless? Or responsible?
Edited To Add:
Stupidity is never a justification for harming someone IMO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Interesting bit someone mailed me this morning, seems amazingly relevant to both the topic at hand, as well as a particular section of history y'all might have noticed I have an interest in.

Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough
http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apo
logia-for-censorship-are-enough/

Quote:
Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech. This post is not about fisking Sarah Chayes; her column deserves it, but I will leave it to another time. This post is about putting the Holmes quote in context, and explaining why it adds nothing to a First Amendment debate.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough
http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apo
logia-for-censorship-are-enough/

The application of law, much like a superhero's powers, can change according to how the writers want it to go...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:14 AM

I'm not saying anything about laws and I'm not saying they should stop! Can't I just think these guys are irresponsible jerks and not like their art? Without making a goddamn federal issue outta it?

Or does free speech require me to admire everything someone does in the name of "free speech" regardless of my own personal tastes or whether I think it's a violation of my sense of decency? I don't want to take away rights from the Westborough Baptist Church, because I think that's a slippery slope, so does that mean I think those guys and their message is awesome? NO! They're also assholes! These guys are assholes! THEY'RE ALL ASSHOLES!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
But what you can't deny is that these cartoons and that movie DID set people off, which DID result in violence. And it was also pretty predictable that it would have that result if people became aware of it. That's the definition of reckless.

Quote:
Reckless, adj. 1. Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless

Byte,

You seem to have no understanding of the nature and causes of violence. That's disturbing in so many ways. I abso-freakin-lutely deny that the cartoons set people off. There is no cause and effect relationship there. Just as NOTHING a child does causes the father to "get the belt," there is no level of blasphemous cartoon that CAUSES riots. Just as NOTHING a woman wears is gonna CAUSE rape. Back in the day, dressing like Madonna was pretty disgusting to a lot of folk, and considered thoroughly tasteless by a lot more, who were offended by women wearing underwear as outerwear. But no one was assassinated over it. The point of these cartoons is that people who riot over such things are crazy. Just because such folk actually do respond to such cartoons with rioting, doesn't make the cartoons responsible for the rioting in any gorram way.

I am kinda surprised by the outrage from you and Niki over the Onion cartoon. The cartoon was making a pretty vivid point, namely, that no degree of blasphemous depiction of any of these religious icons is gonna "cause" any amount of violence. Also, that getting outraged because Ganesha is fisting the Buddha is unutterably silly (particularly given Hindu attitudes about sex!). And Byte, I'm sorry but it's just sex. Really, you're disgusted by handjobs? How would you make the same point the Onion was making? Or do you simply think the point is not worth making?

How is the Onion cartoon not relevant satire, how is it not protest? You're allowing "recklessness" to be entirely defined by the unjust power arrayed against it. I continue to be astonished by the regressiveness of your argument.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:26 AM

Okay. Since none of you want to listen to me or understand what I'm actually saying how about all of you takes your strawmans And EAT THEM.

And HK take your fake civility and concern and eat that too. I don't have to participate in you guys misinterpreting every fucking thing I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:31 AM

Strawman??? I'm quoting you.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:34 AM

Find me one place where I said rape victims are responsible or that they deserve what happens to them.

You are strawmanning like crazy, not listening to me and what I ACTUALLY have to say, and I do not have to take this from any of you. ANY OF YOU.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:38 AM

Um. The whole point of bringing up rape, is to make a comparison between your attitude toward these cartoonists and a similar attitude folks have about rape. It's not a strawman, it's a simple analogy. In terms of the debate, you should be able to differenciate your argument about the cartoons from other examples of abusive behavior "caused" by the behavior of the victims/targets of the abuse.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:43 AM