Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 202 of 406 (576599)
08-24-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by onifre
08-24-2010 5:40 PM


onifre writes:
Thattttssss the fucking episode I was thinking about, "Cartoon Wars!" Thanks for being such a South Park freak, lol.
So that was the episode that they weren't allowed to show the image of Mohammed but did show Jesus shitting on Bush and the flag, right?
Yes, it's season 10 episode 4 (episode 3 being the first part), in case you want to look it up on their site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by onifre, posted 08-24-2010 5:40 PM onifre has seen this message but not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 204 of 406 (576713)
08-25-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Tram law
08-24-2010 6:30 PM


Tram law writes:
The thing is though, there are things Comedy Central won't censor. The only word that they censor is fuck and the also don't really censor cartoon sex or the cartoon gore either.
Of course, there are precious little people who will actually hurt you if you insult them.
So it beats me why Mohammed is offensive but these things are not.
It's not, they're just afraid, that's all. Which is the entire point the episodes are trying to make. People don't mock mohammed. Not because they respect the beliefs of muslims, or because "he is immune to insults" as Tom Cruise says in the episodes, but because people are afraid that they will get hurt when they do so.
After all, haven't they been threatened for showing these things as well?
Probably, but not on such a massive scale as the muslim fucktards threaten people for showing a picture of a man of which nobody knows what he looked like in the first place anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Tram law, posted 08-24-2010 6:30 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Tram law, posted 08-25-2010 5:11 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 210 of 406 (576808)
08-25-2010 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Tram law
08-25-2010 5:11 PM


And rightly so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Tram law, posted 08-25-2010 5:11 PM Tram law has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 226 of 406 (577071)
08-27-2010 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Minnemooseus
08-27-2010 2:10 AM


Re: South Park and Mo
Minnemooseus writes:
And that said, might depicting Mo in a bear costume (I believe) actually be funnier and a greater social commentary in the situation context?
It gets even better. They had a bear costume walking around in which they said was Mohammed. Pissed off Muslims ensued. However, in the very next episode it was revealed that it was actually Santa Clause in the suit, impersonating Mohammed. Making this joke very mulitlayered. First of all, it shows of course the hypocrisy of Muslims, for they weren't even depicting Mohammed, the Muslims just though they were. Second, and perhaps even funnier, is the deeper underlying joke. They had a fictional character impersonate Mohammed, essentially equating the two. I don't think the Muslims picked up on that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-27-2010 2:10 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 290 of 406 (578941)
09-03-2010 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by AZPaul3
09-03-2010 4:58 AM


Re: But the point is
AZPaul3 writes:
Why would you want to be deliberately offensive and hateful to an entire population?
I don't know, why do some muslims want to be?
"Being offensive" is, in my oppinion, such a poor excuse for not doing something. Something is bound to be offensive to someone, should we just not do anything that could potentially be found offesive to somone? Or is the only thing that matters here how big the group of people is that get offended? If so, then where do we draw the line? 100 people? 500? 1000? When should we not do something that could be said to be offensive to others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by AZPaul3, posted 09-03-2010 4:58 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Nij, posted 09-03-2010 6:02 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 313 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2010 3:45 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 323 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2010 11:54 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 292 of 406 (578949)
09-03-2010 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Nij
09-03-2010 6:02 AM


Re: But the point is
Nij writes:
Which Muslims would those be, then? I don't recall any (apart from the idiots) that deliberately act to offend anyone.
Well, those idiots would be them then.
True; not doing something simply because it will cause offense is stupid. But...
You should certainly not do something offensive if there is no necessity at all; there is no good reason to hang up a sign of Muhammed or saying "NIGGER!".
There could be. I call some of my friends "nigger" (and no, neither I nor them are black), is that a valid reason to say it?
You should certainly not do something offensive if you could achieve the same effect without doing it; the US could have dealt with Saddam, the Taliban, al Quaeda by NOT offending half the world's intelligent people, by NOT offending the Muslim world, and by NOT introducing war to entire countries.
Perhaps, but that's not the kind of offensive I am talking about, I am talking about offensive on the "personal" level. Why should I not call my frineds "nigger", or send them a picture of mohammed because some dickweed finds it offensive?
And you should certainly not do something offensive if your sole purpose is to offend people to the detriment of building a peaceful relationship with them; hence, one should certainly not put up one of those signs or invade other countries on a whim.
I agree.
How many people get offended isn't an issue. Why they get offended and why you did it are.
Exactly, and since I didn;t do it to offend anyone, they have no reason to get offended if I just happen to draw a picture of mohammed, or call someone nigger. Or anything at all that isn't directed at them. But guess what? They do get offended. And that's what I was getting at here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Nij, posted 09-03-2010 6:02 AM Nij has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2010 3:49 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 299 of 406 (579000)
09-03-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by riVeRraT
09-03-2010 10:03 AM


Re: If you have nothing to hide, you don't need rights.
riVeRraT writes:
People are making a lot of accusations, and if the Muslims aren't doing anything wrong, then the people making those accusations, need to be silenced.
Do you really think that any investigation is going to shut the nutters up? I mean, really, look at what happened with the "birthers". They're still saying the same shit as they did before, even though I don't know how many officials have said that Obama was born in Hawaii and even the document wes produced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by riVeRraT, posted 09-03-2010 10:03 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by riVeRraT, posted 09-03-2010 10:12 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 303 of 406 (579004)
09-03-2010 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by riVeRraT
09-03-2010 10:12 AM


Re: If you have nothing to hide, you don't need rights.
riVeRraT writes:
Good point. Some people are going to hate no matter what. But it might shut matters up enough to get it out of the news, and convince people who aren't sure what is going on to the truth.
Fair enough.
It will also expose those haters. Isn't that a good thing?
Certainly.
Should we just continue letting the haters hate? Like everyone who hates me here, and has framed me to be saying something I am not?
Of course not, but we already know they are haters that will say anything to slander the other party, they've done so every time before this one. The only thing that an investigation will accomplish is that it is shown once again what kind of dishonest douchebags these people are. Until they accuse the next thing of some slanderous shit. People need to learn that these idiots will say and do anything, and everytime they do, should just shrug and go "ah well, nutters are everywhere".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by riVeRraT, posted 09-03-2010 10:12 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 333 of 406 (579981)
09-07-2010 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Rrhain
09-04-2010 3:45 AM


Rrhain writes:
So Taz is a terrorist?
Because that's what you're saying.
Hmm? How so? My point was about being an asshole and offensive, not about being a terrorist. Would you care to explain how you think I was referring to terrorism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2010 3:45 AM Rrhain has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 335 of 406 (579983)
09-07-2010 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Rrhain
09-04-2010 3:49 AM


Rrhain writes:
Same question to you as to onifre:
Who are "they"?
The muslims that deliberately act offensive towards others.
It's so easy to be against "them" when you don't know who "they" are.
If you want names and adresses then sorry, but I can;t provide them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2010 3:49 AM Rrhain has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 339 of 406 (579988)
09-07-2010 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by AZPaul3
09-04-2010 11:54 AM


Re: But the point is
AZPaul3 writes:
Would you deliberately do something hateful, spiteful and offensive to your Mother? Your best friend?
My mother? Depends. IF she really deserved it (not that I think she could ever do something that deserves that, but say, she has a fit of "insanity", and thinks only praying for my brother is enough to heal him and he dies, you betcha.)
My best friend? All the time, that's how we roll.
Don't get into hyperbole. We're not talking about giving inadvertent offense, which is too easy to do these days in a PC climate. Not even a periodic joke or one of Oni's hilariously offensive schticks would count.
Agree.
We're talking about taking an unnecessary action to deliberately be offensive out of pure malice. Doesn't matter if the target is one or a million.
It all depends.
Hang a big "NIGGER!" sign on your house. Post a large Nazi flag across the street from the Synagogue. Hang a cartoon caricature of Muhammad out your window.
I'd never do that.
You certainly have the right to do these things, but are you really one of the crazy zealots hateful enough to do these things?
No, I don;t know anyone who deserves this. If there was a mosque, say, that is nothing bu spreading hatespeech and being violent, than yes, I would. I'm a dick, you see (if I want to), but not an asshole.
Other than a demented sociopath, why would anyone go out of their way to do such a thing or even contemplate such a thing in an open public forum?
To consider giving them a piece of their own mind? If someone thinks they can insult someone but get special privileges themselves, I'll be there to point out they can't have it both ways.
This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with pure unadulterated hate. Yet, this is exactly what Taz is contemplating and you are defending. Why?
I am not defending hate. I am making a point that people should grow a fucking pair and not be insulted by every little thing. That's basically what I am saying. Also, if a particualr gourp finds, say, painting your house pink the most heinous thing there is, and they in their meetings preach that we should kill people who paint there house pink, guess what, I'll paint their "preach center" pink.
Fuck irrational beliefs and hate mongering. You wanna be tough, you bettter take a few hits yourself. Crying that "everybody is so insulting" towards you when you are insulting towards others is hypocrisy.
No, I'm not saying all muslims are, I realize there are many that denounce all of that. I am not speaking about them though, I am talking about the ones that are assholes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2010 11:54 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2010 11:37 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 350 of 406 (580044)
09-07-2010 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by AZPaul3
09-07-2010 11:37 AM


Re: But the point is
AZPaul3 writes:
That is one point, Huntard. Hanging a caricature of Muhammad is offensive to ALL moslims, radical, moderate, liberal.
Perhaps, but the liberals don't seem to make such a big fuss about it, I think they understand that being irrational comes with a prize.
As usual with people in the west they cannot seem to appreciate the gravity of the signal being sent.
So the second point I am trying to make is that it is not such a "little thing" as it may appear in western eyes. To Islam caricatures, idols and images of God or Muhammad are hateful in the extreme. Just as hateful as the modern connotation of a swastika is to a Jew or the racists' use of nigger to a black.
If you can appreciate the revulsion of the two latter then you can recognize the revulsion of the former.
Let's take a closer look at this, shall we?
The word "nigger" is offensive to "black" people because it was used as a derogatory term by the slave traders that hurt their people immensely. The Swastika is offensive to a Jew because it is the symbol of the Nazi's, who hurt their people tremendously. The image of the prophet Mohammed is offensive to Muslims because, well, they say it is. Seems not at all similar to me. I can understand the former two, the latter is just an irrational belief. Strangely, I don;t go out of my way to pander to irrational beliefs. I will not intentionally offend them, but if a certain group
behaves like assholes, i can be a dick to that group.
And to do such a thing is a blanket statement given to ALL Islam not just the few "assholes" you think are your target.
I'm targeting just the "assholes", I can't help it that people are irrational. And I think that the ones who realize this will not make a big fuss about it.
Again, I really don't care if someone wants to do such things as hang caricatures or paint swastikas as long as it is not done out of ignorance of a foreign culture and they understand, in full, the extremely hateful impact of their signal.
The signal given off is a "This is what it feels like" signal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2010 11:37 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2010 1:01 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 362 of 406 (580070)
09-07-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by AZPaul3
09-07-2010 1:01 PM


Re: But the point is
AZPaul3 writes:
Oh, Huntard, there are some very powerful historical reasons for Islam's distaste of these things. In its infancy Islam was tolerant of pagans and polytheism. Idols were not for them since this was too much like praying to man-made stone things in place of God, but they let the pagans do their thing.
Then Muhammad become successful with is message.
It begins with Muhammad's fleeing from Mecca to Medina when the Idol Merchants started killing all his followers. They controlled Mecca at that time and saw Muhammad's teachings (monotheist) as cutting into their "trade." They went after Muhammad and the moslims with a vengeance. The ensuing wars were, well, quite bloody, like all wars. Eventually, Muhammad conquered Mecca where he destroyed the idols, caricatures and images in the Kabaal.
So, Islam's view of such idols as haraam stems from a bloody history of suppression as well as folding quite nicely into their monotheistic beliefs.
Yes, those idols. Not images of Mohammad. Also, worshipping an idol, and drawing a picture are two different things entirely.
It is not a "just because I want it to be..." kind of thing.
Still looks like it from here.
But the western mind has little appreciation for such foreign history and its effects on culture.
I appreciate that they don't like idol worshippers, and the idols they worship, I don't understand them getting upset over someone drawing a picture.
My little screed here can hardly do justice to the depth of emotion. Kinda like saying jews were killed by Nazis. There is much too much more to this then a mere "war". Sorry.
Yes, from idol worshippers and their idols not by someone drawing a picture.
Sorry, I still see someone drawing a picture as something completely different than worshipping a pagan idol and killing Muslims. Also, they don;t seem to upset about depictions of pagan gods, even though it was actually people depicting pagan gods that killed them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2010 1:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by AZPaul3, posted 09-08-2010 12:54 AM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 388 of 406 (580455)
09-09-2010 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by riVeRraT
09-09-2010 7:04 AM


Re: wtf
riVeRraT writes:
I was watching an excerpt from the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf interview on Larry King live, and he said he has spent his whole life promoting peace. Which was refreshing to hear, but then he followed it up by saying that the decisions, and things we say from this point on about this whole Mosque deal can lead to attacks on us? That we can anger certain people over this? We have to be very careful? "our national security now hinges on how we deal with this?"It almost sounded like a threat to me. Like he knew who and what would happen if we didn't support this. Was kind of weird. Sounded like what an abusive husband would say to his wife right before he beats her for leaving him. Maybe Rrhain is right, I am paranoid.
It sounds like (perhaps exagerated) realism to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by riVeRraT, posted 09-09-2010 7:04 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2010 7:22 AM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2316 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 389 of 406 (580456)
09-09-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by Huntard
09-09-2010 7:12 AM


Summation so far...
Anyway,
What I think about this mosque (whihch isn't a mosque)? Build the damn thing. The people wanting to build this don't seem like assholes to me, so there is no reason to be dicks to them.
Anybody that is a dick to them becomes an asshole in my book, which means we can be dicks to them.
As long as people don't realize that their petty little things they hold so dear really aren't, assholes will abound, and it will take some dicks to show them just how silly they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Huntard, posted 09-09-2010 7:12 AM Huntard has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024