Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,473 Year: 3,730/9,624 Month: 601/974 Week: 214/276 Day: 54/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should wikipedia remove pictures of Muhammad
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 22 of 38 (454254)
02-06-2008 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by skepticfaith
02-06-2008 1:18 AM


Re: Wikeipidia is a joke
Hi SF,
I don't wan to get sidetracked onto a general discussion of Wikipedia, suffice to say that I think it is an excellent resource, so long as you don't treat it as gospel; Encyclopedia should be the start of your investigations, not the last word.
As for Muhammad, I see no reason why the images should be censored. Wikipedia is not a Muslim site. It isn't run for the benefit of an exclusively Muslim audience. Those images are of historical interest to many and I see no reason why one religious group should be able to suppress them.
quote:
Yes, They SHOULD remove pictures that offend those of a mainstream religion.
So it's OK to upset people from minority faiths? Either this kind of censorship is right, or it is wrong. The number of worshipers is not really relevant.
quote:
Wikipedia is not a celebration of free speech
Nor is it a celebration of Islamic values. See Neutral Point of View
quote:
they do not allow anyone to say anything about anyone.
No, it has to follow the guidelines. The Muhammad images most certainly do this. See Wiki in Brief
quote:
They are very restrictive on what they allow-they have even removed content that was informative and correct.
They do remove articles that are correct if they are not noteworthy. These pictures are noteworthy. On what basis do you consider that the images breach Wiki guidelines?
quote:
If you want to talk free speech - THEN ANY speech should be allowed including so called hate speech! I cant stand people who think that what they consider offensive should be censored.
In which case it is truly mystifying that you think the pictures should be binned because they offend someone; double standard at all? I agree with you that people should be allowed to speak their mind, without fear of being censored just because someone doesn't like what they have to say. That is why this wiki page on Freedom of Speech contains an appallingly offensive picture of one of the Phelps clan, with one of their charmless posters. It offends me, but I don't object to it being there. The poster is most certainly "hate speech", but it isn't part of the text of the article. Posting hate speech as part of the text would most certainly be a breech of Wikipedia's neutrality.
In summation, why should Wikipedia censor itself according to the diktats of Muslims? Should Islamic websites operate according to the principles of Wikipedia? Or should everyone be allowed to exercise their right to free speech and free expression?
PS - I notice that in Message 20 you name the prophet without adding the phrase "Peace Be Upon Him" after his name. Should you be allowed to offend Muslims in this way?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by skepticfaith, posted 02-06-2008 1:18 AM skepticfaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by skepticfaith, posted 02-06-2008 3:25 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 31 of 38 (454625)
02-07-2008 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ThreeDogs
02-07-2008 9:52 AM


Three Dogs writes:
Even your friendly neighborhood muslim is subject to the koran. If he has detached himself from it, he is no longer muslim. If he is subject to the koran, he will do as the koran tells him do. That's broad, because it includes all muslims.
So you start by implying that all Muslims are dangerous zealots, and then, when it is demonstrated to you what a steaming pile of crap this is, you claim that those Muslims who don't fit your definition are "not real Muslims". What arrogant nonsense. What makes your presumption in judging who is and who is not Muslim so offensive, is that this idea, that it is possible to judge who is a "real Muslim" and who is not, is the very same idea that Muslim extremists use to justify terrorist atrocities.
Muslim terrorists know that they may kill or injure other Muslims when they engage in bombings and other acts of indiscriminate violence. The Koran forbids this. The zealots square this circle by claiming that Muslims living in the west are corrupt, tainted by the decadence of Western living, and so they are "not real Muslims". Thus, it is acceptable to kill them.
So you see, you are keeping rather bad company when you indulge in this sort of thinking. Why not let Muslims decide for themselves what their faith is, whilst you concentrate on your own beliefs, or lack thereof.
As for what the Koran says, I agree that it contains much that is intolerant and offensive. Much of its content is objectionable. About the same amount as the Bible in fact. Fortunately, most regular people have the good sense to ignore the more rabid sections from their holy book of choice, which is good news, or we'd be knee-deep in stonings and witch-burnings.
Where I live, I have thousands of Muslim neighbors and, they are just as good or bad to live with as any other of the many ethnic and religious groups here. In fact, my area has become a lot safer to walk around at night since the number of Muslims went up. Islam has many great flaws and I am extremely hostile towards it, but I have no problem with Muslims. Your depiction of Muslims is a pathetic racist delusion, doubtless fostered by your not having met very many of them.
Three Dogs writes:
When paganism is practiced in any so-called Christian religion, members of said religions are not Christian. JWs and LDSs are not Christian.
Ignorant rubbish. Have you even heard of the Nicene Creed? Jehovah's Witnesses are literal Bible believers and are most certainly Christian. Perhaps you would like to point out which bit of the Nicene Creed, that basic statement of Christian faith they disagree with?
With Mormons there is room to argue either way, but considering that they follow what they consider to be the teachings of Christ, who are you to say they are not Christian? Why not let them call themselves whatever the hell they like? Anyway, you have not answered Nator's question. How would you like it if all Christians were depicted as though they held the way out beliefs of the Mormons? Saying "Mormons aren't Christians" is no use, because as I have explained, plenty of other intolerant bigots on the Muslim side don't consider other varieties of Muslim to be "real" either.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added some blank lines between paragraphs.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-07-2008 9:52 AM ThreeDogs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-08-2008 9:58 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 33 of 38 (454737)
02-08-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ThreeDogs
02-08-2008 9:58 AM


Re: Granmaw, you do protest too much
Here is a small sample for you, from the koran, about killing the infidel...{Various unpleasant Koranic quotes follow}
Do you really imagine that I am ignorant of the unquestioned fact that the Koran contains vile and offensive crap? Of course I know that. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, a moronic and childish attitude.
The point is that most Muslims have the common sense to ignore those passages, mostly because there is an expectation amongst Muslims to respect the laws of the land in which they live.
You ignored my point regarding the equally sick and offensive portions of the Bible. Do you suppose that all Christians are dangerous maniacs? Because the Christian holy book is chock full of incitements to dreadful acts.
I don't imply, I KNOW all muslims are subject to the koran, those who remove themselves from the koran, are no longer muslims and subject to death. Get going granmaw; inform yourself.
That is one interpretation yes. The fact is that there are plenty of other interpretations of the Koran within Islam. Which variety of Islam do you happen to hold up as being the one true Islam? Sunni? Sufi? You are trying to paint millions of people as being zealous fanatical murderers, and when it is pointed out that most Muslims are not like that, you just say that they are not real Muslims. Ridiculous. If in your tiny mind, the only real Muslim is a member of Al Qaida, I suggest that you go and join them, because you seem to have a lot in common. You both think that any Muslim who is not a killer is not a real Muslim.
What terminology should we use to describe the millions of Muslims who are not murderous loonies? Fortunately, it is not u to you to decide who is a "real Muslim" and who is not. That kind of thinking is the preserve of lunatic religious fanatics. Is a person who does not believe the entirety of the Bible not a "real Christian"?
As I said before, there are thousands of Muslims where I live. Do you suppose that they are all out slaughtering the unbeliever? Of course not. What the Koran says is just as irrelevant to the every day lives of Muslims as the ravings of the Old testament are to modern Christians.
So far as LDS and JWs are concerned? I really don't care what opinion you hold about them.
Then why are you posting on a debate board? The only parts of this board that is not composed of the opinions of others are the posts you write yourself. If you don't care what other people think, why don't you just sit at home, typing your mental-masturbatory drivel to yourself.
Hey, granmaw, you never did tell me what you think of the saqqara bird.
That is because I actually have better things to do than pander to childish bullshit. However, if you insist...
Saqqara birds were irrelevant to the thread in which you first mentioned them and they are irrelevant to this one too. The only reason you brought them up was to try and appear clever and interesting, a sadly doomed ambition. What exactly do you expect to achieve by quoting obscure and irrelevant facts? We can all play at that game you know. You will find that almost every member on this board will be able to mention obscure facts, about which you know nothing. I personally find Flammulina velutipes fascinating. Off you trot and look it up. Of course it has nothing to do with anything that we are talking about; the same as your saqqara birds. Please don't continue with this pathetic and childish troll behaviour. All it achieves is to make you look like an idiot.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-08-2008 9:58 AM ThreeDogs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-11-2008 9:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 37 of 38 (455261)
02-11-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ThreeDogs
02-11-2008 9:35 AM


Re: Granmaw, I didn't read your stuff
If you can't be bothered to read what others say, I shall extend you the same lack of courtesy in future and ignore you.
There seem to be a lot of them about at the moment, so please don't feed the trolls.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-11-2008 9:35 AM ThreeDogs 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