|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cartoons and common sense | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
It's quite a stirring sentiment, but there's definitely something a bit 'extreme' about it. Few Westerners like to question the sanctity of freedom-of-speech, and it takes a truly brave person to explicitly state where they draw the line that divides acceptable and unacceptable speech. Rather than defending these cartoons to the death, maybe those in the position to appease the Muslims should do just that (by whatever means), for the sake of peace. We do draw a line, between what is acceptible and what isn't - if it doesn't harm the person it is acceptible, in the case of the muslams, why should one of the greatest freedoms of our age be censored because people don't like it?i figure the only reason they would do so is because some muslams are willing to kill others for violating laws, the other person doesn't follow the line isn't about what is acceptable but what is reasonable to censor for sake of someones feelings, and that isn't what freedom of speach is about
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
IANAT
In Islam, religious duty is first priority, and that is why your brand of democracy and its undiciplined free speech will not work. All well and good if religious duty is something you enjoy, however, for a person such as myself {an atheist} I have no such compulsion as I find it lifeless and dry. This is not to say however that I cannot appreciate the beliefs of others, it means only that I have no wish to participate. Democracy suits me just fine.
As Mr. Holmes has stated, there are different viewpoints. There can be peace without imposing one culture's view on another country. This is most certainly true. However, the issue surrounding this topic of mine concerns those people who are rioting around the world over a cartoon! They are ,in my view, imposing their cultural norms upon those who do not have to live in that culture. Death threats and bombings and riots are not the acts of people concerned with culture either IMHO. The person who wrote the cartoon is living in a society where he is permitted to portray anyone he wishes to in expressing his opinion. If the rioters have a problem with that then they are free to choose that their representatives in government banish such media from their country.After all, the free elections are what allow the people a voice to do just that. Could it be that the majority of those in these countries do not have a problem with it? If.however, they do have a problem with it then why have they not implemented steps to prevent it? In any case, it is a lame excuse to incite violence.
Many western leaders agree that America should not have invaded Iraq. That means a mistake was made. If America can make mistakes, then why should it have nuclear weapons? You might make another mistake and bring the world to war.And why, if different viewpoints are acceptable, should you prohibit middle eastern countries to have those weapons? Your countries are imposing your worst fears on others, or just being a bully. If nuclear standoff was OK with Soviets, then why wouldn't that also work with all countries? Developing a nuclear weapon is inevitable in Iran and other middle east countries. Why fight it? Why not learn how to form a diplomatic approach?
Irrelevant to the topic here my friend.Firstly the nation where this cartoon originated was not the US. We are not discussing the war on Iraq though you are free to start a debate within the auspices of this forum. I would gladly discuss such an issue with you.
My Texas residence is a business situation. You seem to assume citizen status. I help get oil to your continent from the middle east. That business brings wealth, so I am pleased with the situation. I travel in this arrangement for contract reasons. Since China and India are booming, the barrel must be split among market forces. I do not say too much, because I do not want to risk trouble with your government or my business ties. I know that my foreigh phone calls and email are probably monitored. But I have no subversive ties. Fair enough as your business is indeed your own affair.
{Fixed a quote box, and added some blank lines between paragraphs while I was at it. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-10-2006 03:20 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Could you be clearer about which question you believe he's asked that I haven't answered? I have absolutely no idea which question he was referring to. I was just giving him a guideline if he felt questions were not being answered. I then added that from what I read of his posts he seemed to be making sense. That is I feel the thrust of his argument is correct, not that he was right that his questions are going unanswered. I'm not going to go back and read through to find out what question he wants answered. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Observations of these protestors, to the extent that observations via the media are accurate. I accept that they may not be but that doesn't appear to be the topic of discussion. I have specifically challenged the notion that "observations via the media", specifically yours, are accurate so as to make such an extrapolation. If you don't want to deal with that topic then fine, but it seems rather important to me when making such statements, and a challenge has been raised.
That which the majority seems to support, either by active acclaim or passive approval.
The majority of the nation where a demonstration is in, across the region, or of the demonstrators? I was pointing out that the demonstrations were not large in comparison to population, particularly those sections resorting to violence. The majority of CA or the US did not get up and try to stop the LA riots, that does not mean the majority of the US agreed with their sentiments and actions. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I'm pretty sure you could take just about any type of imagery and find some group that is offended by it. I mean where do you draw the line? (although obviously, some lines have been drawn since we don't see rape cartoons)... It's an interesting and I think relevant subject
No quibble about that! I agree. What I was stating is that when one intentionally acts to mock a belief system with known extremist and violent extremist faction, one can't claim "innocence" at what is to follow, and "ignorance" that things like death threats will follow. Lines do get drawn by societies (even if I disagree with that), and intriguingly the question is answered in Danish law. One is not supposed to ridicule religious dogma or disseminate insults to people because of their religion. That kind of law is in a number of European nations. That the case was dropped by Denmark seems a bit biased treatment. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
We do draw a line, between what is acceptible and what isn't - if it doesn't harm the person it is acceptible
That isn't true at all. We have moral proscriptions to speech just the same. It is mainly related to sexual, scatological, profane, and commercial speech. None of those harm anybody. And to be clear that is within the US, European nations may allow greater instances of sexual communication (though not necessarily in open newspapers) yet less instances of religious satire.
in the case of the muslams, why should one of the greatest freedoms of our age be censored because people don't like it?
Personally I am for totally free communication, and think muslims should not buy the paper or boycott things associated with the paper, or take the total high road and let it slide and show they can act better than an ignorant danish editor with little regard for people. However what "great freedom" are you talking about? In Denmark speech which mocks the dogma of other religions and dissemination of insults to others based on religion are against the law. They really do try and balance freedom of speech with responsible (nonprovocative or denigrating) speech. Danish muslims protested peacefully and filed a legal suit. It was dismissed for no credible reason given the clear language in the law. Intriguingly in the Netherlands a jewish group is filing the same type of suit against the maker/distributor of a cartoon within this thread (which crash posted). It'll be interesting to see what kind of headway it makes compared to legal challenges against anti Islamic imagery. The irony is that the jewish group said it was going to show muslims a lesson in how to properly address such communication... but they had and it was denied, thus part of the escalation. And as I noted within the Netherlands there was even a "banning" of some satire against the PM. According to the court certain kinds of satire are not allowed against public officials. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
When a rally or protest is called it is billed/advertised as an "anti war" rally or a "kill bush rally" Billed or advertised where? A fold-out in the New York Times? I've never seen that to be the case. I've never heard of a protest or rally where there was any way to tell what it was for, for people who weren't participating in it, besides the observation of what message the rally is promoting.
Now we have progress indeed. so you admit that not everyone in a rally may share the hardline sentiments of a few? this is a very different stance to your earlier posts where you infer: Again, you're misrepresenting me. Those were not inferences, but questions I put to you. Questions that you did not answer. Care to try again?
'control the majority', maybe, but to fool the public vieing on the 6 O clock news it appears all you have to do is have a few misrepresentative signs. We're not talking about media misrepresentation. That happens, but it's not the subject of the thread. Assume I'm not watching this on the news but standing right there looking at them.
Every year WTO protests are ruined by a combination of a militant few, and heavy handed police. you seem happy to assume that everyone at these protests is therefore a hardline militant. I would say that if you keep going back, with the understanding that its going to turn into a riot, then you're going because you want to be part of a riot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Billed or advertised where? A fold-out in the New York Times? I've never seen that to be the case. I've never heard of a protest or rally where there was any way to tell what it was for, for people who weren't participating in it, besides the observation of what message the rally is promoting.
Most rallies, especially large ones, are planned by someone and promoted by someone. There are usually fliers or posters and yes there can even be newspaper advertisements. If you come when one is underway then I guess one might be confused as to what it is about, but usually people coming to a demonstration know what it is about beforehand. Truly I am baffled by your concept How do you think all those signs get made before it starts? Where does the material come from?
I would say that if you keep going back, with the understanding that its going to turn into a riot, then you're going because you want to be part of a riot. That is true. But how many go hoping it will NOT turn into a riot and that all those idiots who are going to start one don't show up? Usually demonstrations don't get organized and advertised as "riots to follow". holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Good morning crashfrog.
Protests and or rallies are often advertised by means of flyers, or sometimes even an ad in a relevant publication. sometimes even tv and radio publicity can alert you to an event happening.
crashfrog writes:
A misunderstanding maybe, but from what I read you seemed to be suggesting that is was reasonable to reach a conclusion on the nature of the protest based on a cursory look. (Your photo for example) Questions that you did not answer. Care to try again? if it was a question... my answer is NO, I do not feel it is reasonable to conclude this. you are making conclusion based upon incomplete evidence. (i.e. seeing some hardliners attending a protest and thus assuming that everyone attending that protest agrees with their hardline stance)(that's twice I've answered your questions when asked... care to do the same?) I'll try again for the 5th (or is it 6th?) time now... creavolution writes:
unless you answer the questions I have asked of you several times now there is no point in continuing this.
If I go to an anti war protest, I have a 'stop war' placard and someone else has a 'Kill bush' placard, does this mean that I support the assassination of a president?should I then go home because someone else in that crowd of 100,000 people has a differeing view on how to stop the war? thereby giving them even more visibility? crashfrog writes: I would say that if you keep going back, with the understanding that its going to turn into a riot, then you're going because you want to be part of a riot. that is possible and I don't dispute that there are elements who are there only for the violence, but it is also possible that you would keep going back to ensure that your peaceful message gets out, the the world sees (if they choose to) that not eveyone at this protest is a hooligan, that there is a real, valid, peaceful message that people are trying to get across.otherwise what are you doing? letting the hooligans take over completely, and getting in the news for all the wrong reasons. It's seems we disagree on these issues, This message has been edited by Creavolution, 02-10-2006 11:19 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Qutb Sayyid - Milestones i had to read this book for my political islam class a few years back. i've taken two classes on the subject and they had different approaches. this particular class was an analysis of islamic belief and shar'ia law. i really should probably give it another read, but i've never in my life thrown a book i was reading across the room. except this one. it's full of malice. it really, really is. even my muslim professors are afraid of it. wahhabism is one of few sects that proclaims that if you aren't a wahhabist that you aren't muslim enough. that's a very scary proposition and one that's distasteful to muslims. i have a muslim cousin. i have a muslim friend. i dig ramadan. it's awesome. you exercise fasting and then most families get together after dusk to break fast with awesome parties. it's hot. i love math. muslims like invented algebra and zero or something. muslims have a long history of tolerance. but everyone gets mussed up sometimes. and wahhabism is a mussing. it's really all that bad. read some. read from the source. btw. i also had to read this book Hamid Algar - Wahhabism: a Critical Essay for that class. it's an islamic perspective on the dangers of wahhabism. really, really. wahhabism is the source of islamic terrorism. now i'm sure that wahhabists love their children and give to the poor and shit the same way i do. but the philosophy is very dangerous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
crashfrog writes: Is the constant name-calling Are you going to show everyone where I have been constantly calling you names? or are you going to withdraw that particular accusation? as you're so keen on quoting the rules... Rule Number 8:Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Truly I am baffled by your concept How do you think all those signs get made before it starts? Where does the material come from? I'm baffled that you think it would be obvious to identify which person did all this simply by observing the end product of their effort. I posted a picture of a protest. Can you tell me just by looking who it was that organized it? No? You don't seem to understand the context here. I'm not talking about the people who are participating, but the people who are observing. Presumably the people who are participating have a greater or lesser idea of what the protest is about. The people who are watching have no recourse but to discern the point of the protest from the message being put forth by the protest.
But how many go hoping it will NOT turn into a riot and that all those idiots who are going to start one don't show up? As CE pointed out, this has happened at every recent WTO rally. At this point simple induction indicates that the next one is going to be a riot unless stronger measures are taken to prevent that from happening. The responsibility for doing that rests on the organizers of the protest. If they abdicate that responsibility then it's clear to me that they're offering their tacit approval for riots.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
A misunderstanding maybe, but from what I read you seemed to be suggesting that is was reasonable to reach a conclusion on the nature of the protest based on a cursory look. I don't remember specifying "cursory", presumably one should observe for as long as is needed to arrive at a confident conclusion of the point of the protest.
unless you answer the questions I have asked of you several times now there is no point in continuing this. I did answer your questions, several times in fact. I pointed out that you've framed your question by assuming your answer. I, an observer outside the protest, have no knowledge of whether it's an "anti-war" protest or a "kill Bush" protest except the content of the message that the protest is sending. I wasn't privy to communications from the organizer. I don't even know who that person is. And if I see you at a "kill Bush" protest, then yes, I must conclude that you support the assassination of a President. If you don't then you sort of have a responsibility not to protest in support of a message you don't agree with. It's the same as if you opened your mouth and told me you wanted to kill the President. You might be lying, or kidding, or temporarily crazy, but why should I conclude any of those things? Why shouldn't I simply take you at your word? If I see you at a protest, and I see signs indicating "anti-war", and signs indicating "kill Bush", then I have to assume that both of these messages are the point of the protest.
that is possible and I don't dispute that there are elements who are there only for the violence, but it is also possible that you would keep going back to ensure that your peaceful message gets out, the the world sees (if they choose to) that not eveyone at this protest is a hooligan If it turns into a riot and you stay, then you are a hooligan, because you're participating in a riot. I mean it's pretty simple to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
crashfrog writes: I did answer your questions, Please show me where you answered these questions...they require a simple yes or no answer, they are the basis for my argument creavolution writes: If I go to an anti war protest, I have a 'stop war' placard and someone else has a 'Kill bush' placard, does this mean that I support the assassination of a president?should I then go home because someone else in that crowd of 100,000 people has a differeing view on how to stop the war? thereby giving them even more visibility? crashfrog writes:
perhaps then you should refrain from making glib assumtions as to the intentions of the protestors based on a what could simply be hardline minority?
I wasn't privy to communications from the organizer. I don't even know who that person is.
crashfrog writes:
so what makes you reach the conclusion that it is a "kill bush protest?" some tv footage of some people with some signs? what about the other hundreds or thousands of people with different signs? why do you not let them influence your decision?
And if I see you at a "kill Bush" protest crashfrog writes:
ok... I think you are in error, I think you should read a little more into the situation before making this assumption. this is where we disagree.
If I see you at a protest, and I see signs indicating "anti-war", and signs indicating "kill Bush", then I have to assume that both of these messages are the point of the protest. crashfrog writes:
apparently so.
I mean it's pretty simple to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
they require a simple yes or no answer, they are the basis for my argument But they don't. The answer your questions require, if you wish me to be truthful, is more than just "yes" or "no." (I guess, if you like, the answer is "yes." You do support the assasination of Bush if you chose to go to a "kill Bush" rally.)
perhaps then you should refrain from making glib assumtions as to the intentions of the protestors based on a what could simply be hardline minority? So, that was your answer to my little quiz? That, given a protest right in front of me, I'm just supposed to conclude that it's a crowd of random people who agree on absolutely nothing? Does that really seem reasonable to you? And if that's what we're supposed to conclude, why does anybody go to protests?
so what makes you reach the conclusion that it is a "kill bush protest?" I've already told you what indicates to me what kind of protest I'm looking at. If the message of the protest is "kill Bush", it's a kill Bush protest. QED.
ok... I think you are in error, I think you should read a little more into the situation before making this assumption. How much more? That's what I've been asking you. Other than the message of the protest, what sources of information are avaliable to me? You've referred to the organisers of the protest, but that information is not avaliable to me. I don't know who the organizer is so I can't ask them. Even if I did know, they may not be avaliable to speak with me. They may be at the protest, but one of many thousands, and unable to be reached by me within a reasonable amount of time. So, the intent of the organizers is all but irrelevant to me, standing there on the street. What other source of information is avaliable to me except for the message of the protest itself? Trust me, I'm very sensitive to the idea that what I'm looking at is an innocuous anti-war protest invaded by some crazy people who want to kill Bush. But the other possibility is equally likely - I'm looking at a protest of people who want to kill Bush that has been invaded by the anti-war element. You've given me nothing to distinguish between those two possibilities; nothing, that is, that don't rely on information I can't reasonably obtain. The responsibility is yours, at a protest, to be sure that the protest is one you want to be part of. If the message of the protest changes its your responsibility to evaluate whether or not you support the new message. It's the adult thing to do. Expecting observers to read your mind is childish.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024