Cartoons and common sense

Ok, fair enough. Since you're not going to answer my question, and you clearly formulate your morals in a different way than I do in regards to what responsibilities a person has to their community, then I guess there's not much else to talk about.

Your own culture has mocked Mohammed for centuries. Mohammed himself even pardoned a poet who had satirized him for decades. What was the prior indication that this would "inflame" Muslims? Inflame extremeists, sure, but who cares about them? They look for excuses to be inflamed.

If I felt there was any possibility that you would respond to a query about a hypothetical situation with a requirement that a non-hypothetical situation be specified, I might.As it is you've made it clear you have no plans to do anything but evade the question. Fair enough. You ask a lot of questions, most rhetorical, that often have nothing to do with my argument.If you feel there's a specific question you'd like me to address, in the future I would suggest that you not bury it in the middle of one of your enormous missives.

So, that's reasonable to you? That a large crows would organize and come together and take joint action because they have nothing at all in common?Let's put that to the test. Here's such a crowd:What's the most reasonable response to this situation?1) Huh, that's funny. Here's a crowd of people that have absolutely nothing in common. There's absolutely no reason that they should all be here at once - it's just coincidence - and we couldn't possibly assume that any two of them will agree, even slightly, on any concievable topic.2) Here's a crowd of people with absolutely nothing in common, and also a crowd of people with signs. We can conclude, I guess, that the people with signs each support the message on their sign, presumably, but we shouldn't conclude that they have anything in common with the other people with signs. And nobody without a sign should be presumed to have any position on anything.3) Here's a protest about several issues. By definition, therefore, we can presume that a person voluntarily at this protest shares the positions of the crowd to one degree or another.Like I said, you tell me which is more reasonable. Make sure you show your work. Do you think you could cool the rhetoric a bit? I'll remind you of the forum guidelines:

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

​

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.

​

-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Agreed. The question you keep avoiding is, how do we, outside the rally, determine what that commonly-held belief is?Just stop the bloviating and answer the question. It's not a difficult one but it's at the very heart of the issue.

Oh, none at all. I don't extrapolate what it's like in the Middle East from the actions of these protestors, except for the protestors who are from and located in the Middle east.I extrapolate the views of Muslims in the middle east from the stated views of Muslims in the middle east. Seems pretty simple, to me.

Progress. How should I determine who called the rally? Or what if the rally was spontaneous? Absolutely incorrect. You've railed about strawmen; how surprising now to find you knocking down one of your own.The point is that we determine what a rally is about based on what message the rally is putting out. That's what rallies and protests are for; message propagation. All one has to do is observe the message that is being explicitly sent. In the case of the protests in question, that's not only a message of "we're offended by these cartoons", but also "we're going to commit acts of violence" and "we hate Jews."Despite the fact that the majority of the protestors may not share those last two messages (a point that has yet to be established, however), those messages are certainly being sent from within the protest. That makes them as much a legitimate part of that protest as any of the other messages; trying to argue otherwise puts you in the ridiculous position of claiming to be able to scan the minds of the multitude and figure out exactly what messages they approve of and which they don't. I think I've made it pretty clear that I can't accept this. People can't be "hijacked" into rioting. People who don't want to riot leave and go home so that they don't become part of a riot. Everybody who stays stays because they want to join the riot. Let me remind you of the forum guidelines a second time:

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

​

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.

​

-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

I don't find your attitude "coolly academic".

I thought I did answer it. No, I can't accept that a minority of militants have somehow "hijacked" an otherwise totally unobjectionable protest.I'm sorry but I don't know how to be any clearer than that. Is the constant name-calling? Need I remind you of the forum rules a third time?

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. That which the majority seems to support, either by active acclaim or passive approval.

Could you be clearer about which question you believe he's asked that I haven't answered?

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. 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? 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.) 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? 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. 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.

I never said they weren't advertised in advance. My implication was that they aren't widely advertised in advance; usually, they're advertised specificaly to the people who wish to attend, and the people they wish to have cover the event.The event itself is the advertising of their message to the public at large. That's why they make the signs, etc. To advertise the message to the people who observe the protest. Take it up with CE. That's what I understood him to be claiming.