|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
Yeah thought so, just wanted to clear that up.
Yeah, that's a typo. Sorry. Let's try it like this: Some mosques do not allow non-Muslims in. Is that better?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Nice try. That's my point to you. My question is for you to tell us how we make the decision.
If that's your point to me then I guess we agree. I don't see the issue?
You are confusing somebody taking offense with somebody giving offense. They are not the same thing. No, I am well aware of the difference, I just don't care about someone deliberately going out to offend people, that's protected under freedom of speech/expression. I'm totally for that. It's how we react to that that I take issue with, because in the end, no matter what the means were, someone is left offended. Now, if I have to censor myself to not offend someone, then, no matter what it is that I find offensive, even if it's irrational to do so, the other person needs to censor themselves too. Or, better yet, no one is censored, whether they are trying to offend or not, and people's feelings can take a backseat to freedom of speech, expression and, in the case with the mosque, religion.
Who are these "Muslims" you are referring to? Those who would not like to see the image of the prophet on TV, in a cartoon, etc. Those who Comedy Central considered when they pulled the episode. Those who Yale University considered when they originally censored the image from a book about the cartoons.
No, let's not. But people have made that request, why did Comedy Central react the way they did if such a request wasn't made? Or at least implied in the reactions of those who saw the Danish cartoons.
Who is this "we" you're referring to? I'm using the term losely to refer to the media, the US, anyone who doesn't want to offend Muslims.
Strangely, the other side doesn't seem to understand that. They want to be able to piss and moan and ruin everybody's life simply because they can't handle the prospect of not paying attention to something that doesn't affect them. But you won't see them "...set fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City." --- The reaction to some cartoons. To this day the cartoonist still gets death threats, and recently police shot a man in his house attempting to assassinate him. Both sides tend to act like a bunch of bitches when they don't get their way, or react irrationally. I get your point, though, and for the most part I agree with it. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Am I not capable of making decisions on each incident as to whether or not that specific incident is reasonable or not? Yes...? What's your point and in reference to what that I said? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You said "Well that is the whole point of what I'm saying, and why I gave the South Park example. Either everyone's feelings are taken into account or no one's feelings are taken into account. "
I am asking "Why?" Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Oh, so you didn't do any homework to allow yourself to be knowledgeable about the subject before you opened your yap. If you followed the debate, you'd notice some posts back that I said this was my friends position. I thought I'd throw it in the thread, and try my best to defend his position, to see where he was making his mistakes. So next time read the thread in its entirety before you open your yap.
Would it surprise you to learn that the majority of people who actually live in New York City and thus would actually be affected by it support the building of the center? No, but it would surprise me if you had the evidence to support that assertion. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I am asking "Why?" Because, I would think it shows favoritism to the feelings of any one side -vs- the other. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And where is the problem with that?
Each incident should be examined based on the facts of that incident. Let's look at the two examples you present up thread, the building of the civic center versus placing a billboard across the street. In the former, people getting offended is not related to the object or purpose of the construction. The purpose is to create community resources in a currently vacant property. In the later, the purpose is to annoy and offend. Why should those two actions be judged as corresponding or equivalent? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
onifre writes:
I really don't see the relevance.Those who Comedy Central considered when they pulled the episode. The folk at Comedy Central got to choose whether to show that episode.The folk proposing the Islamic cultural center in New York get to decide whether to build their cultural center. That freedom of choice is what America is all about. So now we see a ridiculous hullabaloo, with politicians fanning the flames of racism, bigotry and hatred, all for totally political reasons. They are using mob psychology in very dangerous way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
In the later, the purpose is to annoy and offend. Why should those two actions be judged as corresponding or equivalent?
Because they are both protected under the Constitution. The issue is, if I purposely try to offend Muslims, I may not be allowed to because I am purposely trying to offend Muslims - (Here's here I agree with Huntard in that, we do so because we are scared of their reaction). However, if I purposely try to offend Christians, most of the time, not much will be done. Originally, Comedy Central didn't allow Matt and Trey to draw an image of the prophet. In the same episode, just to expose the hypocrisy, Matt and Trey showed Jesus taking a shit on Bush and the flag. That's bullshit, to allow one an not the other. Either we can offend everyone equally or we can't. The issue is, are Muslims trying to offend with the mosque/civic center? But that's only an issue to those who care. I don't care whther they are or not. Some people see it that way, they are offended. Wrongfully so, but offended none the less. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Oni writes: Those who Comedy Central considered when they pulled the episode.
nwr writes: I really don't see the relevance. Rrhain asked me who were those considered. CC did pull the episode from their normal tv, you can see it on the website though. They considered someone's feelings. Comedy Central said they considered the feelings of Muslims who would get offended. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The issue is, if I purposely try to offend Muslims, I may not be allowed to because I am purposely trying to offend Muslims - (Here's here I agree with Huntard in that, we do so because we are scared of their reaction). I'm sorry but the evidence does not support that. Have you seen the signs being carried in the demonstrations or read all the copy published about the demonstrations or listened to the rhetoric of the demonstrators? They are being allowed to show and say very offensive things. Edited by jar, : lft aff the why in they Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
onifre writes:
It is more likely that they felt the heat coming from cable TV operators who were afraid of a negative reaction from their viewers.Comedy Central said they considered the feelings of Muslims who would get offended. Edited by nwr, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The are being allowed to show and say very offensive things. That's true, in this case they have. The news does show it when it is part of a protest or something along those lines. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
It is more likely that they felt the heat coming from cable TV operators who were afraid of a negative reaction from their viewers. But not from thier Buddhist veiwers. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
I'm sorry but the evidence does not support that. Have you seen the signs being carried in the demonstrations or read all the copy published about the demonstrations or listened to the rhetoric of the demonstrators? The are being allowed to show and say very offensive things. The difference is in who's doing the allowing. The government has no ability to block offensiveness like showing an image of a prophet or a protest sign until the expression of speech crosses the line into inciting violence or other such issues.
Comedy Central is under no obligation to air the offensive speech of their writers. They're even free to hold a double-standard, blocking images of Mohammad while showing offensive images of Jesus or other religious figures. Comedy Central became a poor supporter of free speech by censoring images and themes that it has otherwise allowed (and made fantastic profits from) based solely on the specific group that would be offended. I agree with oni that there is something very wrong about saying "it's okay to poke fun at a, b, and c, but hands off of d, treat them with total respect." Either all of it's okay, or none of it is...but Comedy Central is under no legal obligation to agree. For media outlets like Comedy Central or CNN, censorship is less about free speech or Constitutional rights and more about ratings and publicity and concerns about the safety of their employees.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024