|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should wikipedia remove pictures of Muhammad | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
There has been an ongoing issue at wikipedia for a while about the use of images of Muhammad.
Muhammad - Wikipedia You can also see discussion about the matter here: Talk:Muhammad - Wikipedia and here: Talk:Muhammad/images - Wikipedia The matter has now been picked up by the media. Wikipedia - Prophet Muhammad - Internet - The New York Times I'm interested in people's thoughts on this - where does freedom of speech end and how much should it be tempered by respect for others? (I'm thinking coffee shop for this?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I'm interested in people's thoughts on this - where does freedom of speech end and how much should it be tempered by respect for others? It should be tempered exactly to the extent that those running the website choose to temper it. Wikipedia has no obligation to kowtow to the wishes, reasonable or not, of any particular religious group. If muslims don't like the depiction of Muhammad, they shouldn't go to Wikipedia. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
quote:I didn't realize this was such a big deal until now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationista Inactive Junior Member |
The depictions on the site are from Islamic religious documents, as best I can tell. There is no reason to remove them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
NOT!!
That's one of the lamest things I've ever heard of. Is there any good argument for why they should?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
skepticfaith Member (Idle past 5742 days) Posts: 71 From: NY, USA Joined: |
Wikipidia is nothing but a spam site.
I have doublechecked a lot of information and realized most of the 'information' on there is either misleading or plain wrong. And if you actually add something about someone or something, many times they just delete it. Why bother allow people to add anything if they are going to be deleted anything anyway. Better would be to review everything before it is posted. Horrible site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument?
Edited by CK, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument? No, I don't consider that a good argument. Do you? Are they arguing that they should take down everything that offends anyone, or only things that offend muslims? Doesn't the wiki article on the Earth upsets the member of The Flat Earth Society? Should that be censored as well? Can I come up with a religion and then claim that some things offend me and then get those things taken down?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument?
Not at all.I deeply offends me that they give bandwidth to the Invisible pink Unicorn. I seriously dislike that nasty equine miscreant. She had the temerity to disrespect the color purple. Chapter 4, verse 5 of her (not so) holy book states
that two faced IPU writes: 5. Thus came to be such minions of malaise as the Visible Brown Unicorn, and the Purple Oyster of Doom; for it is Her decision that purple is usually a color for shitheads, and yea verily so is brown. The entry on the IPU is a complete affront to those of us of a purple pursuasion and as such it should be removed from Wikipedia. (Just ask PurpleDawn. She agrees with me.) I don't see why the Muslims should get upset at a mre picture. The IPU called me a SHITHEAD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, no, that's demonstrably not true. It would be more accurate to say that wikipedia varies widely in quality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
No, of course they shouldn't take down depictions of Muhammad.
Unless I'm mistaken, the rule about not being allowed to depict Muhammad applies only to Muslims. They overstep their bounds by wanting to force the whole world to abide by their particular religious rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
someone told me that's not true - that the actual prohibition is about living people or animals but over the years they just focus on Mo.
Anyone know for sure?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CK writes: The main argument is that it upsets Muslims and causes offense - do you consider that a "good argument? Most certainly not. It's an example of the typical hypocrisy that we see in all Abrahamic religions, and even considering the question illustrates the special privileges granted to religions. The Islamic scriptures are highly offensive to non-Muslims. Allah has drawn a veil over our eyes so that we don't believe, and then proceeds to blame us by condemning us to eternal torture. What an asshole of a god! But we don't try to ban or censor those idiotic scriptures. But it is the nature of such religions to operate censorship, just as it is in their nature to indoctrinate children, and they require these methods to survive. If Muslims don't want to be offended, they can stop believing in such mumbo jumbo, and start using their brains for thinking instead. Wiki also reproduces the Danish Muhammed cartoons, here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThreeDogs Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 77 From: noli me calcare Joined: |
http://ethnikoi.org/iran.html
Wikipedia nor anyone else in the free world, should not remove pics of mohammed. Everything offends muslims. Everything about muslims offends me. The link I leave with you is just the tip of the iceberg of how offended I am. What you don't know about islam can kill you. Respect is reciprocal, except when it involves muslims, then I am asked to respect, but they don't have to follow suit. They say I have seven intestinal tracts and they have one. That's not true, I have counted mine, and I only have one, too. They say the sun sets in a muddy pool in the west. That's not true, I checked it out personally. They say that satan sleeps up the nose at night and he must be flushed out in the morning. I flushed my nose, but no satan came out. They say that allah does not forgive the passing of gas during prayer. I wouldn't, either. Just imagine it, if you will. Mohammed has left enough information about himself to picture him the maniac/terrorist he was. When you give them the little finger, they will take the whole hand, and I'm disinclined to give my right to freedom of speech just because they are offended. I trust the link will provoke further research on islam.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024