Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cartoons and common sense
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 4 of 259 (284090)
02-05-2006 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
02-05-2006 2:08 AM


I agree with your basic sentiment. It does seem a little bit overblown. And in free societies with free press someone is going to say something that someone else doesn't like. The MidEast Islamic community certainly didn't seem to mind producing images we do not like seeing (burning flags and dummies, and in some cases real people).
However:
1) As a correction it is not that they believe a negative cartoon image might end up being revered as an idol. He's not supposed to made an image of at all, both for that reason as well as to be made fun of. If you've seen some of the signs they've been holding, it states that insulting mohammed is insulting to them.
2) This is not inherent to islam. Perhaps you do not remember Last Temptation of Christ by Scorcese. There were the same protests and threats of violence. To see the movie I had to move through a large throng of rabid Xians, and with the open threat of bombing or shooting. I can't remember, but I believe one theater was actually bombed. And this wasn't even an intentionally demeaning portrayal of Christ. He was just shown to be something other than Rambo-Christ.
3) This is not inherent to the religious. Generally mentioning anything which is taboo, especially if one is demeaning to a popular "idol", will result in a backlash. Even the Far Side cartoon picturing Jane Goodall resulted in some scientist types to get their panties in a twist until Goodall came out in support of the cartoon. Heck, we have laws against certain images being shown in open newspaper formats (including cartoons), which means society simply slaps people in jail without mobs having to rise up to do it.
I agree anyone rising up against cartoons or other forms of speech and imagery seem to be lacking some commonsense, perspective, and an interest in free speech. Its just that the blame hits every community I know of.
By the way you do know the US govt has sort of come out in support of the demonstrators, essentially criticizing media that publish such imagery. I think its a shame that leaders (all over the place) aren't helping play this down.
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-05-2006 01:02 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 02-05-2006 2:08 AM sidelined has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 259 (284095)
02-05-2006 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
02-05-2006 2:08 AM


In case you were not aware, I decided to get some info on Last Temptation of Christ to compare. From this article on the movie...
Martin Scorsese's 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ was based on Nikos Kazantzakis' 1955 novel in which Jesus appears as a tormented, fearful young man confused by sex and uncertain of his path in life. The film was condemned by virtually every Christian denomination, both here and abroad, was protested, picketed, subject to boycotts and bomb threats, and excluded from the titles carried by the huge Blockbuster Video chain.
Joseph Reilly of Morality in Media described the film as "an intentional attack on Christianity," and James Dobson of Focus on the Family warned ominously, "God is not mocked." In Hollywood vs. America, a classic account of the depredations Hollywood has visited on America since the 1960s, Michael Medved described The Last Temptation of Christ as rising from the "urge to assault the cherished recollections of even universally esteemed figures in our culture." Medved compares the film to King David (1985), the only other recent Hollywood film to treat biblical material, in which David is shown as "thoroughly embittered and disillusioned at the end of his life."
Same shit, different day/culture.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 02-05-2006 2:08 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 02-05-2006 10:42 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 259 (284128)
02-05-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
02-05-2006 10:42 AM


Re: The last temptation of Christ
Being condemned by nearly every Christian denomination, by no means equates as most Christians. For even if one of each denomination condemned it, you could still say, "The film was condemned by virtually every Christian denomination".
My point remains however. It is most certainly true that not all muslims are upset or demonstrating about the cartoons. A segment is and they are violent about it, just like the Xians regarding LTOC.
As an aside I disliked that movie. I almost wanted to punch out a protester afterwards. If they hadn't made such a big deal about it, it's likely I wouldn't have gone to see it at the theatre.
This is not to say you are wrong for liking it, its simply aesthetic differences. I honestly like movies like BenHur and some images I have seen from Gibson's Passion seem interesting (though I must reserve judgement till I see it).

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 02-05-2006 10:42 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mike the wiz, posted 02-06-2006 7:51 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 259 (284180)
02-05-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mark24
02-05-2006 3:21 PM


Re: Muslim reaction
The very reason the satirical cartoons were made in the first place is because this is how they act.
Uhmmm... as I pointed out, this occurs in any community. Thus its sort of silly to pick them out as being something special.
I think it was factually incorrect to project mohammed as supportive of terrorism. And while those overreacting now might well have been the target of the satirical cartoons, I think its safe to say that not all of the people who might be upset are not protesting and all those protesting may not be terrorists.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 02-05-2006 3:21 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Parasomnium, posted 02-05-2006 4:42 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 02-05-2006 4:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 34 of 259 (284314)
02-06-2006 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Parasomnium
02-05-2006 4:42 PM


Re: Muslim reaction
They pick themselves out as something special. Their prophet is better than anyone else, their laws should be everyone's laws, their truth is the only truth. I've heard people in the street shout these things at the top of their lungs. Now who's being silly here?
I saw your later reply to modulous so I am keeping that in mind as well. My point is that practically every group thinks they are special and react badly, sometimes violently, to depictions that are offensive or taboo according to their worldview.
Your position seems to be that muslims seem more scary in their protests. Is that because the ones pictured are dark skinned, speak with a foreign accent, and engage in violent protest? I ask because I can and have seen lesser "outrage" (totally nonviolent) by muslims on this, and much worse by other groups on other subjects.
I went into a theater under a bomb threat, surrounded by yelling and frothing Xians, to watch a movie which had no intention of demeaning their prophet. I'm sorry, but all fanatics of all kinds are frightening, and the muslims are no worse.
Heck I have been to antiBush/antiWar rallies with similar outrage and behavior.
Are you sure about that second 'not'?
Nope, not sure.
but the things they put on their placards certainly incite terror in the hearts of Europeans, for what they might encourage some of their fellow Muslims in Europe to do to innocent people.
You mean the things SOME of them put on their placards. Have you seen what other demonstrators put on their placards? Did you see proBush demonstrators with signs saying things like "nuke France" and "invade Europe"? Hmmmm, why would they be any different than the mideast ones?
How about the signs of violence while I walked into that cinema under threat of bombing?
Hey, I agree that anyone getting this worked up over cartoons or any other form of communication/imagery has lost perspective, and are not acting rationally. I'm just saying it's all over the place. If you choose to pick out this recent behavior as somehow significant for Islam in general, especially "worse" than other behavior, then you have blinders on. Its only more recent, that's all.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Parasomnium, posted 02-05-2006 4:42 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 8:11 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 259 (284315)
02-06-2006 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24
02-05-2006 4:43 PM


Re: Muslim reaction
I agree, but that's not the objection that has been made. At least, every muslim I've heard complain has cited the "no images of prophets" as their argument. They could in my eyes have made (& I'm sure some have) a perfectly legitimate argument along these lines.
Then you need to get more information on the story. While depictions of their prophet is considered a bad thing, that is NOT the major complaint here at all. Peruse the images of signs held by the protesters, and many are about disrepectful images.
On Late Edition, a Saudi ambassador was explaining the issue and it was wholly about the disrespectful nature of the images, and not simply that it was mohammed being pictured.
As much as I think the issue is overblown and I support satire, including this stuff, it is pretty blatantly offensive to muslims. It directly connects mohammed to actions they do not want him pictured supporting or doing or being.
Tell you what, put up satirical cartoons of baby jesus engaging in fellatio with the three wise men while God watches proudly, suggesting that pedophilia is part and parcel of Xian tenets, and my guess is you'll find a similar reaction from Xians... oh yeah, that is if you can get such images published ina newspaper and not get put in prison.
They have different concepts of what is taboo, and sacred than us, that is all.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 02-05-2006 4:43 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 02-06-2006 6:32 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 259 (284316)
02-06-2006 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Parasomnium
02-06-2006 6:01 AM


Re: Muslim reaction
That's what's actually so scary. These shouting mobs do indeed have a very medieval mindset which, combined with a peculiar fondness of blood - other people's blood - sets the stage for all kinds of nastiness to be around the corner. Today it's Beirut, tomorrow it could be Copenhagen.
Boy, are you watching the new Fox channel or something? Both you and Mark need to get new news services.
All mobs can be this way. That's usually what mobs are. Peculiar fondness for blood? Unlike abortion protesters? How about civil rights protesters?
Did you see the LA riots? Should I now be in fear of all black people?
Not all those protesting were part of a "mob". If you notice when violence began, many would depart. In beirut, if you followed the news, there was an added issue of xian militia types getting involved and sparking violence. Kind of like blacks and jews at a klan or nazi protest who end up turning things into a brawl.
And it should be said there are plenty of muslims who are not engaging in any of this, taking a rational approach. I have watched them on news programs. Haven't you seen these, or are you only watching scenes of rioting played again and again?
As much as I was stupified by people getting worked up by cartoons and apparently enough to torch the Danish embassy, I'm more concerned that normally rational people (to me) are overreacting and trying to portray this as something unique to a certain people and indeed worse than that engaged in by others.
I have seen and experienced worse than this, by nonmuslims. It is not even locked away 100s of years ago. Why are we forgetting this?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 6:01 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 8:10 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 259 (284325)
02-06-2006 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by mark24
02-06-2006 6:32 AM


Re: Muslim reaction
He spread Islam by the sword, what's wrong with depicting Mohammed as being violent?
Unlike Jews and Xians? How was Israel formed? What did Moses do after coming down off the mountain?
When depicted as bloodthirsty crusaders or even bigoted prudes they get upset. And for the umpteenth time, look at what Xians did over LToC. According to the Bible Jesus did hang out with the underclass and spread love, yet when depicted as such in a loving way, they threatened to kill people.
I was there, they did this. Its sort of hard to forget.
Associating Mohammed's words & actions with the killers who perpetrate this crap doesn't seem too outlandish to me.
You know very little about Islam is what it seems you are saying. While he engaged in wars, they did not engage in the same style of war and forced conversion as Xians did. Neither did they engage in the same sort of warfare. He did have proscriptions, and that would include activity seen today by terrorists.
One might note the perhaps greater irony, that jews were actually protected and perhaps survived because Islam protected them from centuries of prosecution. Then more recently jews bent on ressurecting a millenia dead kingdom over the will of others in that region, commited terrorist acts against them and Xians who stood in their way. It was jews which engaged in every type of activity seen now, only they did it first. In fact jewish extermists continue to do this.
They even protest, and violently.
Yet it is muslims portrayed as being somehow different, somehow MORE prone to violence. That's just not accurate.
Perhaps the irony is lost...
I see the irony in protesting in ways which support the very image one is protesting against. It seems to me you and pars are missing the irony of claiming that these generalized and patently offensive pieces are actually supported, or justified, by such behavior when this same behavior is seen elsewhere and yet does not get projected elsewhere.
Did the LA riots justify images that blacks are violent? Did violent protests in Ireland justify the image of Irish as violent people in need of gov't domination?
I am against the form of protest being engaged in by fanatics. Indeed I am supportive of the cartoon satires being protested. I'm just scratching my head at people acting as if this has something to do with Islam any more than anything else.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 02-06-2006 6:32 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 8:09 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 259 (284406)
02-06-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Parasomnium
02-06-2006 9:15 AM


all fanatics act the same
Wow I go out for a short break and the thread has totally passed me up. I'll refrain from answering all of your replies individually (sorry about that), and try to handle the theme by answering this last one of yours. I think it hits the core anyway.
I think it needs to be said that, nowadays, Christian and Jewish violence is hardly ever religiously inspired and seldom indiscriminate. I might be wrong of course.
You are wrong about this. Despite a lack of reporting Jewish extremist violence against palestinians continues and it is both religiously motivated and indiscriminate. One might point out that the whole concept of Israel is religious domination. But for sake of keeping things lower key, we can avoid that specific subject.
The bombing of the Oklahoma City building was by a Xian extremist. Up until 911 that was pretty much the worst terrorist attack we had suffered. After 911 the JDL (jewish extremists) were caught in a plot to blow up mosques and kill a US congressman.
In the Serbian region violence by Xians against muslims is (or was) common, religious motivated, and indiscriminate. Someone else can correct me but isn't some of the IRA issues dealing with Protestant/Catholic issues?
And as I will remind you again, the theater I was in watching a simple movie was surrounded by screaming/violent Xians and under bomb threat.
There is an issue with Islamic extremism right now. It is perhaps greater than some of the other extremist groups at this time. But its not like the others are not a threat, or have somehow reduced as a threat.
And it is incorrect to paint all those that were upset with the cartoons, and protesting them, as being extremists or terrorists... even if they are oversensitive. I don't know if you are seeing reports, but some muslim clerics have been denouncing the violence and indeed were at the riots trying to stop them.
If you went to a demonstration, and a bunch of extremists acted out, would it be right to make out like you have something to do with them?
{AbE: I forgot to mention abortion clinic shootings and bombings. All religiously motivated and indiscriminate.}
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-06-2006 07:12 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 9:15 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 02-06-2006 1:18 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 259 (284448)
02-06-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
02-06-2006 4:17 PM


Re: On Responses
Insults never justify violence.
Is that an absolute (objective) moral rule? If so, where did it come from?
Yes, and in a civilized society, if those communities reacted violently, those people would be found, tried and if convicted, punished.
So what you are saying is that there is an objective rule that "civilized" societies do not regard emotional distress and attacks of a psychological nature as warranting action from the gov't? And that it will not take provocation into account in human behavior?
I guess I'm not seeing where "civilization" requires people to judge physical and psychological matters as separate and not protect or allow people to defend themselves against psychological attacks using physical means.
There is no way within a civilized society to justify violence in response to insult.
Couldn't one do this by viewing psychological harm as real and perhaps equal to physical injury? If one attacks you physically, you have a right to defend onesself and in some cases go on the offensive. The same could be true for psychological attacks.
I might add that we actually do allow for violence in response to insults. It just depends on the nature of the insult. Libel and slander are insults which we do allow punishment for. Its just that those insulted cannot directly inflict the retaliatory violence.
It should be pointed out that libel/slander is pretty much what muslim protesters are upset about.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 02-06-2006 4:17 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Yaro, posted 02-06-2006 5:11 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 259 (284451)
02-06-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Yaro
02-06-2006 4:48 PM


Ya know, If allah really gave a rat's ass about some dumb cartoons, don't you think he could burn down his own embassy?
Ahem... mohammed is not allah. They are objecting to the insulting depiction of an important person.
That said, if anyone burned down an embassy then technically allah did do it. Nothing happens without his will.
Radical islamists, and Islam in general, need to grow up. It's time to join the 21st century. Grow a sense of humor, a thicker skin, and stop taking any BS opportunity to blow something western up.
The 21st century? You mean the one where a religious state from ~2000 years ago must be impressed onto an indigenous population of muslims by force of arms because the God of extremist Jews and Xians said so?
Look at how much has been blown up in the MidEast by Xians within both the 20th and 21st century and it makes what "they" have blown up pale in comparison. It might also be noted that we (the west) empowered the religious fanatics over the moderates within Afghanistan, and helped moderates turn to extremism in Iran by cheating and alienating them.
I guess being blownup, shot at, disenfranchised, and impoverished left them with a thinner skin and thinner sense of humor.
I see someone stand up for this kind of asinine behavior, or attempt to justify it, it makes me sick.
As much as I was not happy seeing what was happening over these cartoons, and in fact still support their creation and publication, I am more dismayed by the behavior of supposedly rational people, betraying a bigotry and ignorance regarding what is happening and what it means about Islam or Islamic people.
This is simply an example of fanaticism that one can see anywhere in any culture, as long as you provide the right insult.
I'm sure he can hold his own without a bunch of idiot zelots torching buildings and making women wear bee keeper suites
Uh, what do bhurkas have to do with this? Does it make you feel good to beat up people over cultural differences?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Yaro, posted 02-06-2006 4:48 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Yaro, posted 02-06-2006 7:03 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 259 (284454)
02-06-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Yaro
02-06-2006 5:11 PM


Re: On Responses
I was discussing differences in cultural perspective.
Most countries in the 'civilized' world protect satire. Which is what a cartoon amounts to, a joke. All this proves is that islamists, and fundamentalist islamic nations, can't take a joke.
Hey, I am all for satire and want to live in a nation that protects satire. I'm just not going to pretend that people in another culture will have the same view point on satire, or that those with a different viewpoint on this matter are less "civilized".
I am pretty certain you can find satire that will rile up people to the same degree within other communities. As I have stated... and still no one has addressed... Xians within the west resorted to the same activities over a film that wasn't even meant to be offensive to Jesus.
Goes to show the warped concept of freedom of speach and freedom of the press some of those regimes have.
Warped? I'd say different. I do agree that any gov't which moves to censor the press over this is not operating with a concept of freedom of the press. I wouldn't want to live there.
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-06-2006 11:49 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Yaro, posted 02-06-2006 5:11 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 107 of 259 (284538)
02-07-2006 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Yaro
02-06-2006 7:03 PM


I think the whole mideast needs a brain overhawl including the jews, western policy, muslems, etc. All of it. It needs to go.
I see. So you are against cultural diversity and would like to see all people forced into one mindset, so that people only get offended by what offends you?
Hey, I agree that to my mindset they are thinking in ways that I do not, and do not have an interest in thinking. But I actually enjoy diversity and that means learning to give and take on differences. Fanatics will exist on all sides and the main idea is to not feed the extremists by alienating the moderates.
In the East it is offensive to walk into houses with shoes on. Should I then tromp around their house with my shoes on and when they react negatively tell them how silly they are, because we can do that in the West?
The theocratic mindset that permiates the countries in that region is anathema to human progress.
Progress for you, but necessarily for them. I would agree that Taliban style gov'ts should be fought as much as possible but not all theocracies are like that. Lets look at Iran. How were the people doing under our dictator? Much progress under that? How about after the people held a revolution and installed their theocracy? I think its safe to say that they really are progressing. They have a culture and it is moving along.
Oh its not what I want, but neither is everything I find in western nations either.
But wouldn't you agree that some cultures (beliefs) are more prone to it than others? It just sort of ticks me off where people say things like: "Oh, it's understandable that they torched the embasy, it's insulting to them, blah blah blah." It's just stupid at that point.
That there may be more extremists/fanatics in poor or oppressed regions is not a surprise to me. Given the widespread nature of Islam, particularly in areas recently run over by western nations, it does not surprise me that many poor and oppressed people are Islamic. I have to admit I was surprised that extremists would care this much about cartoons in Denmark, but yes if upset it is understandable that extremists would do something like torch an embassy. My guess is that extremists are using this as a pretext to rile up moderates and gain power.
One might note the very small numbers actually involved in these demonstrations, and fewer still taking parts in the "riots" given the rather large populations of muslims in those areas. Perhaps some perspective is in order.
I've been to larger protests against Bush, and seen larger ones against WTO. What do people at WTO protests do? That's peaceful?
I'm speaking about the theocracies that support that sort of practice. That promote instatutional ignorance and gender (racial?) inequality. That's what I'm speaking about, and the whole burka thing is a prime example.
You know some women actually do choose to wear the bhurka and some believe it should be worn. And how are those that don't want to and must, any different from western women that would rather not wear clothes over any other part of their body and must?
These are merely cultural differences. Look at how upset you seem to be about how others choose to live. When you ask why they should be upset about how we choose to live (free expression, including insulting and libelous satire), why should you be upset about how they choose to live (stricter dress codes and speech rights)?
Maybe a problem with the west is that while making pretenses toward civilization and equality of ideas, we in fact spend most of our time poking our noses into other people's cultures and then insulting or try to change them.
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-07-2006 12:37 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Yaro, posted 02-06-2006 7:03 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Yaro, posted 02-07-2006 10:10 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 116 by IANAT, posted 02-07-2006 11:54 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 108 of 259 (284539)
02-07-2006 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
02-06-2006 10:24 PM


Which is a position that other people would be inclined to take more respectfully if arab Muslim culture didn't disparage the Jews at every avaliable opportunity. I'm simply pointing out the highly ironic and humerous hypocrisy of the Muslims in question and their defenders.
You are correct that those who would support such cartoons regarding jews or others, and then get angry about cartoons against themselves would be hypocritical. Wolf Blitzer made this same point to the Saudi ambassador on Late Edition (with even worse cartoons I might add).
However, what makes you believe that all of the demonstrators or all of the rioters do support such cartoons against anyone else? Because they do not riot against those other images? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
My guess is a portion of them are hypocrites, but then obviously so are those who are now criticizing the muslims for getting upset and not any other group when they got upset. In a way that is just human, but it is the disappointing side of humanity. In reality muslims are doing what other groups have done. As a group they are no different, yet they are getting singled out... why? Because their faces are on the TV as it is a hot item?
How many times do people in the arab world protest, and even have violent protests on other issues, and it is NOT covered like this? Hmmmmmm... especially when it is for real issues affecting their daily life? Hmmmmmm.
The media helped blow this out of proportion which allowed extremists to further blow it out of proportion. Its a vicious circle.
Well, now, clearly these Muslims wish to live in a society where they are free to offend Jews or any other religion to any extent; that they cannot stand it when the same treatment is applied to them demonstrates the objective bankrupcy of their views.
Look at the small numbers at the demonstrations, and the smaller numbers involved in any of the riots, compared to the populations. This is really not that big and you have plenty of people saying while insulting it is a non issue, or an issue that does not deserve violence.
I have seen basic signs that say (boycott Danish goods) which seems to me a very western and free society reaction to this insult (no different than what happens in the US), to signs that suggest people should be killed (which can also be seen in the west... look at what Robertson and his followers say). Thus these relatively small crowds run the gamut.
I think it is unfair to make statements about muslims and the bankruptcy of muslim views. If you mean extremist views, that would make more sense, but then that goes for everyone and is pretty much par for the course.
Then again what did you do to stop the US invasion of Iraq? How about the continued occupation of Palestine, or the existence of Israel as a theocratic based nation?
Couldn't someone point to the fact that you should be against such things, and the fact that you didn't actively fight it against it, suggest your morality seems self-contradictory and therefore invalid, objectively?
On Blitzer's show, the muslim ambassador, when confronted with images like the one you presented said that they were offensive and should not have been printed. My guess is that kind of commentary by muslims just doesn't get the same kind of airplay as angry brown people maybe about to get violent. What do you think?
On a side note, I do agree that I want satire to be free and alive and am willing to fight for that kind of freedom. Thus I do not think a nation I am a part of should be caving in to demands to censor the press. HOWEVER, since when did we have a free press? There are satirical or other images you could not print, or even post, without getting arrested or fined into the ground. That is especially true in public media (as opposed to forums).
In the Netherlands a brilliant satirical poster of the current PM has been banned from public display, because (it has been ruled by the courts) public offials cannot be made fun of in certain satirical ways. The posters (that were put up all over the place) were removed and further display punishable. I'm sorry but this guy isn't even a popular religious leader, and yet satire against HIM is banned in this nation, if you do so in a certain manner he does not like.
So I guess western views are objectively bankrupt as well. Either that or it is all down to an individual basis and we need to identify particular people (or gov't bodies) who are being hypocrites, rather than generalize.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2006 10:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 9:46 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 122 of 259 (284593)
02-07-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by crashfrog
02-07-2006 9:46 AM


I can't figure out who you're referring to, since any time Christians mobilize against something that offends their sensibilities, most people here are disdainful of their efforts, especially when it results in censorship that the rest of us have to live with.
It is pretty clear that some around here are suggesting that Islamic outrage and activity in this instance is somehow qualitatively different than what Xians have done. Both Yaro and Pars are good examples.
I realize you are upset by all censorship (or most anyway), particularly from religious perspectives.
I haven't seen Christians burning cars and embassies and holding signs promising indiscriminate murder and bloodshed. Not that Christians don't threaten murder and bloodshed, they're just usually more targeted about it, and they don't take to the streets about it, they just say it to each other.
Yeah, see like that. You haven't? Hmmmm. Well I just got done discussing how I have. Oh wait they don't do EXACTLY the same thing, just sort of. They do burn buildings, march, bomb, shoot, kill. I guess you've never seen an abortion clinic protest?
As I have said, I had to wade through as nutty looking a group of Xians as these muslims here, just to get to LToC and had to endure a bomb threat as well. Robertson declared that someone should nuke the state department, and underground xian movement literature resulted in the Oklahoma city bombing.
The difference is superficial at best. And frankly looking at WTO protests, and having been through one, as well as an antiwar protest, I'm not seeing much difference from soem secular groups regarding economic policies.
Did you know that, in order to drum up this level of response, the Muslim agitators had to add three additional fake cartoons to the originals? Most of these people are upset at "idolatry" that their own people are responsible for.
heheheh... I totally believe it.
The anti-Semetic content of their signs and demonstrations. For instance:
Uhhh... I said what makes you believe ALL the demonstrators. Are you telling me you saw no demonstrators with signs that were straightforward protest signs calling on things like boycotts? Is this called sign-mining?
I don't live in Israel
No but you do live in the nation which unilaterally is shielding Israel from UN sanctions regarding human rights abuses and violations of international law, as well as helping arm it. But that's besides the point.
You seemed to be creating an air of duplicity simply because they don't march against images that are against jews, though they will against images against Islam. I was pointing out how you might not be out demonstrating for every single issue that you might be in support of (or against) when it doesn't directly relate to you.
When we fail to put them into action, or allow them to become diluted, I'd say that becomes the case.
Not sure if you know this, but a Jewish or Israeli group has now lodged a criminal case against the publisher of the cartoon image you cited. If they are successful it will essentially be banned here. The complainants said they are going to give the Islamic group a lesson in democratic process, showing that this method (the courts) are the proper way to get offensive speech eliminated.
Yeah so see how this works. Those without any power to do anything demonstrate. Those with power simply make offensive speech disappear using the violent force of the gov't.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 9:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Yaro, posted 02-07-2006 12:59 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 1:16 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024