Cartoons and common sense

our law tells us that we can say what we want and express our opinions however we want so long as those opinions do not specifically cause real and present danger. i'd imagine the law in denmark is very similar. law is subject to the social contract of those who choose to abide by it. because we are not muslim, we are not bound by your law. if you do not desire to convert us, then you must stand down your law.our culture believes that the more opinions and information a person has, the more likely they are to make a good and right decision. we allow our law to be changed with time and with regard to what we view to be such good and right decisions. if you desire to apply your law to us, then you must admit your desire to convert us. we allow burning as a demonstration of free speech. but this is restricted to the burning of symbolic property owned by the person doing the burning and not public property or the property of others. if iranians do not own the danish embassy, they do not have the right to burn it. if an iranian owns a flag, he may burn it. our laws provide that the rights of individuals cease where the rights of others begin. hence, your right to be free of being offended do not exist because being offended does not harm you whereas restricting a person's free speech does harm him, indeed. damaging public and private property does people very clear harm, and thus, it is not protected.it's all well and good that you wish to follow the muslim law. we do not have to and never will.we respect others by speaking and allowing them to speak. we entrust others with what we see to be truth or reality or opinion and respect and trust them enough to require the same of them. we do not respect violence and destruction of property. killing people and burning buildings is not the same as drawing a picture.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 02-06-2006 06:14 PM

Is this yours?From a prominent Muslim newspaper. As deep as anti-Semitism runs within the Islamic world, I don't understand from what basis they have any right to claim offense from a few cartoons. If modern Islam didn't alternate between outrageously offensive statements towards Jews and the tacit approval of others making those statements, they'd have a considerably higher moral basis with which to demand that their offense be taken seriously.I applaud the cartoons. I hope they piss off the whole Middle East. I hope you go on making offensive cartoons against Jews, too. And atheists like me. Getting pissed and pissing other people off is the sign of participation in a free society of adults. Mass murder, arson, and threats of more violence are the signs of a society of children.

Heh heh. Alright, all Muslims in unison now:"B-b-b-but that's different!"

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Yep. Ain't that a convenient excuse? Yet more evidence that it is all soooo stupid. I'm with you there bud.... up to a point...I think the whole mideast needs a brain overhawl including the jews, western policy, muslems, etc.All of it. It needs to go.The theocratic mindset that permiates the countries in that region is anathema to human progress. Yes, I agree with you too. 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. Nah, 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.

No I don't. It's a fairy story mixed with history about a nomadic bandit and goat herder who wanted to be rich and famous. Then the whole thing got out of hand. HAHAH! No it's not. It's a dumb ass book written way to long ago to even consider it relevant to our day and time. Maybe he should find another purpose, that way he could be happier. Fuck what is written. What is written was written by a bunch of goat herders in a desert somewhere in the middle east. I could care less, and you shouldn't care either. Fuck them too. They are idiots. Riots and destruction over some pen and ink? Get a life!I don't hate moslems, I don't support the USA's policy's, but I will call a spade a spade. The fact is that the extremist ideology, and theocratic mindset, is a throwback to the days of mohammed and his sand-pirates. No it's not, it's called violence. Speech comes from the mouth and the pen. Maybe if mohamed used more of that, instead of his scimitar, these extremists wouldn't have such a stupid example to follow. Isn't the free world amazing? We can draw pictures of whatever we want.We even draw nasty pictures of ourselves! We draw nasty pictures of our president, our religious figures, jesus, and who ever else we damn well please... and you know why?STICKS AND STONES WILL BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME! I show no respect for stupidity. I show no respect for a mentality that says "if you doodle a funny picture of my favorite sky man, I'll kill you!". Screw that man. That's BS. Yes it is, and proud. Hopefully, the longer you live in the USA, you will appreciate it more and more.This message has been edited by Yaro, 02-06-2006 07:27 PM

Very good post brenna.

Yaro, please remain polite if possible. I would hope that you can get your point across without swearing at another poster or insulting their beliefs.I have no doubt that a number of posters here would jump down your throat if you referred to the bible as a "dumb ass book written way to long ago to even consider it relevant to our day and time", if you wrote it in a thread concerning a perceived insult to the bible.I'm sure no one wants this thread to devolve into a flame war, which will happen if the posters involved do not show respect for each other - and this applies to EVERYONE involved, including IANAT. Do not refer to another poster as "a child who shows no respect for others". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and calling someone names based on an opinion they hold is infantile - unless you can support it with well-reasoned arguments.AdminIRHThis message has been edited by AdminIRH, 02-07-2006 12:45 AM

i tried to be as fervent as you but less reactionary. i see my point was not lost.i appreciate, however, your above post as a clear and precise exercise of your blessed freedoms and love it for thus. however, i do not see it as accomplishing much outside that. kind of like how women now take their sexual freedom and use it to catch diseases and unwanted pregnancies and medical procedures. but that's their right i suppose.

Is the whole world then a lion pit and must we all be wary of the Islamic lion?Sharia anyone?

Contrary to your understanding it is my/yours/their beliefs I am referring through throughout this thread. I hoist all by the same petard. Everyones morals necessarily suffer, if that is the appropriate term, from relativism.My own morals are related (relative) to a God I know exists - yet I cannot show him to be an objective reality to that person to whom it matters most - myself. This is because I cannot be sure that my knowing is set in reality - for want of being able to objectively demonstrate to myself that the reality in which I presume I exist, in is indeed an objective one. I know I am not wrong when I say I know God - but I don't actually know if what consitutes knowing is objective. I am left ultimately in the position of presuming an objective reality exists around and within me. My morals are thus completely relative either to an objective or a subjective reality - but relative nontheless. I plump for the former in practice, because it is not possible for me to begin to consider how to function if there was no objective reality.If that case, my morals can claim, at least in principle, to be truly objective because they are argued to be derived from something completely external and independant to myself, its mind having determined these things, with me playing the role of recipient-without-choice. A product has no choice in how its designer designed it especially if the designer is not constricted by the material characteristics of the raw materials used during construction. So, whilst my morals are as relative as everyone elses, if God indeed exists, then objective morals I truly have. What makes moral relativism extreme if it turns out that what constitutes 'extreme' is itself a relative term (one might be safer stating that someones morals are be relatively extreme but certainly not objectively so)? In considering whether this point is valid we must turn to look at your argument in order to ascertain whether it is possible for your model to produce something objective or whether all is relative. We must ask whether it is reasonable to suppose that Evolution, that which has produced you, is capable of producing something objective or simply something with the flavor of objective but which is in fact demonstrably subjective. The Dummies Guide to Evolution tells us that evolution is a largely two-pronged affair. Random variations in offspring produced create a pool of raw material from which many potential directions can be 'taken'. Natural selection is the bit which culls some and leaves others to pass on 'useful' characteristics. The combination of these two factors has resulted in all we see today. Is that it in broad brushstrokes?If so, then the first thing we can say about your models morals is that they are indeed relative. Relative to that which produced them. In that our models are similar. You tell us (eloquently) about how man has developed systems of morals and behaviour but forget that this development is the result of chance series of events. Chance circumstances enabled man with societal-directed genes to dominate the man whose survival-worth derived from his ability (perhaps) to use force and ruthlessness to ensure his own personal survival. We must not forget that evolution dealt ALL the cards which produced it. Evolution is indeed the blind watchmaker. To say "man developed" is like saying a photocopier developed a photocopy, when in fact all a photocopier did is produce what the mechanism which produced it enabled it to produce. In the case of a photocopier, all it does is relative to the man who designed it, in the case of man, all he produces is relative to the course of evolution which produced him. Evolution is the object, man is the subject. Subjects do not produce objects. Only objects do that. This is where our models might possibly begin to partWhilst your thinking is understandable if we chose to ignore from whence we supposedly came, your argument requires that somewhere along the way man and evolution somehow parted company and that man become an object and thus capable of producing objective things. But we know that is impossible. Evolution is all there is, there are no blips allowing man to escape from that closed system. If you are right, we are simply accidents producing whatever it is that accidents produce. To say 'man develops things' is simply a subject expressing subjective convention. There are only accidents.And we know too, that if everyone is a product of evolution then you with your evolution, me with my God and the extremist muslim with his burning effigy, have all been cast up on the same beach by the same sea at this same time. Each with morals relative to that same process and each with morals decided upon by the throw of innumerable dices. Each with survivability characteristics incorperated in a random, accidental fashion. Thus, if Extremist Muslim is cast up alongside Relativist Evolutionist, there is no point in saying his title is anything other than a identifying label. You are tied umbilically to him as you are to me. And if Extremist Muslim happens to be in possession of a set of mutations which prove best suited towards the only task in town - survival - then survive he will.That the work of ages leading to the ordered, treaty-bound structured society you refer to is a randomly produced blink in time, open to being wiped out by a raft of strategically placed dirty bombs, is neither here nor there. There is no sense in a person getting their knickers in a twist about that which is produced by random throws of a dice. One might as well scream blue murder at a non-existant god.

Depends on how you view the rest of the world. Islam might see itself as lion and us as a Grizzly bear. A cursory reading of history would seem to indicate they might have reason to

I think I already vented my spleen enough. Sorry for the outburst, the news of these things has made me more mad than usual. I will refraim from participating in this thread unless in a civil tone.

They aren't demanding that their offense be taken seriously on a moral basis which is determined the way you determine morals Crash.
In fact, the claim as I understand it, is that the offense is primarily blashphemous - not primarily (if at all) immoral Fine, if you believe in a free society. Not every one believes in a free society as defined by you - nor is there any objectively compelling reason to think that one must believe so. If you truly believed in a free society then you might permit that view to exist.This message has been edited by iano, 07-Feb-2006 01:52 AM

quote:

---

"People, let's treat this topic with careful thought and responses"

​

Adminnemooseus in post 2

---

Seems such a long time ago..but it's only 100 posts inThis message has been edited by iano, 07-Feb-2006 02:21 AM

Just wanted to be human.