Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Hillary is a tad scary I will grant you.
She reminds me of a teacher I had in primary school who had a similar glint in the eye just before she beat the bejaysus out of you ....
... this may appeal to some on Capitol Hill though :lookaroun
Will order an extra pint of milk if I hear she has won.
You da man, Les. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
too bad all religious people forget the 1st and most important messages in all religions. -= Love peace forgiveness =-
Those are key issues, problem with religions is that the religious leaders alays try to benefit and bend words their way (in fact they're just like politicians. As long as people are not ready, willing or able to make up their own minds there will be trouble.
Too bad almost all religions have their fundamentalists. Little difference between the bible belt christians, orthodox jews and fundamental islamitic.
i like most of the cartoons. My absolute #1 is the cartoon where Mohammed sais 'stop bombing, we ran out of virgins'. It shouldn't bother anyone that mohammed is drawn, it should matter that the cartoon is saying the exact thing every religious or non religious human should mind. Stop killing innocent people and try words to reach peace and understanding...
yes i know... in a perfect world...
http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/images3/christo.gif
I quite liked the irony in this one (if thats the right word to use)
But surely if its on an even keel the US can now protest against Bulgaria? :unsure:
I have 200 Bulgarian flags going cheep if anyone wants one?
One of the truly irritating things currently is the tendency to water down relevant commentary by referring to all religions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetje
We're talking about Islam, JJ, and there shouldn't be a problem excluding other religions from the conversation just now.
No need to practice political correctness, unless the Baptists get crazy...
Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion.
The Muslim community should be asking itself, "Why does my religion have the perception of being violent and intolerant?"
Instead, they are attacking the publishers of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed. It really isn't that much of a mystery, guys. :no:
well this debate is about cartoons and the upset of the islamic world and freedom of speech. I recall the upsett in the 'christian' and 'jewish' world when 'The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)'and 'The Passion of the Christ (2004)' came out. No flags were burned but the upset was in a way similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Biggest difference is that in most of the so called 'western world' the secularisation is widely spreat. Therefor people tend to ignore a lot of these religious questions or see them in greater aspects. Education is a big influence in helping people to make their own choices. Things that are not represented well in most of the 'islamic' world. They still tend to do what the roman church tried to do in western europe for years. keep the people dumb and let them obey you. It was just after the 2nd world war that secularisation started to change the way people thought about things.
i notice it's very hard to write and think in english on these matters. So i leave it with this. ....
- When Bush sents out his troops with the words "God bless the USA" to 'liberate' the islamic replubics of Iraq and afghanistan he started a modern day 'crusade' wich was all about power and fear about the other unknown religion and their side effects (like fundamentalistic behaviour/terrorists)-
The cartoonist is a naive idiot who should keep his work to toilet walls.
The editor is even more naive and should get his ass raped by a dog.
Scandinavia finally woke up from its numbness of non-ness.(and are probably sadly self impressed)
The press are enjoying the money.
Yes the muslims are forgiving and All that the muslims want is an apology,
how difficult is that..... :huh:
I spoke to many and this is all they want.
I too can get provoked over nothing if the time is right.
The sad thing is the reaction towards the cartoon justifies all the naive westerners thoughts that all muslims are violent.
As do these cartoons justify naive muslims idea that the west holds nothing sacred.
and as it stated in one newspaper -
what is worse for islam
the cartoons?
or
the beheading of western hostages in the name of islam?
I wish you'd stay engaged, JJ; no need to leave, especially on a note like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetje
I think you'll notice anyone who would say our escapade in Iraq has a religious component is just as likely to also say (depending on utility) that it is "just about oil, and anyone who says different is a liar".
The Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion of the Christ prompted lots of exercise of free speech (which is fine), but I framkly don't recall any talk, much less action, on the point of boycotts, flag/effigy burning, and other violence, threatened or actual.
There is no basis of comparison whatsoever.
What about free speech?Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%
The expression you hate is that which most needs protecting.
As to the "cartoonist", I've read and heard that the person(s) responsible for dissemination of the offending artwork were purposeful in doing so, and, apart from the actual cartoons, there was included in the distribution a representation that seems to be especially inciteful...
It is a copy of a copy of a copy (apparently) of a man wearing a faux pig nose and ears, which was taken from news coverage of a truffle-hunting contest somewhere in Europe (France, one would think) where contestants were judged on their having gotten made-up to resemble swine.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with any commentary about Islam, but would have definitely been inflammatory when included with the other items, especially considering it's remove from the provident event, with the attendent image compromised by having been copied several times over.
I agree that whomever distributed these items was malign in intent, but the cartoonist's logic remains a question.
Not sure zed wasn't being sarcastic, he's an artist after all, and should know something about how certain, rather good artists provoke society in all kinds of ways, and how wrong it would be if we started censoring everything everybody didn't agree with.
I think he knows all about the importance of free speech, anyhow.
Like I've stated before, I'm fairly certain the images weren't so much intended to depict the late and great mohammed as the artist saw him, but rather how the artist saw the mohammed murderers and terrorists say they follow.
And again, I think zed knows something about how subjective the interpretation of an artwork can be, and how far from the artist's intention the interpretation can fall, and how that needn't be anything that the artist should be blamed for.
As for the paper, they've claimed they published those pictures to determine whether muslim extremists had any power of the danish media.
Zed, the artist, taking the measure of another's intent?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Sure, why not. :D
Interesting point as to the intended target; how to communicate to a "lay" Muslim the cartoons were intended to offend/embarrass only the terrorist readership?
All other intent aside, of course...;)
Those with strong views about anything can get a tad emotional and irrational.
I recall Beatles records getting burned in the States when John Lennon made his "bigger than Jesus" comment. Hindu fundamentalists (surely a contradiction of terms :blink: ) are burning Valentine cards in India as they are viewed as a corrupting influence on society.
The perceived problem with Islam is that almost any protest seems to spill over into mindless violence. No one has died in the Valentine protests or during the Beatle record burnings. Over a dozen Muslims have died in riots over cartoons they have never seen. This passion is incomprehensible to West and not a little disturbing. If they will kill each other in protesting over mild cartoons shown in small country far away that is not of their religion what would they do if allowed a free hand?
I am not convinced any more of an apology than has already been given is due. The problem is not ours, any more than Valentine cards are our problem or the Beatles were our problem. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder so is offence and there are none so easily offended as those that want to be.
I believe I am a tolerant person but that tolerance does not extend to those that use their emotional reactions to demand that others toe their line. It is tantamount to a tantrum and should be ignored like a tantrum. I am sorry if this seems harsh.
Quit with "sorry".Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
It is terse and appropriate (aside from that last, which is just wishy-washy pish and tish :P ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
What he said.
I would like to add, as stated earlier, that much which goes on in foreign countries seems wrong to me. I rarely receive the apology I so obviously deserve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Pish posh, or tish tosh. Please don't mix your alliterate nonsenses.
Good enough for the Prince, good enough for me...:PQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
is this the longest theread in the drawing room ever?
:whoosh:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Which Prince
Why, the Hugh Laurie version.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Is there another? :lol:
maebach-
Not even close...
Is it a Blackadder thing :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Yes...sorry. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Just had an interesting debate at work, short version it all came down on this, wich i believe is food for thought;
Freedom of speech is infinite, so you have the right to curse, swear, say blasphemy, insult whatever you want it is oké! freedom of speech you know...
Thing that seperates civilized people from non civilized is just the simple fact that some know where to stop using 'their rights' an some don't.
ooh and some people just have very long toes...
they get stepped on very easy
but that's just the islamic part of this world
freedom of speech you know :)
Not in the UK it isn't, freedom of speech has it's limits and to go beyond those is a criminal offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetje
Over here, one cannot incite a riot, solicite prostitution, solicite murder for hire, talk of harming the President or threaten any person with bodily harm, yell "BOMB" on an airplane, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetje
Freedom of speech is hardly infinite.
Critism or caricature of a person from a book is freedom of speech but even then there are limits.
Say a person went into Muslim neighborhood with a big sign that depicted Muhammed with the bomb in his turban. That person would be trying to incite those in the neighborhood.
Then you don't have freedom of speech over there! :( As i said it's infinite, soon as someone forbids you to speak about subject (how logical that may seem) it's not freedom of speech anymore ;) This is exactly why we cannot tolerate that some Ayathollahs tells us (western world) what we are allowed to say. It's the begin of the end. There is no such thing as partial freedom of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
How logical your reasoning sounds, it's not true. Freedom of speech is infinite. It's the people who should decide what to say or what not to say. Good healthy thinking should be your own personal barier. The neighborhood in your case now is the world (thanks to globalization). Why would anyone be incited because of a sign... long toes, i say..Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Over here in the Netherlands there are even debates that freedom of speech gives you the right to insult. Wich in my believes is true.
Not that you need to do that all the time, this is where the common sense needs to step forward. But yes the right to do it...
edit:This is true censorship and a really big limitation of your own free choice. Well i heared about the Patriot act... That's only one step ahead from total control. All possible thanks to fear that governements like to spread around. Fear for terrorism, fear for other religions, fear for .. well the unknown.Quote:
Over here, one cannot incite a riot, solicite prostitution, solicite murder for hire, talk of harming the President or threaten any person with bodily harm, yell "BOMB" on an airplane, etc.
I don't understand the USA way of freedoms anyways. Why does a tv station broadcasts a talk show where they beep out almost half of the spoken words (Jerry Springer) Why censor that? Same goes for lyrics at the Music channels (MTV and stuff like that) Don't show it then or leave the original in tact.
No moral talk will help, people that think it's wrong should not watch it or listen to it. Well that brings us back to the cartoons..... ;)
The neighborhood is not the world and what do you mean, "it's not true"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jetje
You wanna get technical, freedom of speech is infinite. You can say what you want and some of what you say will be illegal.
I never said you are not able to insult.
Many believe children shouldn't be exposed to that. If you think that's ok, good for your country.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetje
HTH did the Patriot Act come into this?:blink:
I don't think freedom of speech should be absolute. People cannot be allowed to say anything they want.
Well to be accurate they can say anything they want, however the rest of society is free to say "that is unacceptable" and do something about it. For example someone addressing a mob and inciting race hate is wrong. Therefore we need laws to stop it.
Again, they can do it, but we can stop them. It's like any other crime. Yes people can commit them but then something can be done about it.
I see your logic, JJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetje
Tell me:
Do you think Theo Van Gogh was a victim of his own freedom of speech or someone else's? :huh:
Therein lies the problem. The twonk who killed him had nothing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Given that non-oral speech counts, I'll include the note that was speared to his torso as he lay dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
As to the physical violence, which (absurdly), by JJ's example could arguably be considered legal, how should we view the actions of a mute with no arms who kicks someone to death over a perceived slight?
To deny him/her this...expression would seem to be discriminatory, no?
I was being harsh without apology as instructed :) The twonk in question could have talked all night and still said nothing as far as I am concerned. His position was indefensible.
Apart from the occasional enraged armless mute who has not mastered typing with his toes I am not sure "free speech" really extends to beating someone to death.
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones" :blink:
Of course untruths about an individual can harm them in that it could ruin them professionally. However, the slander and libel laws are there to ensure that free speech is also accurate speech. Are the cartoons slanderous - there might be good reason for some to view Islam as a vehicle for carrying bombs. When politics and religion intertwine then all is fair game and religion cannot hide behind the skirts of sanctity.
I would agree with JP in that, with ever tightening laws, free speech appears to be an increasingly endangered commodity.
However, a democracy must have the means with which to question. If areas are allowed to be fenced off then there will be opportunities for those in power to shield their actions from criticism. This is a slippy slope that many have skated down before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I tumbled to your H4R5Hness, but couldn't pay heed and also use my mute/armless thingie. :)
I agree with you and JP; I am occasionally bothered, however, by the sentiment expressed by those intransigents who decry incidents such as when Whoopi Goldberg's political commentaries cost her beaucoup endorsment contracts...as if corporate entities are, by virtue of their non-personhood, "speechless". ;)
I am not sure if Whoopi really needs the dough. :)
Advertising budgets are used to the entities best interest. If a burger joint discovers their promotion is fronted by a vegetarian then they might want to reconsider...or start selling vege-burgers
Several companies reconsidered Kate Moss apres her coke incident. Hindsight suggests they made a mistake as she appears to have both public sympathy and has bounced back but that was the call they made at the time.
If the owners of the entity are unhappy with a promotion then they are free to end it - it is their money after all. One difficulty is that the CEO is rarely the owner, the shareholders are and the CEO should not grind his political axe with their money.
True, but as they are most directly responsible for the corporate image, he/she is bound to act in what they see as the shareholders' best monetary interest, and to do it quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I can't remember the circumstances, but I have a dim recollection of a CEO with his finger in the wind, trying to judge public reaction while his company withered.
I would think the default would be removal of the celeb/what-have-you in question, as a negative image will lose you more consumers more quickly than any transitory reaction over whether said person should or should not have been kept...there are several celebrities to choose from, after all. :P
From the ridiculous to the, umm, ridiculous.
Points:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reuters
1. Danish Pastries = "Roses of the Prophet Mohammad,"
2. "No one is allowed to make fun of our beloved and respected Prophet,"
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/938/dabsrod5ll.gif
:1eye:Quote:
"No one is allowed to make fun of our beloved and respected Prophet,"
What do you think yourself j2k4?? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The power of words lies in the fact that as long as your able to use words, you won't be needing any fysicall violence. This is one of the reasons that it's so important to have freedom of speech. Dictatorships of any kind only excist on not having freedom of speech. Wars/fights/conflicts starts when dialogue stops.
I'd say the unlawful reaction to Theo's correct exercise of his speech rights cost him his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by jetje
Your answer, please?
Was Theo victimized by conflict?
Remember, there was a note...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Changing the name of food is just silly :whistling