boycotts of Danish goods in middle East!

**Snee** · 02-13-2006, 10:08 PM

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.

**j2k4** · 02-13-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by SnnY

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?

Sure, why not.

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...

**Biggles** · 02-13-2006, 11:32 PM

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

) 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.

**j2k4** · 02-13-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Biggles

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?

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SALIENT POINT AND THE OVERWHELMING CONCERN OF EVERYONE (EVERYONE!!!) IN THE WEST.

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".

It is terse and appropriate (aside from that last, which is just wishy-washy pish and tish

).

**JPaul** · 02-14-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Biggles

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

) 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.

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.