Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (10 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

I'm Australian and I hate a lot of Australian media outlets, I'd imagine it'd be the same with the Danes.

 

[funnybunny]

Yeah, however if the Australian newspaper was underattack by the middle-eastern people, many would defend the Australian newspaper and the Danish would unjustly defend their newspaper. The enemy of your enemy is unfortunately your friend.

 

[withoutaface]

I would defend its right to say what it said, but I wouldn't necessarily defend the content.

 

[davin]

Too true, dont get me started on jews..

thats offensive and potentially villifying a group, so i trust you'll appologise, right?

according to democracy, you have to respect other people's belief. whether it be religion or whatever.
The questions that arises is, what is the purpose of this cartoon? clearly the purpose changed (if it had any prupose initiall), to suggest that the media had right of speech - doesnt anybody.
Having the right of speech doesnt mean u can say anything, u must the respect that rite and it shouldnt be used to abuse anyone.

its not a right of freedom of speech if you then say "well, you have freedom, but you're not allow to use it". It also explains a WHOLE lot that you don't know what democracy is. Its a form of gov't, which'd have nothing to do with respecting beliefs, or even dealing with them. Its the idea that gov't decisions are made by a vote of the people. Most decisions come from representative democracy, where we elect someone that then makes said decisions for us. Now, in a free society, which is the other part of this, and the part that's relevant, the idea is that everyone is more or less free to have their own viewpoints and speak freely about them. You don't have to respect them. Do you mean you respect those that feel minorities are inferior, or that women are inferior, or that the moon is made of cheese, or anything? You have to allow them to say things, you don't have to respect them, or even tolerate them.

well then stop acting like anyone on this thread is a radical psycho, i havent met anyone like this on this forum, yet you seem to treat everyone like that.
all the shit the terrorists have done, and all the violent protests by the radicals or close minded (like syrians who see this as a war declaration) are carried out by a small percentage of over a billion muslims.
however that cartoon has insulted over a billion, not just the small radical percentage....there are now many who never supported Bin Laden, but will sympathize with them because of the cartoon, Free Speech does not involve irresponsible and reckless propaganda and provocation, amongst the violence the cartoonists are the lesser of 2 evils, but why are you people passing them off as freedom fighters, you are doing the same thing as the terrorists who call those dumbasses that blow themselves up...MARTYRS, HEROES
stop pretending this is simply about free speech, when you have done wrong, we try to defend ourselves, and the after the ignorance of those cartoonists they still try to come off as if they bare no responsibility when labelling a billion people as terrorists

ok, since you directed that sum-up of a viewpoint to me, please quote where i've been acting like everyone is a radical psycho. and, they're not 'freedom fighters'...the cartoons, might well have been in bad taste, but the counter is "see, gov't should censor" and THAT is why the cartoonists are being backed. If the ONLY objections were directed to the paper and kept civilly, then that would be very different. though they never did label a billion people as terrorists. thats a misrepresntation of the cartoon.

Nope, the right to express your opinion has it limits and there is way to express it. Why do you need to express your opinions on a newspaper? when you can talk about it to your friend.
As i said before, the 'right of freedom of speech' is an excuse. IF they have that right, then so do the muslims, and they are now showing their opinions. And according to you its acceptable.

and now, what happens if you write it down? is that suddenly a problem? what is the difference between saying something publicly outloud and saying something publicly in print? and again, the issue with the responce is that they're arguing that censorship is right, not just that they're complaining to the paper

for more unbiased news (well on this topic anyway) you should go for something like russian or chinese

it is important to remember china, historically known for making sure taht information is open and free from government interference.

labelling a billion muslims as a terrorist, is as outrageous as calling all african americans convicts because a high percentage of them in the US are in prison,

yeah, but see, when that happens (a radio host got in trouble when a comment he said about how if you aborted all black babies, there'd be less crime, but that doesn't mean you should and the first part he got criticised for. the station took action because they got a number of complaints. no gov't involved) then there are ways that its taken care of without bringing gov't into it, or riots

ultimately that cartoon has created more terrorist sympathizers, and more people who see a billion people as a terrorist group, why should free speech cause such chaos?

whats causing people to see muslims as a terrorist group, a paper running cartoons, or the RESPONSE that is hppening here? and secondly, i think religion has caused much chaos....does taht mean we can restrict religion because why should it really cause such chaos?

and why shudnt i compare, many didnt like the way aborigenes burned the australian flag on australia day, even though burning a flag is nothing compared to what the white man has done to them.

You're villifing a whole group there by the actions of a portion of that group. Just so you're aware.

The Danish newspaper knew that it would fuel anger and violence, yet they disregarded this and continued to publish it. How can one support freedom for Denmark when it is them that really fuels this anger

And THAT was the point their article was talking about, was if it was irrational that people wouldn't agree to draw a person because they'd fear for their lives. The fact some people get angry doesn't mean something is wrong, per se. it depends on situation. in this case, they raised an issue, which is a real one, and the attitude now seems to be just that its not allowed to be dealt with.

If you asked three people on the street about a common fact, obviously you will get the same response. This is a really stupid analogy, because Danish newspaper's actions are a controversial issue right now however the capital of Australia has not been controverisal for ages. Thus the response to the Danish newspaper question would be more subjective. Seriously, before questioning simpsonfreak's posts, you should question your own.

so, who would YOU ask about what Danish news is like thats not danish, to get things in the proper context?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

MoonlightSonata, did you read what you posted?

I always read through my posts in their entirety before posting them.

1. You are allowed to offend people.

2. Defamation requires the person defamed to be alive. Muhammad is dead.

SimpsonFreak never said it was illegal, rather he suggests that it is wrong and should be frowned upon.

I have re-read SimpsonFreak's post and have discovered he used the word "label", which I read as "libel". I read that as a typo, so there is ambiguity in what was said. (In case you don't know, Libel is a form of defamation.) So that was what precipitated my reply.

For example verbal racism is not illegal however it is not tolerated. Verbal abuses are not illegal, yet in some parts of countries and in many sports you can be fined for this. Defamation is illegal, however in no part of Simpson Freak's posts did he suggest that freedom of speech is illegal, rather he suggests it should be censored at times. Moonlightsonta, in light of your short replies, they are indeed that. You seem to be making a large assumption, that Simpson Freak thinks it is illegal, to rebutt.

See my comment above.

1. That is unreasonable, logically. Drawing a picture of someone is reasonable.

2. That is not analogous with the present case. This is a religion, not a race.

This really doesn't make any sense. If that is unreasonable, then the Danish newspaper cartoon is also unreasonable, as it gives a false view of the muslim people. Analogies do not have to be exactly the same. Of course this is religion not a race, but it also questions the freedom of speech.

Regarding my first point, my claim was that it is logically justified to object to the proposition that all black people are criminals. In contrast, it is not logical to object to the depiction of Muhammad. I made no reference to the specific cartoon you are referring to.

As to the second point, there is a big difference between religion and race. Race is something uncontrollable, something natural to human nature over which people should not be criticised for being constituted by. Religion is a system of beliefs - ideas - which are and should certainly be open to criticism. That is the distinguishing factor.

It depends on what kind of political statement they are trying to make. It may be incorrect, but then it is just a silly cartoon. Doesn't mean it should be restricted.

Of course it depends on the kind of politcal statement they are trying to make, but it is blatant that it is against muslims and portrays them as terrorists.

As I said, it depends on what cartoon you are referring to. If it is portraying all Muslims as terrorists then it is silly (but it shouldn't necessarily be censored). If it is a cartoon merely depicting Muhammad, then there is nothing wrong with that.

However if you think it is a "silly cartoon", then why has it caused so much violence and hatred by muslims?

Because many Muslims are deeply religious. Religion often leads people to do and believe extremely stupid things.

If it is such a silly cartoon, why shouldn't it be restricted to prevent riots and anger from many muslims.

Why shouldn't the Muslim community pull themselves together and do the sensible thing? Should the ideal of freedom of speech be sacrificied because of a bunch of extremists? Ideally I think not. Practically, I think we need to think carefully about it.

Not true. If Christian groups were outraged at a picture I drew of Jesus then personally I'd give them the free-speech finger as well.

Of course you wouldn't because you appear to be not a religious person("This is also why I have such disdain for religion"), as a result you do not have a high regard for it.

Yep. Your point?

You wouldn't be vilifying Christians. You'd be satirising or criticising the practices of a religion. There's a difference.

Actually the definition for vilify is spread negative information, and that is EXACTLY what it will be doing, just as this portrayal of the muslim people.

1. Not really, since you are criticising an idea or practice, not a person.

2. Even if you believe that it is vilification, it is justified vilification. One should be entitled to criticise religions and the people who follow them.

He was criticised for discriminating against a gay person. This is not the same at all. It is criticism of a religion - a belief, not the natural state of a human being.

This is correct. However the cartoon is also criticising the muslim people, suggesting that they are simply terrorists. Most Muslims are non-terrorsts. So is it right to call a muslim a "terrorist" if he is not, but wrong to call a gay guy "a pansy" when in fact he may be so?

1. Again, I have made no reference to the cartoon representing Muslims as terrorists. I refer to the cartoons merely depicting Muhammad.

2. Most Muslims are not terrorists, everyone knows that. But there is a significant number of extremist Islamic followers in the world for it to be understandable to highlight the existence of such people through a cartoon. Sure it isn't the majority, but it is a substantial enough number to point out that this religion - either its beliefs or its followers - has problems.

You are right, it is important to consider the practical issues of global relationships here. (This is also why I have such disdain for religion - it is the cause of so much stupidity.)

Then why are you against the restriction of this particular cartoon, if it will prevent such violence?

Because freedom of speech is more important. Just because a bunch of extremists are going around being idiots doesn't mean the rest of the world should suddenly tremble in fear and sacrifice essential freedoms. Not only would that be detrimental to democracy but it would strengthen the resolve of these extremists that they can exert pressure on governments to get what they want.

People aren't going to do that. If they are then they are just foolish or ignorant.

This is stupid, what are you trying to say?

You can't very well claim that it is stupid and then not understand it. Either you don't understand it, or you do understand it and it is stupid. If you are alleging what I write is stupid then ipso facto you must know what I am saying.

Of course people will do that, because they are foolish and ignorant, and . People will also cause illegal acts of terroism because they are foolish and ignorant. Why then shouldn't mulim terrorism ideas be restricted?

If by Muslim terrorist ideas you mean the killing of innocent people without cause then those ideas obviously should be restricted. Other than that I am not sure what your point is here.

That is not even a remotely coherent analogy.

Actually it is a coherent analogy. They are both hiding behind a principle (freedom of speech or anti-terroism) to justify their actions.

In this case freedom of speech is a justification. Just because you don't agree does not mean that people are "hiding" behind it.

It seems that you are assuming that SimpsonFreak thinks that it is illegal. However it is not. He merely suggests that we should restrict such portrayals. You are using assumptions to back your arguments. Like Mary Mcalesse says, there should be certain restrictions to freedom of speech. MOons... is another user who is simply pro-freedom of speech without neccessarily looking at the consequences. What would happen if crosses were burnt on africn-american turf, the nazis allowed to march through jewish villages. Of course this is freedom of speech, however it causes such psychological terror and anger.

Let's not draw extreme analogies here. We are not talking about a race-persecuting cult. We are not talking about a genocidal political order. We are talking about drawing a picture of Muhammad. There is nothing unreasonable about this, and the bottom line is that people should be entitled to criticise religions and their followers.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

No one has the right to offend someone's belief.

1. Utterly and absolutely wrong. Of course we are allowed to offend people's beliefs.

2. Your statement is nonsensical, contradictory and would produce absurd results. According to you, you don't have the right to offend my belief that "you are entitled to offend people's beliefs". Since our beliefs are diametrically opposed on the issue, that would mean that we both must never speak about it. (But note that would offend me, so we couldn't do such a thing). The same goes for basically any belief because someone will virtually always be offended by it. Therefore the world would become silent so as not to offend peoples beliefs. Of course, someone would have the belief that it is offensive to have to be silent all the time, so you couldn't stick to the original doctrine of non-offence and be silent. It is an endless ball of silly contradictions. The bottom line is that it is just a ridiculous notion, you are allowed to offend people's beliefs.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

I dont know why so many people are trying to twist this into a battle for free speech. its not free speech when you villify a billion people.

It is irrelevant that a billion people are offended. People should be allowed to criticise any religion that they want.

and now after such irresponsible actions, they are trying to wash their hands from what they did by simply yelling "free speech".....no different when George Bush says "9/11" or "Bin Laden" to justify spying on its own citizens.....and similarly to John Howard staying in power in last election by saying "interest rates" to scare the new home buyers...

Silly analogies. Your conclusion that they are trying to "wash their hands" rests upon the premise that something wrong has actually been done. Since you have not demonstrated that anything has been done wrong, your conclusion would automatically be rejected.

 

[garbagedump]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

"I read that as a typo, " Relli that destroys ur all argument doesn't it. '
Again you have no say in this "People should be allowed to criticise any religion that they want." since you do not feel how discrimmatory it is since you are not religious.

 

[banco55]

Good video about the religion of peace:

http://media.michellemalkin.com/firsttheycame0545.wmv

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

"I read that as a typo, " Relli that destroys ur all argument doesn't it. '
Again you have no say in this "People should be allowed to criticise any religion that they want." since you do not feel how discrimmatory it is since you are not religious.

People can criticise my non religious beliefs, which I believe in very strongly. They can also parody agnostics/atheists if they want.

 

[volition]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

People can criticise my non religious beliefs, which I believe in very strongly. They can also parody agnostics/atheists if they want.

I agree 100%

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

i think he'd agree, though, that oen can also make fun of say, natioanlity, and i'm gonna bet that even those taht aren't religious have a nationality.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

well lets hope emoticons are admissible in the high court

You obviously haven't met Chief Justice Gleeson

http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/16/mgleeson1bu.jpg

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

"I read that as a typo, " Relli that destroys ur all argument doesn't it.

No, as I said quite clearly, it provides the reason for an ambiguity in our discussion.

Again you have no say in this "People should be allowed to criticise any religion that they want." since you do not feel how discrimmatory it is since you are not religious.

Firstly, that is deductively invalid. Your argument:

1. You claim religion should be open to criticism, whether it offends or not.
2. You are not religious, so you don't feel offended.
C. Therefore you cannot have a legitimate opinion on the issue.

The conclusion in no way follows from the premises. Just because someone will not be affected by their claim does not mean that their claim is wrong. It is like saying that only women can have any legitimiate opinions on abortion.

As pointed out to you, you are able to criticise the opinions and beliefs of agnostics and atheists, whether it offends them or not. Just because you are not an atheist is no reason for you not to be able to offend atheists. That is just nonsense.


Religious beliefs are offensive to many atheists and agnostics. Does that mean we must ban religious beliefs?

 

[zahid]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

1. You claim religion should be open to criticism, whether it offends or not.
2. You are not religious, so you don't feel offended.
C. Therefore you cannot have a legitimate opinion on the issue.

Bro its 1, 2, 3 not 1, 2, C

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Bro its 1, 2, 3 not 1, 2, C

Good comeback zahid bro.

 

[c0okies]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

we all have a freedom of speech; if someone says something you don't like, just ignore it, why waste time getting angry for?

 

[Xayma]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Bro its 1, 2, 3 not 1, 2, C

Or it stands for conclusion.

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

that C might've also been standing for conclusion, as given two statements, then drawing a conclusion from them

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

that C might've also been standing for conclusion, as given two statements, then drawing a conclusion from them

I think (or at least hope) that zahid realised it was logical notation and he was just being a smart arse.