Happy Atheist Forum

Everyone join this on Facebook

Why?

Quote from: "Logikos"Why?

That is indeed a very good question.

If you want to be involved, now you know it's there.

Quote from: "Ellainix"If you want to be involved, now you know it's there.

...and why would anyone want to be involved?

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Ellainix"If you want to be involved, now you know it's there.

...and why would anyone want to be involved?

For the sake of art.

Thanks for posting this, Ellainix.  I forgot I hadn't joined this group yet.  

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Ellainix"If you want to be involved, now you know it's there.

...and why would anyone want to be involved?

To counter the poking free speech has suffered lately.

And I really very surprised you don't know the answer to your own question.

Not mine, but still excellent:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jesusandmo.net%2Fstrips%2F2010-04-29.jpg&hash=be90b4b2db70700c115d458a8ffc2ec4a079658c)

I'm struggling to see how a load of people offending Muslims by drawing pictures of Muhammad is "art" or doing anything for freedom of speech.

Quote from: "Logikos"I'm struggling to see how a load of people offending Muslims by drawing pictures of Muhammad is "art" or doing anything for freedom of speech.

Probably because when people exercise their freedom of speech by drawing Mohammed, Muslim extremists threaten to bomb them in an attempt to quash that freedom.  They may not like it, but if they're free to practice their religion, other people are free to think it's ridiculous and oppressive.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Probably because when people exercise their freedom of speech by drawing Mohammed, Muslim extremists threaten to bomb them in an attempt to quash that freedom.  They may not like it, but if they're free to practice their religion, other people are free to think it's ridiculous and oppressive.

Right.  You seem to forget about the millions of non-violent Muslims who do not oppose freedom of speech.  No demonstration is required to show that violent forms of Islam are ridiculous and oppressive - that is self-evident.  Why not spend the energy encouraging non-violent Muslims to stand-up to their extremist brothers and sisters (i.e. something positive)?

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Probably because when people exercise their freedom of speech by drawing Mohammed, Muslim extremists threaten to bomb them in an attempt to quash that freedom.  They may not like it, but if they're free to practice their religion, other people are free to think it's ridiculous and oppressive.

Right.  You seem to forget about the millions of non-violent Muslims who do not oppose freedom of speech.  No demonstration is required to show that violent forms of Islam are ridiculous and oppressive - that is self-evident.  Why not spend the energy encouraging non-violent Muslims to stand-up to their extremist brothers and sisters (i.e. something positive)?

The drawing of Muhammed is not directed at moderate Muslims. The drawing of Muhammed is the key point to the entire craze.

I do not mind the practicing of religion - I do become alert when someone demands their relgious laws apply to me - drawing Muhammed is a clear and direct way of showing you are not part of that system of religious law nor will you have it impossed on you.

No one has the right to not be offended.

Quote from: "Dretlin"The drawing of Muhammed is not directed at moderate Muslims. The drawing of Muhammed is the key point to the entire craze.

I do not mind the practicing of religion - I do become alert when someone demands their relgious laws apply to me - drawing Muhammed is a clear and direct way of showing you are not part of that system of religious law nor will you have it impossed on you.

No one has the right to not be offended.

The problem is not that the drawings will offend moderate Muslims, but that it will unnecessarily offend them.  And whether you direct the drawings to extremists or not (I have no idea how exactly you can "direct" a drawing towards extremists), in the process you are guaranteed to offend moderates.  And for what benefit?  How is offending the extremists going to change them?  It seems more likely to me that the drawings will make the moderates sympathise with the Anti-Western extremist agenda, and enrage the extremists further.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Probably because when people exercise their freedom of speech by drawing Mohammed, Muslim extremists threaten to bomb them in an attempt to quash that freedom.  They may not like it, but if they're free to practice their religion, other people are free to think it's ridiculous and oppressive.

Right.  You seem to forget about the millions of non-violent Muslims who do not oppose freedom of speech.  No demonstration is required to show that violent forms of Islam are ridiculous and oppressive - that is self-evident.  Why not spend the energy encouraging non-violent Muslims to stand-up to their extremist brothers and sisters (i.e. something positive)?

I don't "seem" to forget anything.  I'm well aware of the millions of non-violent Muslims.  I'm still entitled to draw Mohammed if I want to.  Might they be offended?  Yeah.  You know what offends me?  Organized religion.

YOU seem to forget that in countries dominated by extremist Muslim regimes, dissent is not an option, unless you want to die.  Tell a non-violent Muslim in Afghanistan to stand up to an extremist and see what the response is.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Dretlin"The drawing of Muhammed is not directed at moderate Muslims. The drawing of Muhammed is the key point to the entire craze.

I do not mind the practicing of religion - I do become alert when someone demands their relgious laws apply to me - drawing Muhammed is a clear and direct way of showing you are not part of that system of religious law nor will you have it impossed on you.

No one has the right to not be offended.

The problem is not that the drawings will offend moderate Muslims, but that it will unnecessarily offend them.  And whether you direct the drawings to extremists or not (I have no idea how exactly you can "direct" a drawing towards extremists), in the process you are guaranteed to offend moderates.  And for what benefit?  How is offending the extremists going to change them?  It seems more likely to me that the drawings will make the moderates sympathise with the Anti-Western extremist agenda, and enrage the extremists further.

No one has the right to not be offended.

Your argument is teetering on the edge of my statement. Free speech is more important than anything we have in the west. You seem all to eager to ignore that.

QuoteThe problem is not that the drawings will offend moderate Muslims, but that it will unnecessarily offend them. And whether you direct the drawings to extremists or not (I have no idea how exactly you can "direct" a drawing towards extremists), in the process you are guaranteed to offend moderates. And for what benefit? How is offending the extremists going to change them? It seems more likely to me that the drawings will make the moderates sympathise with the Anti-Western extremist agenda, and enrage the extremists further.

this is probably true. but i like to argue and offend people.

so i say free speech (and offending muslims in general) is important to the west and the rest of the world to. we should also draw stupid pictures of jesus, jew god, and asshole atheists.
pagans too dont leave them out. buddists, EVERYONE.
i think that there should be a day where you offend as many people as you can so maybe we can kill all this overly PC crap.

i find things like affirmative action, dora the explorer and the whole swiper no swiping thing, sexual repression, religious billboards, no alcohol sales on sundays, racial profiling, discrimination, and the horrid smell of my own ass offensive.

What is " FREE SPEECH "? Two people are having a conversation in their homes, they can say whatever they want. Thats free speech. The same two person go on national television, they can't just say whatever they want. The question will be: where does free speech ends? Is there a limit or do we take the doors off of the toilets and let everyone see each other as they used it. It does not matter what your belief may be, there should be respect for others in what they believe. The problem with people in some society is that they enjoy mocking others and finding defects which they compare to themselves. By doing this such people demonstrate their lack of being  " HUMAN " . They have as much to learn as those they put down.

QuoteThe problem with people in some society is that they enjoy mocking others and finding defects which they compare to themselves.

some societies? what societies dont do this? oh right the ones who go to jail for saying what they think.

QuoteThe same two person go on national television, they can't just say whatever they want.

why not?

QuoteThe question will be: where does free speech ends?

that is a good question if changed to, what speech is tolerable for public use?

QuoteIs there a limit or do we take the doors off of the toilets and let everyone see each other as they used it.

so we should be anyone but ourselves?

Quote from: "hvargas"It does not matter what your belief may be, there should be respect for others in what they believe.

Yes, and I believe that legally, I have the right to draw Mohammed if I want to.  I don't believe in him, what difference does it make to me?  Am I going to do it?  Probably not.  But a religious group does not have the right to enforce their viewpoint on other people, which is what is essentially happening here, and as an atheist I find that offensive and disrespectful .  The writers of South Park received death threats after they aired an episode that alluded to Mohammed being dressed in a bear suit.  Is it nice to mock religion?  Perhaps not, but it's still a right people have.  Why should Muslims out of all other groups be exempt?

Pardon the double post, but I just looked up the group in question on Facebook.  The group promoting the drawing of Mohammed currently has 8,524 fans.  The group opposing it?  317.  Of course it's all anecdotal, but I still think it's pretty telling, especially if you look at the individuals in both groups.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "hvargas"It does not matter what your belief may be, there should be respect for others in what they believe.

Yes, and I believe that legally, I have the right to draw Mohammed if I want to.  I don't believe in him, what difference does it make to me?  Am I going to do it?  Probably not.  But a religious group does not have the right to enforce their viewpoint on other people, which is what is essentially happening here, and as an atheist I find that offensive and disrespectful .  The writers of South Park received death threats after they aired an episode that alluded to Mohammed being dressed in a bear suit.  Is it nice to mock religion?  Perhaps not, but it's still a right people have.  Why should Muslims out of all other groups be exempt?

You hit the nail on the head here.  If a religion says it's bad to draw someone, let the people who follow that religion not draw that person.  The minute they try to tell anyone outside their group that they also have to dictate their behavior according to the foreign religion is the minute they go from being a group that deserves tolerance to being a group that is actively trying to impose their beliefs on others, and should be actively protested.

If I wanted to practice Islam I would convert, but I don't. If anybody is offended by that, let them come and tell me; I have a few suggestions for them as well.  


I had some examples of how I've actively enforced my 'live and let live' policy before, but..... suffice it to say, I have no tolerence for intolerance.

I have Muslim fb friends that I don't want to offend they never pushed their religious views on me and I feel mass actions like this make it too easy for people to forget that just because someone follows a religion doesn't mean that they necessarily act like that religion's most vocal crazy group.

Yeah but no one is forcing Muslims to watch South Park, or look at drawings depicting Mohammed.  They are free to change the channel or not view a web page.  On the flip side, they are trying to dictate the behavior of people outside of their religious group by making threats, so I'm at a point where I'm not feeling very sympathetic.  I have Muslim friends too, but most of them are level-headed enough that they wouldn't get their knickers in a twist over something like a stupid and offensive TV show that has a history of being stupid and offensive.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Probably because when people exercise their freedom of speech by drawing Mohammed, Muslim extremists threaten to bomb them in an attempt to quash that freedom.  They may not like it, but if they're free to practice their religion, other people are free to think it's ridiculous and oppressive.

Right.  You seem to forget about the millions of non-violent Muslims who do not oppose freedom of speech.  No demonstration is required to show that violent forms of Islam are ridiculous and oppressive - that is self-evident.  Why not spend the energy encouraging non-violent Muslims to stand-up to their extremist brothers and sisters (i.e. something positive)?

I don't "seem" to forget anything.  I'm well aware of the millions of non-violent Muslims.  I'm still entitled to draw Mohammed if I want to.  Might they be offended?  Yeah.  You know what offends me?  Organized religion.

YOU seem to forget that in countries dominated by extremist Muslim regimes, descent is not an option, unless you want to die.  Tell a non-violent Muslim in Afghanistan to stand up to an extremist and see what the response is.

You do mean "dissent", right?  

Just picturing the inability to procreate and have descendants in Muslim-ruled countries. That would end their party pretty quickly!

I did mean dissent.  Staying up for 16 hours studying for finals will do that to you.  

Quote from: "hvargas"Is there a limit or do we take the doors off of the toilets and let everyone see each other as they used it.

Heeeeeeeeeeeey!  Now you're talkin'!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi284.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll25%2FEvolveds_Photos%2Fonwc.gif&hash=b36a576b1ca3ca474f7306d10633320b0052035a)

Quote from: "Logikos"The problem is not that the drawings will offend moderate Muslims, but that it will unnecessarily offend them.  And whether you direct the drawings to extremists or not (I have no idea how exactly you can "direct" a drawing towards extremists), in the process you are guaranteed to offend moderates.  And for what benefit?  How is offending the extremists going to change them?  It seems more likely to me that the drawings will make the moderates sympathise with the Anti-Western extremist agenda, and enrage the extremists further.

No one's beliefs should be protected from criticism and/or satire. If some comedian starts telling people how ridiculous my "Belief" in gravity is, I have no problem with that. They can make fun of gravity till bovine meander back to their place of living and I won't care a lick. Why then is it not ok to make fun of or criticize ones belief in god?

Maybe that's not in the same line of reasoning, as drawing and mocking Mohamed is more of a rule than just the belief in something. So if someone comes up and tells me how silly it is to practice free speech or just to criticize it, I don't care. I won't force others to practice free speech, they can if they want to. Why then is it ok to limit my ability to make fun of something I see as an irrational belief? I make fun of people that think that the world is flat (yes, some of them are still around). I make fun of people that think that a space ship is hiding behind a comet and that they must kill themselves in order to hitch a ride (because they forgot their towels?).

Now an example switched to my point of view: When I was very young I had the belief that atom bombs were called mushroom bombs because they used mushrooms and that the use of the mushrooms is what caused the shape of the explosion. So when some jerk started making fun of me, it deeply offended and hurt me. But after that I realized that if any idea I had could not stand up to scrutiny and satire, then I had no right in believing it in the first place.

If someone gets offended by anything I say, draw or type then they have that right, what they don't have a right to do is to prevent me from saying, drawing or typing it by means of intimidation, making it a law or killing me. The point is, no idea should beyond the limits of satire and criticism. There is no sacred cow in the realm of free speech.

Quote from: "Dretlin"No one has the right to not be offended.

I think the lesson is more along the lines of right to criticize and freedom FROM religion.

Ok logikos what if I said displaying a cross is offensive to my beliefs remove all crosses or Ill release the dogs...with bees in thier mouths? Would you start removing all crosses, or would you realise I don't have that right? If I were Christian I'd probably put more up. Or how about you can no longer ever say a negative word about Darwin or Evolution because "it's offensive"? Or you can't say in any form written, spoken, political cartoons, ect that you don't like the president. Would you bow down to my rediculous demands or would you let me know I don't have the right to infringe on your freedoms?

This is just an act of peaceful disobediance. It literlaly hurts no one. Letting those who would use fear and terror to force others to do things there way know that we won't be cowed and we will fight (not literally necissarily) for our freedoms.

The only time our freedoms are and should be reined in is when they impinge on the freedoms of others. A picture of Mohamed does NOT fall in this catagory.

Here's a couple pictures that wouldn't exist if publishing "offensive" material wasn't allowed.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wnd.com%2Fimages2%2Fjesusmuhammad.jpg&hash=1ae1e9f6b3c7f1ec1524b7c5fed56b7f049743b0)

Quote from: "Ellainix"

Quote from: "Dretlin"No one has the right to not be offended.

I think the lesson is more along the lines of right to criticize and freedom FROM religion.

I agree.

I have no problem with freedom of speech or offending people per se - I've certainly offended enough Muslims in my time.  What I have a problem with is doing something only because it is offensive.  There are other ways to campaign for freedom of speech that will not have the negative consequences this one will (namely inciting extremist further and turning moderates against freedom).  Add to that the fact that it will do absolutely nothing for freedom of speech, and you have a simply bad idea.

Quote from: "Tanker"Ok logikos what if I said displaying a cross is offensive to my beliefs remove all crosses or Ill release the dogs...with bees in thier mouths? Would you start removing all crosses, or would you realise I don't have that right? If I were Christian I'd probably put more up.

How about "OK, well we're going to continue on as usual."

Quote from: "Logikos"I have no problem with freedom of speech or offending people per se - I've certainly offended enough Muslims in my time.  What I have a problem with is doing something only because it is offensive.

I find your total devaluing of freedom of speech baffling. I suspect you see sympathy with offence because your own beliefs come under scrutiny, and you would rather your beliefs were somehow, untouchable to criticism.

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "Logikos"I have no problem with freedom of speech or offending people per se - I've certainly offended enough Muslims in my time.  What I have a problem with is doing something only because it is offensive.

I find your total devaluing of freedom of speech baffling. I suspect you see sympathy with offence because your own beliefs come under scrutiny, and you would rather your beliefs were somehow, untouchable to criticism.

How exactly do I devalue freedom of speech in what I have written on this thread?  I am not saying people do not have the right to draw Muhammad or to take part in EDMD - I am saying that EDMD will be unproductive (in fact, counter-productive) and thus offend people unnecessarily (so I do not support it).  

As for wanting my beliefs to be untouchable to criticism nothing could be further from the truth.  I actively look for good arguments against my beliefs because it is my moral responsibility to do so - in fact that is partly why I'm here on this board.

Quote from: "Logikos"I have no problem with freedom of speech or offending people per se - I've certainly offended enough Muslims in my time.  What I have a problem with is doing something only because it is offensive.  There are other ways to campaign for freedom of speech that will not have the negative consequences this one will (namely inciting extremist further and turning moderates against freedom).  Add to that the fact that it will do absolutely nothing for freedom of speech, and you have a simply bad idea.

So how is it you know what the moderate Muslim's response to this will be?  Are you a mind reader?  I'd like to think that the greater majority of Muslims, unlike the extremists, are rational enough that they'd just chuckle at this and go on with their days, because in the grand scheme of things it's not going to hurt them, nor do they have to look at it unless they want to.  You can't be offended by something if you never look at it.  It's not like people are planing on taking out billboards to post these drawings on.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"So how is it you know what the moderate Muslim's response to this will be?  Are you a mind reader?  I'd like to think that the greater majority of Muslims, unlike the extremists, are rational enough that they'd just chuckle at this and go on with their days, because in the grand scheme of things it's not going to hurt them, nor do they have to look at it unless they want to.  You can't be offended by something if you never look at it.  It's not like people are planing on taking out billboards to post these drawings on.

I have already seen the shit hitting the fan on the couple of Islamic forums that I go on.  I'd love it if they were able to see past their indoctrination and laugh the whole thing off too, but that is not something people raised in Islamic culture are readily able to do.  Even the most secular Muslims are feeling the need to react to EDMD even though it has been made quite clear that the campaign is not directed at moderates, and that says a lot about the Muslim mind-set.

Regardless, there is a right to freedom of speech.  There is not a right to not have your religious sensibilities offended.  Perhaps you view EDMD as unnecessarily offensive, but I don't think the people who've had their freedom of speech infringed upon would agree.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Regardless, there is a right to freedom of speech.  There is not a right to not have your religious sensibilities offended.  Perhaps you view EDMD as unnecessarily offensive, but I don't think the people who've had their freedom of speech infringed upon would agree.

They have yet to show what EDMD will actually achieve, do not seem to have considered the consequences or have got on the side of moderate Muslims - it appears to me to be little more than a visceral reaction.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Regardless, there is a right to freedom of speech.  There is not a right to not have your religious sensibilities offended.  Perhaps you view EDMD as unnecessarily offensive, but I don't think the people who've had their freedom of speech infringed upon would agree.

They have yet to show what EDMD will actually achieve, do not seem to have considered the consequences or have got on the side of moderate Muslims - it appears to me to be little more than a visceral reaction.

Yeah and?  The best way to see what it will achieve is to do it.  I don't get why you're defending those who *might* be offended so hard here.  Is the reaction of offended Muslims any less visceral than those offended by having their free speech infringed upon?  And if so, why are they entitled to react this way while others are not?

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Regardless, there is a right to freedom of speech.  There is not a right to not have your religious sensibilities offended.  Perhaps you view EDMD as unnecessarily offensive, but I don't think the people who've had their freedom of speech infringed upon would agree.

They have yet to show what EDMD will actually achieve, do not seem to have considered the consequences or have got on the side of moderate Muslims - it appears to me to be little more than a visceral reaction.

Yeah and?  The best way to see what it will achieve is to do it.  I don't get why you're defending those who *might* be offended so hard here.  Is the reaction of offended Muslims any less visceral than those offended by having their free speech infringed upon?  And if so, why are they entitled to react this way while others are not?

Most rational people tend to think before acting.  I'm not a fan of any visceral reaction on either side, and all such should be minimized.

Okay, but why is it you're arguing so hard for those who might be offended if you claim you're opposed to visceral reactions on ALL sides?  Your bias very obviously seems to be leaning on the side of protecting the sensibilities of the religious from being offended.  Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but it definitely reads that way.

Quote from: "Logikos"How exactly do I devalue freedom of speech in what I have written on this thread?  I am not saying people do not have the right to draw Muhammad or to take part in EDMD - I am saying that EDMD will be unproductive (in fact, counter-productive) and thus offend people unnecessarily (so I do not support it).  

As for wanting my beliefs to be untouchable to criticism nothing could be further from the truth.  I actively look for good arguments against my beliefs because it is my moral responsibility to do so - in fact that is partly why I'm here on this board.

As I have said before, no one has the right to not be offended and you are making a clear concession for that. Religion does not have right to be free of criticism, out of naive respect.

Drawing Muhammad makes the distinction clear - other laws, based on irrational belief, will not be imposed upon you. Make the distinction now, or a greater challenge may be next.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Okay, but why is it you're arguing so hard for those who might be offended if you claim you're opposed to visceral reactions on ALL sides?  Your bias very obviously seems to be leaning on the side of protecting the sensibilities of the religious from being offended.  Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but it definitely reads that way.

(I don't think I've been arguing "hard" - to be honest I've been surprised that people have objected to what I've said.)  I think EDMD is stupid because it is a visceral reaction by those who thought of the idea, and the bandwagon-jumpers seem to be mostly in for the fun of offending some Muslims.  No good reason to support EDMD has been given, it seems all it will do is up the anti among Muslims of all flavours and it will do nothing to sway Muslims in favour of free speech.  I am against doing pointless things that ruffle people who would be better unruffled (whether their feathers are religious or otherwise).

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Okay, but why is it you're arguing so hard for those who might be offended if you claim you're opposed to visceral reactions on ALL sides?  Your bias very obviously seems to be leaning on the side of protecting the sensibilities of the religious from being offended.  Perhaps that's not how you intended it, but it definitely reads that way.

(I don't think I've been arguing "hard" - to be honest I've been surprised that people have objected to what I've said.)  I think EDMD is stupid because it is a visceral reaction by those who thought of the idea, and the bandwagon-jumpers seem to be mostly in for the fun of offending some Muslims.  No good reason to support EDMD has been given, it seems all it will do is up the anti among Muslims of all flavours and it will do nothing to sway Muslims in favour of free speech.  I am against doing pointless things that ruffle people who would be better unruffled (whether their feathers are religious or otherwise).

Nothing you've said here is new.  You're repeating yourself without actually saying anything.  Obviously, YOU don't think you're arguing hard for one side of the other, but more than one of us has told you it is coming off that way.

Quote from: "Dretlin"As I have said before, no one has the right to not be offended and you are making a clear concession for that.

Please enlighten me as to where I've implied anything of the sort.

QuoteReligion does not have right to be free of criticism, out of naive respect.

I agree, as made clear in previous post.

QuoteDrawing Muhammad makes the distinction clear - other laws, based on irrational belief, will not be imposed upon you. Make the distinction now, or a greater challenge may be next.

How exactly is any Islamic law being imposed on you?  Is Scotland an Islamic state now?

Quote from: "Logikos"

QuoteDrawing Muhammad makes the distinction clear - other laws, based on irrational belief, will not be imposed upon you. Make the distinction now, or a greater challenge may be next.

How exactly is any Islamic law being imposed on you?  Is Scotland an Islamic state now?

FFS, really?  I think it has been made clear, more than once, the threats that have been made by Muslims regarding the depiction of Mohammed in the media.  THAT is their attempt to impose their own laws on the rest of us by threatening terrorism if we go against their wishes.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Nothing you've said here is new.  You're repeating yourself without actually saying anything.  Obviously, YOU don't think you're arguing hard for one side of the other, but more than one of us has told you it is coming off that way.

I repeat myself because those are the only claims I've made in the whole thread, and yet despite clarifying time and time again I am being constantly interpreted as being on the side of the Muslims.  I think that Muslim reactions to pictures of Muhammad are as ridiculous as you think they are.  I am simply against doing pointless things that are more likely to get on people's tits than to actually make matters any better, and that is all.  Here endeth my thoughts on the matter - there are more interesting and important things to discuss.

Quote from: "Logikos"Please enlighten me as to where I've implied anything of the sort.

Quote from: "Logikos"I have no problem with freedom of speech or offending people per se

You are either with or without. There is no "per se", their is no sort of, maybe, kinda of - your ambiguous tone leaves much to be desired. The issue is not the subject matter, the issue is the freedoms that are at stake. Freedom of speech is absolute or it is nothing. If it is not total then, it is not free speech. This drawing of Muhammad subject flies in the face of free speech.

Quote from: "Logikos"exactly is any Islamic law being imposed on you?  Is Scotland an Islamic state now?

Free of speech, as I said, as either absolute or not - meaning it is universal. The imposed idea that drawing Muhammad applies anywhere on Earth, is immoral, as it is a law that should only be followed and practised by those who are in that religion or organization. One law may make way for another, from ANY belief system. I hold dear very much that all government should be completely secular, freedom of and freedom from religion. This simple issue must be made light of, otherwise it could lead to appeasement.

On a side note, I get the feeling in person me and you would actually get on rather well Logikos. I hope this issue and the impersonal way it is discussed on a forum does not cloud that possibility. Disagreement is all too important for development!  

Quote from: "Dretlin"You are either with or without. There is no "per se", their is no sort of, maybe, kinda of - your ambiguous tone leaves much to be desired. The issue is not the subject matter, the issue is the freedoms that are at stake. Freedom of speech is absolute or it is nothing. If it is not total then, it is not free speech. This drawing of Muhammad subject flies in the face of free speech.

Sorry, the way I wrote that was ambiguous.  The "per se" goes with "offending people" not "freedom of speech", i.e. I fully support freedom of speech, and I have no problem with offending people in certain conditions (namely if it is necessary for some good purpose).

QuoteFree of speech, as I said, as either absolute or not - meaning it is universal. The imposed idea that drawing Muhammad applies anywhere on Earth, is immoral, as it is a law that should only be followed and practised by those who are in that religion or organization. One law may make way for another, from ANY belief system. I hold dear very much that all government should be completely secular, freedom of and freedom from religion. This simple issue must be made light of, otherwise it could lead to appeasement.

But are Islamic laws actually being imposed on Western people?  Not at all.  Threats are made by extremists for sure, but that is a long way from imposing laws.  In as far as those threats are attempts to impose Islamic laws, they are as effective as our reactions to them: if any reaction is made at all, in my opinion, then the extremists are having an influence; if the threats are simply ignored, then they fade away to insignificance.  As far as I'm aware, there is no move for Western governments to start banning drawings of Muhammad - and of course if they ever do show signs of such, I will be among the first to protest.  But I will not allow violent nutjobs to influence my decisions.

QuoteOn a side note, I get the feeling in person me and you would actually get on rather well Logikos. I hope this issue and the impersonal way it is discussed on a forum does not cloud that possibility. Disagreement is all too important for development!  :D  I think we actually agree more about this than our discussion of the details suggests.

Any relationship wherein one party must walk on eggshells and avoid saying things for fear of violence is called an abusive relationship.  Why should we accept a widespread, worldwide, abusive relationship when a private one is not deemed acceptable?

I fully agree with Logikos. This whole attempt seemed to be just futile, silly and a (too) late jump on the bandwagon. I don't know what we need to prove (again) with these cartoons. We've been there before, we know the results, it is no longer an original idea and it has barely to do with "freedom of speech". Not to mention of course, that you can find plenty enough nasty Mohammed cartoons on the Internet, so creating even more Mohammed cartoons doesn't  seem to make any difference.

Aren't there any better ways to promote freedom of speech than publishing another batch of Mohammed cartoons?  Maybe we should ask Ex-muslim for his advise. At least he is living is a country where the Muslim population goes bananas when their believes are attacked.

Quote from: "Tom62"I fully agree with Logikos. This whole attempt seemed to be just futile, silly and a (too) late jump on the bandwagon. I don't know what we need to prove (again) with these cartoons. We've been there before, we know the results, it is no longer an original idea and it has barely to do with "freedom of speech". Not to mention of course, that you can find plenty enough nasty Mohammed cartoons on the Internet, so creating even more Mohammed cartoons doesn't  seem to make any difference.

Aren't there any better ways to promote freedom of speech than publishing another batch of Mohammed cartoons?  Maybe we should ask Ex-muslim for his advise. At least he is living is a country where the Muslim population goes bananas when their believes are attacked.

The reason it's being brought up again is because of the recent network censorship of a South Park episode after they received a death threat following an episode where they seemed to have depicted Mohammad in a bear suit.  For this reason I don't think the recent wave of protests can be classified as futile, silly or a too late jump on a bandwagon.  If people just started drawing Mohammad for no reason, if nothing had recently happened to inspire the protests, or even if there hadn't been any new death threats in a while and the protest was a response to something non-violent that occurred, I might agree with you.  However, the issue was reignited by a violent threat because of a cartoon, thus people are protesting by drawing cartoons.  Makes sense, I think.

Quote from: "Tom62"I fully agree with Logikos. This whole attempt seemed to be just futile, silly and a (too) late jump on the bandwagon. I don't know what we need to prove (again) with these cartoons. We've been there before, we know the results, it is no longer an original idea and it has barely to do with "freedom of speech". Not to mention of course, that you can find plenty enough nasty Mohammed cartoons on the Internet, so creating even more Mohammed cartoons doesn't  seem to make any difference.

Aren't there any better ways to promote freedom of speech than publishing another batch of Mohammed cartoons?  Maybe we should ask Ex-muslim for his advise. At least he is living is a country where the Muslim population goes bananas when their believes are attacked.

+1

A favorite quote of mine is "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

For me this is an issue of letting others decree what we can and can't say. This doesn't seem to me to be a unilateral attempt to upset muslims but a response to some of those same muslims attempt to scare people into silence. It's a protest using our freedom of speach to protect that same freedom. If we cowed down every time some group decided we shouldn't be allowed to say what we want in whatever matter we want this forum wouldn't exist. Nobody is forcing anyone to draw Mohamed, I in fact did not, but I fully suport those who want to.

It just seems like it could become a slippery slope to me. Where should we draw the line esspecially when that line would be redrawn every time a group took offence to something. I support nearly anything that pushes back back when a minority tries to dictact (especialy through fear) what the majority can and can't do.

Quote from: "Logikos"

Quote from: "Dretlin"The drawing of Muhammed is not directed at moderate Muslims. The drawing of Muhammed is the key point to the entire craze.

I do not mind the practicing of religion - I do become alert when someone demands their relgious laws apply to me - drawing Muhammed is a clear and direct way of showing you are not part of that system of religious law nor will you have it impossed on you.

No one has the right to not be offended.

The problem is not that the drawings will offend moderate Muslims, but that it will unnecessarily offend them.  And whether you direct the drawings to extremists or not (I have no idea how exactly you can "direct" a drawing towards extremists), in the process you are guaranteed to offend moderates.  And for what benefit?  How is offending the extremists going to change them?  It seems more likely to me that the drawings will make the moderates sympathise with the Anti-Western extremist agenda, and enrage the extremists further.

The apathy amongst the moderate muslim community when dealing with their own extreme minority offends me. I'll happily do my part to offend those who would cut off my head for the sake of words or images. The reason moderate muslims are called so is simply because they don't run into the streets crying for the heads of whoever offends them. They just sit at home muttering at the telly - as do i when I see stuff like Japan hunting whales to extinction.

To have a handful of people who think their rights should be more important than anyone else's need to see the tough leathery boot of free speech bearing down crunchingly on their thick skulls. If they so badly want to live in the dark ages then they should get the hell back to whichever shithole they came from.

I'm up for multiculturalism but those people can just fuck off.

Quote from: "Logikos"Glad to hear it!  :D  

I need further time to consider this issue, I had a conversation with someone today that has humbled me slightly.

So please forgive me that I do not reply to your post in detail.

Besides:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-sjc1%2Fhs283.snc3%2F27829_123824300964653_121369914543425_301696_7460949_n.jpg&hash=1c31e59a0b6973de1ee266fd71cf655ec2d55ac8)

Quote from: "Dretlin"I am happy we both see that!    

I need further time to consider this issue, I had a conversation with someone today that has humbled my slightly.

So please forgive me that I do not reply to your post in detail.

No worries, Dretlin, good to see you're thinking through stuff.

Late to the party, but hey ho.

I am broadly in support, I think drawing Mohammed is a valid way of showing our dissatisfaction at peoples attempts to curtail the freedom's of others with violence. I do not see how this is any worse (in act, I believe it to be better in many ways) than Marching through a city to protest something you disagree with.

Also, LOL Karadan.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_sd4aOA0Ur-I%2FRsQojrUPSxI%2FAAAAAAAAAkY%2FychEANR5dgI%2Fs400%2FTabDanishCartoons.gif&hash=2fb5698a17913fc0d6215bbbd28059b4e8f12bbf)

According to many in this forum is O'K to make other people angry. I know that Islam is a LIED just like Chistianity is a LIED but I will not derived any pleasures in insulting or in malicious criticism of somone elses beliefs systems. Some think that to say such and such is an expression of their rights to freedom but they fail to look into the freedom of the one they criticise, that is to say, they violate the freedom of others. There is what is called constructive criticism which when used correctly does not violate the freedom of the one being criticise. Some people need to learn that. What do you think will happen if you have a " Everyboby Draw Jesus Day " sitting on a toylet naked.

Quote from: "hvargas"I know that Islam is a LIED just like Chistianity is a LIED but I will not derived any pleasures in insulting or in malicious criticism of somone elses beliefs systems.

Then what the hell do you call labeling anyone's belief system as a "LIED?" Constructive criticism?

If I call you a liar would you not consider that malicious criticism? Well, you are a liar. You do the very thing you say you will not do.

And I'm all for an Everybody Draw Jesus day.

Quote from: "hvargas"According to many in this forum is O'K to make other people angry. I know that Islam is a LIED just like Chistianity is a LIED but I will not derived any pleasures in insulting or in malicious criticism of somone elses beliefs systems. Some think that to say such and such is an expression of their rights to freedom but they fail to look into the freedom of the one they criticise, that is to say, they violate the freedom of others.  There is what is called constructive criticism which when used correctly does not violate the freedom of the one being criticise. Some people need to learn that. What do you think will happen if you have a " Everyboby Draw Jesus Day " sitting on a toylet naked.

Criticism doesn't violate anyone else's rights.  You might think it's rude or unnecessary, but being rude isn't a violation of anyone's rights either.  Personally I don't think anyone should go out of their way to be rude to anyone else, but I also don't think that this specific response, which was inspired by a death threat, is properly categorized as going out of one's way to be rude.  You can disagree with me, about half of the people here do, but to try to say that I am somehow reducing the rights of someone else because I'm drawing a picture is ridiculous.  Don't like it?  Don't look at it.  Ignore it.  Take the power of the protest away by not paying any attention to it.  You have the freedom to do that.  

Someone telling me I can't do something because of their religion is a violation of my rights because my freedom is being involuntarily restricted.  People of that group choose to have their rights restricted and while I think that's silly, I would never try to tell them what they can or can't do based on my opinion of the way people ought to act.  They, however, seem to have little issue with telling me how I should act which I would normally ignore, except the whole death threat thing kind of dumps the issue up in importance in my mind.  Lots of religions have rules they impose on their group, which is fine, but trying to impose rules on people outside of the group?  Unacceptable.  How would you feel if Jews suddenly started threatening to kill anyone who ate pork or if Hindus decided to send out death threats to everyone involved in the cattle industry?  Would it be a violation of their rights to tell them to fuck off?  Would it be a violation of their rights for me to eat a bacon cheeseburger in front of them as a form of protest?  Absolutely not.

Do you honestly believe that you have the right to dictate someone else's behavior based on your opinion of what is rude and what isn't, what is acceptable and what isn't?  That seems insane to me.

A+, pinko.

If this whole thing is about the South Park episode that was censored because of Muslim death threads, than the radical Muslims already won. The western media is censoring themselves. This is the same media that withdrew Salman Rusdies' book "Satanic Verses" from the British bookshops in the 80's and the same media  that called the Muslim outcry against the original Mohammed cartoons a "freedom of speech" violation. This tells me more about the media than about the radical Muslims. As long as something happens far away from you then it is OK to make a stand, but if you are a target yourself then is is better to back-off.

Unfortunately, drawing additional Mohammed cartoons won't change our "freedom of speech" losses to a win. Time after time, we've sent clear signals to the radical Muslims that we are afraid of them and that we are willing to give up our basic human rights, because we are so damned scared. The radicals already know that they have the power to bring "freedom of speech" to a halt, because there will always be people in the media, in governments, in city counsels and anywhere else, who are not brave enough to stand up against them. But then of course it takes bravery to stand up against them, because some people, who actually did that, are now either dead (like Theo van Gogh) or constantly in hiding, because they are afraid of their lives (like Salman Rusdie and Kurt Westergaard). Drawing Mohammed cartoons may ease our own minds, but it doesn't solve our real problems with those crazy fanatics and with "freedom of speech".

I completely see your point Tom. However, I think there is some merit to raising this issue with moderate muslims. As far as facebook is concerned, there seems to be a lot of people asking why there is a draw mohammed day. There are normal people getting hugely offended by it because they think we are just making fun of them. I've been having a really cool conversation with a muslem guy on FB because of that particular group. Initially he was outraged but all I needed to do to pacify him was explain the reasons why there was this particular facebook group. Since then we've been talking about normal stuff :(

Of course, the radicals will win every time. They are the ones with the inclination to actually murder in the name of their belief. I don't think it is so disingenuous for comedy central to censor south park. They have the safety of their employees to be concerned with. Besides, I don't know about you, but if someone directed a death threat at me for saying something and I knew they had the ability to find me, I'd definitely recant. I'm soft. I'm not willing to die just because I said something which offended someone.

To say that I don't believe in God is about the same as saying God is a lied. If I tell a christian or a muslim that their religion is a lied, I'm not insulting them. Their most natural response towards me, may be " you're just ignorant or have not found God ". To tell someone that what they are presenting is a lied, is not insulting. That someone must then prove why is not a lied and I in turn must show why it's a lied. I do not take sides between beliefs but there must be some limits and respects. Yes, you have rights and feel that if you are limited such limits deprides you of your rights. What about the rights of others? Are your rights greater than the rights of others or more specials? I can criticise both christians and muslims using their own history as to what they had done. All the killings and wars and thats not a lied which is still going on today. Many here are sensitives atheist that may not want to show it but at the same time they are non-sensitive to others.

Quote from: "hvargas"Are your rights greater than the rights of others or more specials?

No, and neither are theirs, which is exactly the point. We have the right to free speech, to make cartoons or anything else; we're not asking for any special privilege, they are - the privilege of having their religious customs observed unwillingly by everyone else. No one has that right, nor should anyone. The protest is one way to declare a boundary between where our rights begin and theirs end.

Quote from: "hvargas"To say that I don't believe in God is about the same as saying God is a lied. If I tell a christian or a muslim that their religion is a lied, I'm not insulting them. Their most natural response towards me, may be " you're just ignorant or have not found God ". To tell someone that what they are presenting is a lied, is not insulting. That someone must then prove why is not a lied and I in turn must show why it's a lied. I do not take sides between beliefs but there must be some limits and respects. Yes, you have rights and feel that if you are limited such limits deprides you of your rights. What about the rights of others? Are your rights greater than the rights of others or more specials? I can criticise both christians and muslims using their own history as to what they had done. All the killings and wars and thats not a lied which is still going on today. Many here are sensitives atheist that may not want to show it but at the same time they are non-sensitive to others.

Drawing a picture doesn't violate anyone else's rights.  Saying something is wrong doesn't violate anyone else's rights.  Disagreeing with something doesn't violate anyone else's rights.  No one, besides the people saying that I am not allowed to draw a picture because if what they believe, is prioritizing their rights over anyone else's.

Your position is entirely hypocritical.  Some people would find your assertion that religion "is a lied" (?) is just as insulting as someone drawing a picture of Mohammed, regardless of the evidence you present to them that your assertion is true.  If that were the case than by your own logic, you are both violating the rights of others and prioritizing your own rights above theirs because you said something someone else found insultingly offensive.  It would seem that your position is that when it comes to your personal criticism, you have the right to speak out, but if you disagree with the criticism being put forth, the person doing the criticizing is violating the other person's rights.  That's precisely why freedom of speech is so important - I don't want people like you deciding how I'm allowed to express myself, be it criticism or anything else.

Quote from: "karadan"Of course, the radicals will win every time.

Not this time!

Bumping, since it's the 20th.  Happy EDMD!

Ahh. Thanks for reminding me. I was afraid I'd forget.

Haha. Pakistan has already blocked facebook and youtube in 'retaliation'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_ ... 130195.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm)

Why don't they just ban the entire internet?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2FEDMD.jpg&hash=8dae222b922fabee2de6bacbd27e09307b50e755)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcecilie123.blog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fblogs.dir%2F3010096%2Ffiles%2F1%2Fmuhammed.jpg%3F1704342661&hash=9fbdbade9cb6114aa2d52fedcbba9d058185062f)
Aren't I talented?  

Quote from: "Cecilie"Why don't they just ban the entire internet?

Couldn't pass bomb plans around or plot effectively if they did that.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Cecilie"Why don't they just ban the entire internet?

Couldn't pass bomb plans around or plot effectively if they did that.

Of course.  

[attachment=0:269olnxs]yo dawg mohammed.jpg[/attachment:269olnxs]

Quote from: "theTwiz"[attachment=0:3st2wqex]yo dawg mohammed.jpg[/attachment:3st2wqex]

This is officially the only use of that meme that made me laugh.  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchubbynickel.com%2FComics%2F2010%2F0520Comic21.png&hash=0b78956a0978f6238e8de7b39b07ea53476097ee)

I can draw... honest.

Quote from: "theTwiz"yo dawg mohammed.jpg

Epic.

I can't be bothered to read the thread and find out if this has already been posted:
http://trueslant.com/michaelpeck/2010/05/20/this-is-how-muslims-should-protest/

If I was with the atheist student association that did this, I'd turn around and shake the Muslim students' hands.  Because that is just too damn clever.  Then I'd go have a beer.

Quote from: "theTwiz"I can't be bothered to read the thread and find out if this has already been posted:
http://trueslant.com/michaelpeck/2010/05/20/this-is-how-muslims-should-protest/

If I was with the atheist student association that did this, I'd turn around and shake the Muslim students' hands.  Because that is just too damn clever.  Then I'd go have a beer.

That was badass. Very clever and i bet it worked a treat. I'm sure they stopped drawing stick figures pretty quickly after that.

 

Quote from: "theTwiz"I can't be bothered to read the thread and find out if this has already been posted:
http://trueslant.com/michaelpeck/2010/05/20/this-is-how-muslims-should-protest/

If I was with the atheist student association that did this, I'd turn around and shake the Muslim students' hands.  Because that is just too damn clever.  Then I'd go have a beer.

That is clever....maybe others will learn from it.

It looks like the original group must have been deleted?  There's another group for it, but it's not the same one.  I'm wondering if FB finally caved and removed it.

Have you guys heard of the Facebook group Everybody draw mohammed day? It's a protest against Islamic hipocrisy. I think it was wrong for Pakistan to censor South Park.

We already had a thread over in the media forum.

Quote from: "SSY"We already had a thread over in the media forum.

it was actually in current events but now the threads are merged.

Good point, you've won this round.

Quote from: "kokaki1g"Have you guys heard of the Facebook group Everybody draw mohammed day? It's a protest against Islamic hipocrisy. I think it was wrong for Pakistan to censor South Park.

Pakistan didn't censor South Park, the producers did. There is a Facebook group Everybody draw mohammed day and Pakistan shut down Facebook in protest AFAIK.

Welcome aboard!

I tried scetching Mohammed, but everyone thought it was the Unibomber...

I'd draw Mohammed if I had even the slightest idea of what he looked like. Beyond the assumption that he likely had a beard though, I can claim no knowledge.

He looks kind of like a mixture of these two:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F42%2FUnabomber.jpg&hash=2868f202de6b19ade48ebd61de4a0cda5f9e74a7)

and

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grumpychimp.com%2Fstuff%2Fcelebrity-mugshots%2Fted-nugent-mugshot.jpg&hash=6598d48fc32777a03d55fa9a138da93eb2b2fd24)

...And you know that how, exactly..?

Maybe he looked like Gandalf in stead?  

I asked the local clergyman, that's the exact wording he used...

A mixture of Ted Nugent, and Ted Kazinskie (SP?)

Well not really, but that's what I got out of the conversation.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"I asked the local clergyman, that's the exact wording he used...

A mixture of Ted Nugent, and Ted Kazinskie (SP?)

Well not really, but that's what I got out of the conversation.

How would your local cleric know that Mohammed did not look like Gandalf?

I don't know, he probably asked his god...

This whole controversy/fervor around "draw Muhammad day" has been very strange and confusing to me on several levels and has been further complicated since the recent outrage over the "not mosque at not ground zero".

First, it is obvious that this was one big grandiose troll event with slightly more of a principled message to stand on than that of most 4chan raids, but much less amusing. I personally enjoy hearing about things 4chan does in the news and so forth, but can also admire their base disregard for anyone they have contempt for in an honest way. In other words, they don't attempt to mask what they are doing by saying they are entitled to piss people off and deliberately offend because "goddamnit, this is the west (America) and we have the right not just to say whatever we want, but to say whatever the fuck we want!". It is self-evident that people are not entitled to keep everyone around them (as well as thousands of miles away from them) from offending them. The concept is absurd at least in my opinion. It however, does not seem to be so self-evident to most people who are so fervent about this draw Muhammad day.

I criticize those who support "Draw Muhammad Day" but don't apply these principles (buzz words in their contexts) of free speech and people not being entitled to retribution because they are offended to different scenarios. For instance, I seriously doubt many of these people would advocate dedicating a day to denying the holocaust, which is actually illegal to do in these "western" countries who supposedly support rights to freedom of speech and so forth. Nor would they advocate dedicating a day to calling Hispanics/Latinos/w/e wetbacks/spics/etc nor black people niggers just to say "deal with our insults towards you because it's my right to do so". I hear a lot of draw muhammad supporters saying "organized religion and/or Islam offends me, so I am entitled to offend people who believe in religion" (as they rightfully are entitled). However, I cannot imagine them saying "the arbitrary nature of political correctness and certain words and/or ideas warranting a hyper-sensitive response offend me and I will, therefore, retaliate by doing those very things that offend people."

There is this theoretical hypocrisy that I find in many supporters of "Draw Muhammad Day" that hasn't really been tested but I think can be reasonably assumed. There is also the demonstrated hypocrisy by many of these people who think that the city of New York should not allow the Park 51 Community Center to be built in downtown Manhattan because they are outraged and offended by such a gesture. Given the reactions of many Christians, Jews, and Atheists towards the construction of the community center had in recent months who also supported the antagonistic event of "Draw Muhammad Day", I can't see them as deserving of any praise for supporting the principles they claim to support. Thunderf00t is a prime example of this. While he said "the Muslims" in his ever so bigoted and ignorant language "have a right to build the 'mosque' but deserve whatever reaction they receive from those who are opposed to it." During the heat of the "Draw Muhammad Day" event, he expressed vehement disgust (as well as amusement) to the distasteful, pathetic actions of censorship the Pakistani government committed on that day and denounced retaliations made by Muslims in the past, but basically said that those who participate in the "mosque at ground zero" should accept whatever happens by those who wish for vindication.

Thunderf00t along with many others are clear and quintessential examples of un-principled ideologues who do not think reasonably nor skeptically when it comes to issues for which they have emotional investment but claim to be "rational skeptics".

I honestly would have preferred this "Draw Muhammad Day" thing to be done by 4chan because at least they would not claim some sort of moral high ground or bullshit defense of civil liberties when they clearly could not give a shit about such issues applied to other situations. At least it would have been funny and more successful if they did it.

>Implying the holocaust actually happened.

Quote from: "PoopShoot">Implying the holocaust actually happened.

Yes, along with the Armenian genocide, the Japanese atrocities against the Chinese, the Stalinist purges throughout the Soviet Union, etc. There are no laws denying those other things, however. It's just that when someone publicly denies the evidence for the holocaust happening, they get into legal trouble. Denying evolution, deaths under communist China, gravity, etc are not. Infringement of freedom of speech and special pleading? yes.

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"

Quote from: "PoopShoot">Implying the holocaust actually happened.

Yes, along with the Armenian genocide, the Japanese atrocities against the Chinese, the Stalinist purges throughout the Soviet Union, etc. There are no laws denying those other things, however. It's just that when someone publicly denies the evidence for the holocaust happening, they get into legal trouble. Denying evolution, deaths under communist China, gravity, etc are not. Infringement of freedom of speech and special pleading? yes.

Nothing like some honest denying the holocaust in the morning though when you are just itching to break the law just a little... My country tends not to prosecute or even investigate such cases unless they are massively public and are recorded by at least four different media.

Clearly you missed the point.  What law makes it illegal to deny the holocaust?  There are three newspapers in California (that I have read, maybe there are more) DEDICATED to holocaust denial.  Somehow I don't think your assertion is accurate.

Not everywhere is california, different countries have different laws... Hell, laws vary state to state!

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Not everywhere is california, different countries have different laws... Hell, laws vary state to state!

The original implication was that it's illegal in the USA.  With as many skinheads are in your state, I doubt it's illegal there too.  In fact, it's against the first amendment, so I find it highly suspect that it's illegal anywhere in USA.  Also, the different states ARE different countries.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Not everywhere is california, different countries have different laws... Hell, laws vary state to state!

The original implication was that it's illegal in the USA.  With as many skinheads are in your state, I doubt it's illegal there too.  In fact, it's against the first amendment, so I find it highly suspect that it's illegal anywhere in USA.  Also, the different states ARE different countries.

I didn't imply anything. I said "the west" where there certainly are laws against publically denying the holocaust and where people have been arrested for it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 861271.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4861271.ece)
Holocaust deniers tend to be scary and insane people and are likely to be suspect for other crimes, but holocaust denial is still no less illegal in many western countries.

If you actually read my post accurately and were still curious to find out instances where people were arrested and prosecuted under these laws, you could have typed "laws against holocaust denial" in a google search and found this out for yourself. And no, you won't find it illegal in the US. You can get up on a podium at an AIPAC meeting, yell as loud as you can that the holocaust didn't happen, get thrown out of the place, and not even be bothered by the legal authorities. If you do such a thing in say Germany or, I think, in Belgium, it's a different story entirely. Germany and Belgium are still considered "the West" in most people's conception of the West, right?

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"If you actually read my post accurately...

Had you written it precisely...

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"If you actually read my post accurately...

Had you written it precisely...

What part of my post led you to believe that when I said "western countries" that it only meant or only implied the US? Is the US multiple countries and thus means that when I said "western countries" (with an 's' to indicate a plurality of nations) that could have included only the US? I would think that when I pluralize the term "countries" that I mean more than one country. Is this precise enough for you? Or do you need it spelled out more?

Ambiguous "western countries" followed by events in the US.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Ambiguous "western countries" followed by events in the US.

I fail to see how that means I could have meant that the word "countries" only referred to one nation. Are you seriously that confused with singular and plural tenses?

But anyway, this is the epitome of trolling and diverts the substance of every single point I made in my post to this single misunderstanding you had where you did not understand the difference between 'country' and 'countries'.

No matter how many states the USA acquires throughout its existence, it will never ever be more than one country. It is not 3.846 countries now with 50 states as opposed to when it was only comprised of 13 states. It is still one nation. Are you getting this now? The term pluralized term 'countries' can include the US but must necessarily include at least one other nation because the word 'countries' means that there is at least more than one nation. I can break this down even further if you'd like or if you require it.

Anyway, to re-iterate and sum up the main points of my more substantive post, I merely said it was hypocritical for people in support of "Draw Muhammad Day" to support such an event without showing any inkling or urge to offend Jews, Blacks, or Latinos in the same way with either a deny the holocaust day (where it is illegal in some western nations), call someone a spic day, or call someone a nigger day. I also found it profoundly ironic and hypocritical when people like Thunderf00t said that "yes the people who support the 'mosque at ground zero' deserve the right to build it but also deserve whatever vindication that comes from those who support not having it built." So basically Thunderf00t was like "if you are butthurt over this draw Muhammad day then fuckoff, but if you want this 'mosque' built near ground zero then you have to put up with everyone's vicious opposition to it and I could not only give less of a shit about such responses but also encourage them somewhat". To be fair, Thunderf00t never actually said he wanted people who advocated the community center in Mahattan to be given a hard time, but it is clear he did not care if they did get such a hard time.

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"this is the epitome of trolling

:yay:  :yay:  
No, it isn't.  Were I trolling, I'd be in line for a ban.

Protip: when you use ambiguous terms and then follow those terms with specific examples that don't apply to the ambiguous terms, misunderstandings happen.  Take an entry-level college English course and you'll find that out for yourself.

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"No matter how many states the USA acquires throughout its existence, it will never ever be more than one country.

Actually, it's currently fifty countries ("state" has never meant "province", Americans have simply equated the two over time) combined in a single Imperial republic.

QuoteI also found it profoundly ironic and hypocritical when people like Thunderf00t said that "yes the people who support the 'mosque at ground zero' deserve the right to build it but also deserve whatever vindication that comes from those who support not having it built." So basically Thunderf00t was like "if you are butthurt over this draw Muhammad day then fuckoff, but if you want this 'mosque' built near ground zero then you have to put up with everyone's vicious opposition to it and I could not only give less of a shit about such responses but also encourage them somewhat". To be fair, Thunderf00t never actually said he wanted people who advocated the community center in Mahattan to be given a hard time, but it is clear he did not care if they did get such a hard time.

Thunderf00t was making separate points.  The point about draw muhammed day was addressing censorship whereas the backlash about building the mosque was in reference to interpersonal interactions.  The former is about government intervention, the latter about accepting that fact that people can be (and often are) douches.  I see no contradiction in that.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"With as many skinheads are in your state, I doubt it's illegal there too.

When did Washington gain a skinhead reputation? I thought we were known for angsty alt rock types, and onion farmers.

From what I've seen people tend to be hairier than average... It gets cold up here. I don't know about across the mountains though... But it's like a whole other world over there so maybe.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"this is the epitome of trolling

:yay:  :yay:  
No, it isn't.  Were I trolling, I'd be in line for a ban.

Meh, trolling doesn't always warrant a ban. Just because your trolling for this particular instance won't get you banned, that doesn't mean you weren't trolling.

QuoteProtip: when you use ambiguous terms and then follow those terms with specific examples that don't apply to the ambiguous terms, misunderstandings happen.  Take an entry-level college English course and you'll find that out for yourself.

Ambiguous terms that clearly indicate multiple bodies of land outlined and claimed by governmental organizations? When I said countries, how the hell did you come to the conclusion that I meant a single country or that it could mean anything besides multiple countries? Because I pointed to a certain controversy surrounding one particular country meant that I thought the word 'countries' meant a single nation-state? Take an elementary school class where you wouldn't even fit in the desk and have the teacher tell you all about singular and plural nouns. I am sure you will at least get a piece of candy no matter what sorts of things you say to them.

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"No matter how many states the USA acquires throughout its existence, it will never ever be more than one country.

QuoteActually, it's currently fifty countries ("state" has never meant "province", Americans have simply equated the two over time) combined in a single Imperial republic.

Ok, so Texas, Maine, Nebraska, California, Ohio, West Virginia etc are countries. Take an entry-level college course in government and see if they will accept such idiocy.

QuoteI also found it profoundly ironic and hypocritical when people like Thunderf00t said that "yes the people who support the 'mosque at ground zero' deserve the right to build it but also deserve whatever vindication that comes from those who support not having it built." So basically Thunderf00t was like "if you are butthurt over this draw Muhammad day then fuck off, but if you want this 'mosque' built near ground zero then you have to put up with everyone's vicious opposition to it and I could not only give less of a shit about such responses but also encourage them somewhat". To be fair, Thunderf00t never actually said he wanted people who advocated the community center in Mahattan to be given a hard time, but it is clear he did not care if they did get such a hard time.

QuoteThunderf00t was making separate points.  The point about draw Muhammad day was addressing censorship whereas the backlash about building the mosque was in reference to interpersonal interactions.  The former is about government intervention, the latter about accepting that fact that people can be (and often are) douches.  I see no contradiction in that.

Don't attempts to prevent the construction of a community center despite legitimate purchase of land and co-operation with ordinance laws hinder their right to freedom of expression? Thunderf00t thought it was just fine for everyone to deliberately insult Muslims (whoever he thinks they may be) by drawing Muhammad and that 'The Muslims' should just deal with it because they have no entitlement to retaliate for being offended (which they don't), but 'The Muslims' should still have to deal with whatever comes their way with this Park 51 ordeal. Maybe if Thunderf00t thought people who participated in Draw Muhammad deserved any sort of response directed towards them it would be even steven, but otherwise, I see him as being hypocritical.
And btw, the former (draw hawmid day) was not about government intervention. It was about violent outrage by certain people. That was his beef with Muslims and others who were against it. That if you were against Draw Muhammad Day that would were cowering to 'The Muslims' because you did not deliberately offend them. Yet he saw the building of a community center near ground zero as an offensive gesture against the US and "western culture" and that it deserved any response it got (except perhaps unlawful ones by US definitions).

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"Meh, trolling doesn't always warrant a ban. Just because your trolling for this particular instance won't get you banned, that doesn't mean you weren't trolling.

If I were trolling, I'd have done something banworthy.  You must be new to the internet.

QuoteOk, so Texas, Maine, Nebraska, California, Ohio, West Virginia etc are countries. Take an entry-level college course in government and see if they will accept such idiocy.

And when you ask what makes them fundamentally different from a country within an empire, you will get a blank stare.  American nationalism has caused too many of us to think in terms of "one nation, indivisible" to admit the fact that we are the last remaining empire on the planet.   Oh, and it was in an entry level college course on western civilization that this was pointed out to me by the professor.

QuoteDon't attempts to prevent the construction of a community center despite legitimate purchase of land and co-operation with ordinance laws hinder their right to freedom of expression? Thunderf00t thought it was just fine for everyone to deliberately insult Muslims (whoever he thinks they may be) by drawing Muhammad and that 'The Muslims' should just deal with it because they have no entitlement to retaliate for being offended (which they don't), but 'The Muslims' should still have to deal with whatever comes their way with this Park 51 ordeal.

Yes, and it's PEOPLE who are trying to do have it prevented.  The government has only had to step in to prevent the citizens from doing something stupid.  The attempted abridgement of freedom wasn't begun at the governmental level.

Yeah, a lot of people forget that higher learning is ALL about taking simple things and making them rediculously complex.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Yeah, a lot of people forget that higher learning is ALL about taking simple things and making them rediculously complex.

Yeah.  Like spelling.

 

Darn them I's that sound like E's!