ITS ON NOW, Denmark!

[Blarg]

I don't really know how justified you are to be angry over this anyway. I'm sure you have knowingly done things that would piss off Muhammad or Allah before. I think a self boycott is in order.

[Faris]

Depicting Muhammed in a "neutral" cartoon manner is only offensive if you are Muslim - to everyone else it's just another drawing of a religious figure, and everyone else should treat ideas surrounding "neutral" cartoon drawings of religious figures by and large the same, not fear for their lives for depicting Muhammed as they would depict Jesus or Buddha or Moses. There is no malice involved in drawing a religious figure for a children's book, and the ensuing outrage is simply Muslims being fucking butt-hurt whiny bitches that should not be catered to. Drawing Mohammed for a children's book is not a "fuck you" to Islam. It's just not.

Oh fuck you. Why is it that i find it offensive when you shameless bastards make fun of your own religion?
This bullshit you guys make on the internet, "baby jesus", "raptor jesus", and all that confusing shit. I find it extremely disrespectful and tasteless, there are things in life that should just simply be resepected and left alone, whether you believe in them or not. Give things what they are worth to the world, not to you alone, man.

[Kaelan]

People have some weird concepts of "Freedom of Speech". Freedom of speech is not "Freedom to be a douchebag".

Freedom of speech is that a government may not pass any laws restricting the ability to speak freely.

Part of this freedom is is the *responsibility* to accept the consequences of the speech *you* choose to engage in.

Freedom of speech is not absolute, it does not give you a blanket waiver to say or do stupid shit and just yell "IT'S MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH BITCH" when you say some stupid shit that people don't like.

Yes it does. That's the whole point. What it does not prevent is the government for passing laws that say "if you say X, we'll have to arrest you because it causes Y and Z problems in society". It does, however , prevent government from making laws that prohibit people from saying those things. You're confusing censorship and prohibition of speech/expression with the consequences of having said views.

Freedom of speech is not restricted to "Your freedom to say things that don't offend me".

Think for a minute how many of these apply to these "Innocent" cartoons.

So do you think the people on comedy central making black and hispanic jokes should also get arrested for racism? They go a whole lot farther than the cartoons did. There's a world of difference between having a legitimate legal reason to punish people from saying something versus complaining because your feelings got hurt. "I'm offended" is not an argument.

The reason there were dire consequences of these cartoons is because these people have ridiculous extremist religious ideas and certain groups have it in their best interests to force their barbaric, tribal views on the rest on Europe as we speak, not because the Danish cartoonists are bigots. To even attempt to suggest the claim that "they brought it on themselves" and shift the blame on them instead of looking to the people who are actually reacting to a cartoon with death threats is outright ridiculous. That's akin to saying that the kids that die in school shootings brought it on themselves for mocking the poor mentally unstable kids who decided to pickup guns and kill people when they got pissed. It's divisive and shifts the focus away from what the actual problem is.

No, it goes into making a smart choice. Freedom of speech only applies to the government and it's ability to make laws governing it. It does NOT give you a blanket waiver to say dangerous(FIRE!) things and not have to suffer any consequences for it.

The reach of a person's freedom stops right at the point which in restricts someone else's freedom, so yes, I would count entire countries not being able to print a cartoon due to fear of violence a direct assault on their right to do it. If you keep going with that line of thinking, you'll end up submitting to the first "sensitive" person with the balls to threaten you when you say something they disagree with.

[Faris]

People have some weird concepts of "Freedom of Speech". Freedom of speech is not "Freedom to be a douchebag".

Freedom of speech is that a government may not pass any laws restricting the ability to speak freely.

Part of this freedom is is the *responsibility* to accept the consequences of the speech *you* choose to engage in.

Freedom of speech is not absolute, it does not give you a blanket waiver to say or do stupid shit and just yell "IT'S MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH BITCH" when you say some stupid shit that people don't like.

Yes it does. That's the whole point. What it does not prevent is the government for passing laws that say "if you say X, we'll have to arrest you because it causes Y and Z problems in society". It does, however , prevent government from making laws that prohibit people from saying those things. You're confusing censorship and prohibition of speech/expression with the consequences of having said views.

Freedom of speech is not restricted to "Your freedom to say things that don't offend me".

Think for a minute how many of these apply to these "Innocent" cartoons.

So do you think the people on comedy central making black and hispanic jokes should also get arrested for racism? They go a whole lot farther than the cartoons did. There's a world of difference between having a legitimate legal reason to punish people from saying something versus complaining because your feelings got hurt. "I'm offended" is not an argument.

The reason there were dire consequences of these cartoons is because these people have ridiculous extremist religious ideas and certain groups have it in their best interests to force their barbaric, tribal views on the rest on Europe as we speak, not because the Danish cartoonists are bigots. To even attempt to suggest the claim that "they brought it on themselves" and shift the blame on them instead of looking to the people who are actually reacting to a cartoon with death threats is outright ridiculous. That's akin to saying that the kids that die in school shootings brought it on themselves for mocking the poor mentally unstable kids who decided to pickup guns and kill people when they got pissed. It's divisive and shifts the focus away from what the actual problem is.

you keep bringing up, extremism, and how its not right to throw death threats on silly cartoons...i swear, we all agree with you. If the black community in the U.S decides that it is unacceptable to make public jokes about their race and the slavery issue, then trust me things WILL change. a guy in a talk show says panty hoes, and he gets attacked by the whole community, and as a conclusion he apologizes for the "racial" slurs he made. A drunk Mel gibson says some shit about the jews, and everyone is outraged. "Kramer" says nigger this nigger that, when he's drunk at a comedy show. and people start yelling: "Thats uncalled for!" and he ends up apologizing. that dude from Grey's anatomy, says faggot in public, and he ends up apologizing.....where is the freedom of speech there?
or is it a usuable excuse when people just feel like it, and everyone jumps the bandwagon because its a popularity contest?

[Deftscythe]

you keep bringing up, extremism, and how its not right to throw death threats on silly cartoons...i swear, we all agree with you...

Are you actively doing anything to work against the extremism(in any way)?

[aurik]

I find it extremely disrespectful and tasteless, there are things in life that should just simply be resepected and left alone, whether you believe in them or not

Guess what, I disagree, and you don't have the authority to enforce your opinions on me.

where is the freedom of speech there?

They're free to say what they will. Nobody is burning down their house or throwing them in jail for saying things like that. They can continue to say stuff like that if they want.

[Kaelan]

The reason I keep bringing it up is because that's exactly where the problem is. You disagree with how people treat their religions, but you're not going to go threatening people because of it, because you don't think like they do. The fact that some people do think like that is what's causing the problem here, which is what I'm trying to highlight every time someone mentions "oh but it was at least a bit of the Danish people's fault too..". The main reason people get to act like this is because not enough is being done to not let them act like this (i.e. "I disagree with them, but let's not offend them" thinking).

[Demosthenes11]

why is it against the muslim rules to have depictions of muhammad?

Because someone might give him googly eyes and a lazer coming out of his mouth.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3...medbombkk5.jpg

?

QFHILARITY

But seriously, stop getting your burka in a bundle and get the fuck over it. Free countries are free because they defend their right to be free, not because they back down when morons try to restrict those freedoms

[archibaldcrane]

Saying "you can satirize Islam without using Muhammad"...The point was to reject self-censorship. It's against the MUSLIM belief to not depict Muhammad in drawings, people who are not Muslim shouldn't be expected to follow a religious belief for someone else's religion.

Then Muslims shouldn't be expected to follow western "freedoms", or "laws" should they?

Muslims should obey the laws of whatever country they are in. I guarantee you that storming the Danish embassy is against the law in every country in which it happened. I guarantee that issuing death threats is against the law in Denmark. And Danish muslims (the ones who started protesting first) sure as hell should be expected to follow "western freedoms and laws" - as they are written in Denmark.

and arguing that Muhammad shouldn't ever be depicted because of this extreme irrationality goes right to the core of freedom of expression.

No, it goes into making a smart choice. Freedom of speech only applies to the government and it's ability to make laws governing it. It does NOT give you a blanket waiver to say dangerous(FIRE!) things and not have to suffer any consequences for it.

Comparing this to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is a complete fallacy. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater can cause rational people to engage in rational behavior that can be dangerous.

Drawing a picture of someone for a children's book is not a dangerous thing. Rational people can disagree on many things, but arguing that a drawing in a children's book should be considered dangerous is not one thing in which rational people can disagree with each other about.

Tell me Darus - what consequences do you think that the cartoonists or the editors of the newspaper should suffer? From whom?

Freedom of speech means that you can say or express just about anything without legal ramifications - outside of libel, slander, and certain very specific instances (like the classic Fire in a theater or death threats). It has NOTHING to do with what "should" be said, whatsoever. It just means you are free from legal consequence for expressing just about anything.

Firas can express that despite his mistaken belief that the Danish P.M. wore a shirt with cartoons on it that Danish products should be boycotted in all of U.A.E., and I encourage such expression. I also think he's completely stupid for persisting in a boycott of a country based on the actions of one individual company in that country, and I still don't think he's quite wrapped his mind around the idea of a completely secular nation, where religious interests don't influence the day-to-day lives of everyone and everything. That's my opinion which I'm expressing freely.

Note that in the above paragraph, the conflict between Firas and I isn't about expression at all - it's not Firas saying "you shouldn't say I'm stupid", nor myself saying "you shouldn't say that you want a boycott" - it's a conflict of ideas.

On the other hand, the cartoon conflict isn't about ideas - it's not "I'm boycotting the Danish because they believe that Muhammed is a war-mongering polygamist with ephebophilic tendencies" - it's about expression "I'm boycotting the Danish because a newspaper displayed images of Muhammed".

This is not a battle of ideas people have, it's a battle of what ideas should and should not be expressed. This isn't about what people think, it's about what they say. That is why it is pertinent to freedom.

The difference may seem subtle, but it's crucial.

[Plow]

Do you really not get it Firas?



Many, many, many people will give up their lives before they'll give up their freedom, and will make damn sure you know.

[archibaldcrane]

Oh fuck you. Why is it that i find it offensive when you shameless bastards make fun of your own religion?

simply Muslims being fucking butt-hurt whiny bitches

[Faris]

you keep bringing up, extremism, and how its not right to throw death threats on silly cartoons...i swear, we all agree with you...

Are you actively doing anything to work against the extremism(in any way)?

I'm not being extreme? does that count? :\

The reason I keep bringing it up is because that's exactly where the problem is. You disagree with how people treat their religions, but you're not going to go threatening people because of it, because you don't think like they do. The fact that some people do think like that is what's causing the problem here, which is what I'm trying to highlight every time someone mentions "oh but it was at least a bit of the Danish people's fault too..". The main reason people get to act like this is because not enough is being done to not let them act like this (i.e. "I disagree with them, but let's not offend them" thinking).

aah, so let me put this concept in another situation. and correct me if im wrong please. I'm just trying to understand your views.

you see a shark swimming and you go poking it with your toes just because it will give a rush, and when it bites your leg off, you blame the shark, cus its not supposed to bite your leg off?

or you shoot heroin for the pleasure, but when you overdose and die, you will blame it on drugs?

here is what a rational person would do in these situations, just not poke the shark, so he won't suffer the consequences, its just not worth it to risk a whole foot. aaaand, choose not to shoot heroin because maybe life is just too precious to die for a heroin rush.

does that have the same weight? starting something, and blaming the other party for the consequences?

Why i chose such extreme situations, because the danish knew the consequences, and they chose to still go ahead and reprint the cartoons.

The main reason people get to act like this is because not enough is being done to not let them act like this (i.e. "I disagree with them, but let's not offend them" thinking)

what the fuck?
So, when you disagree with something do you HAVE to mock it?....TWICE?
I still dont understand how is that just, i'm sorry.

[crazyrabbit]

The real problem of muslims should be "why do people think this way about us and how can we change it" not the kiddy bullshit. Don't tell them their image of islam is wrong, make it that they believe it themself.
Quick example, if i ask a RL friend about his image of various religions:
buddhism: old mans who sit around, meditating and trying to become one with the world and the nature
hinduism: weird figures as gods, dunno much about them
jews: looking for a home i think, kinda work behind the scenes
christians: big religion, many ppl go over the top and take it way too serious
islam: extremists, violence

Thats realy the normal way people think about religions in my area, one may see that only very few here believe in any mainstream religion.

The next problem is the false idea of solving problems with censorship in any way. Never in history this has worked. If you prohibit any negative expressions about something it will result in a huge increase of negative thoughts and underground activitys. An example from my living area would be the neo-nazis. Just to clarify, no i'm not one of them and no i don't like them but they just have a lot of members here. Since WW2 everyone trys his hardest to give them the worst image and prohibits their rights (they aren't allowed pupblic gatherings and announcements here) but in underground they became more and more powerfull in the last 10 years. Most of their members join because they listen to the youth and say they want to solve their problems, unlike most other politicans. All the negative thoughts about them just makes them stronger (which can be dangerous) because humans always feel more united when they against an enemy.
But why can they get more power? Because everyone just ignores the real problem and keeps prohibiting them and telling negative things. The politicans don't think about the reason why there are more and more neo-nazis, they say stuff like "they are just stupid kids, something went wrong with their childhood" and thats it.

What i want to say with this is, ignoring a problem, telling everyone that there isn't one, makes everything a lot worse. Your problem is the negative image of your religion and you try to force your image on others. I can understand the thought of "Why don't they like muhammed? He's great and i love him."
But the second thought is wrong "They don't because they are bad, they are devils, they just don't understand the true way of life."

[Faris]

Oh fuck you. Why is it that i find it offensive when you shameless bastards make fun of your own religion?

simply Muslims being fucking butt-hurt whiny bitches

Is that your reply? the great art of quoting, you astonish me.

[Faris]

The real problem of muslims should be "why do people think this way about us and how can we change it" not the kiddy bullshit. Don't tell them their image of islam is wrong, make it that they believe it themself.
Quick example, if i ask a RL friend about his image of various religions:
buddhism: old mans who sit around, meditating and trying to become one with the world and the nature
hinduism: weird figures as gods, dunno much about them
jews: looking for a home i think, kinda work behind the scenes
christians: big religion, many ppl go over the top and take it way too serious
islam: extremists, violence

I agree with you, dumbass extremists have tainted the image of islam. but are we all extremists? there is a large number of muslims that wish no harm on anyone, and just peacefully follow their religion. if you dont know that then you're ignorant.

Thats realy the normal way people think about religions in my area, one may see that only very few here believe in any mainstream religion.

The next problem is the false idea of solving problems with censorship in any way. Never in history this has worked. If you prohibit any negative expressions about something it will result in a huge increase of negative thoughts and underground activitys. An example from my living area would be the neo-nazis. Just to clarify, no i'm not one of them and no i don't like them but they just have a lot of members here. Since WW2 everyone trys his hardest to give them the worst image and prohibits their rights (they aren't allowed pupblic gatherings and announcements here) but in underground they became more and more powerfull in the last 10 years. Most of their members join because they listen to the youth and say they want to solve their problems, unlike most other politicans. All the negative thoughts about them just makes them stronger (which can be dangerous) because humans always feel more united when they against an enemy.
But why can they get more power? Because everyone just ignores the real problem and keeps prohibiting them and telling negative things. The politicans don't think about the reason why there are more and more neo-nazis, they say stuff like "they are just stupid kids, something went wrong with their childhood" and thats it.

What i want to say with this is, ignoring a problem, telling everyone that there isn't one, makes everything a lot worse. Your problem is the negative image of your religion and you try to force your image on others. I can understand the thought of "Why don't they like muhammed? He's great and i love him."
But the second thought is wrong "They don't because they are bad, they are devils, they just don't understand the true way of life."

you started off nice, with the islam to the world is mainly violence and extremism..but Oh my God...you dug your own hole man. Neo-Nazi? given freedom? what the fuck man.
dude, fuck if i care if you like my prophet or my religion, or even me for that matter. I'm just saying let me be, why you gotta hurt my feelings like that? Q_Q
If you hurt my feelings like that, I wouldnt want to help you get richer by buying what you're making. is that fair enough?

[Deftscythe]

you keep bringing up, extremism, and how its not right to throw death threats on silly cartoons...i swear, we all agree with you...

Are you actively doing anything to work against the extremism(in any way)?

I'm not being extreme? does that count? :\

So, a cartoon drawn in another country is enough to warrant "retaliation" from you(however small that retaliation may be), but people using your religion as a justification for violence is not?

Also, you still don't understand people's commitment to freedom. They are not printing these things "for a thrill." They are sending a message to these extremists that they will not allow fear to change principles in which they believe. The shark and the heroin are not trying to infringe on anyones rights.

[Jer]

To be honest (and perhaps showing a bit too much of my warped sense of humor), when the first publishing occurred and the news started following the riots and killings, I laughed. Instead of facing the situation like responsible individuals, the following situation is what occurred to most people:

>>GUYS, somebody produced a cartoon depicting us as a violent people.
<<*collective gasp*
>>You know what this means?
<< What?
>>We must begin the riots, the bomb threats, the death threats, etc. We will not stop until they renounce this obviously false statement.

Yes, not every member suddenly 'stormed the local garrison' so to speak, but what is also disturbing is that most apparently see nothing wrong with it. Killing somebody over a little ink because they implied you might be violent...not the best way to win people over, believe you me.

As for the earlier post which asked how many different things the cartoon violated:
*Slander is spoken, so it is not applicable in the original instance (I'm sure it has been spoken about somewhere by now)
*In is a caricature, or a parody. It is making no assumptions nor trying to tell people that this is the way something is. If somebody were to try and enforce a libel lawsuit for each and every political cartoon, the lawyers would love the money but not much would get done.
*The cartoon did nothing to endanger the public. That part was caused by the non-violent people opposed to the cartoon. It was not trying to instigate a riot nor call a public gathering.

Political cartoons reflect what is going on in the world, or at least give an interpretation of it that is amusing. For example, look at cartoons that deal with Catholicism during their 'bad times'.

[Faris]

you keep bringing up, extremism, and how its not right to throw death threats on silly cartoons...i swear, we all agree with you...

Are you actively doing anything to work against the extremism(in any way)?

I'm not being extreme? does that count? :\

So, a cartoon drawn in another country is enough to warrant "retaliation" from you(however small that retaliation may be), but people using your religion as a justification for violence is not?

Also, you still don't understand people's commitment to freedom. They are not printing these things "for a thrill." They are sending a message to these extremists that they will not allow fear to change principles in which they believe. The shark and the heroin are not trying to infringe on anyones rights.

They are extremists maniacs...what do you want me to do? fight them? I wont buy danish dairy products, and I will make sure not to buy Iraqi & Iranian C4, sounds fair?
no seriously, the extremists are not selling me anything, i try not to relate to them, but we do share the same religion, i cant really change that :\

And yet again, i have to repeat myself, the danish is sending a message to the muslim world, not to extremists only, the major part of muslims are NOT extremists, believe it or not..yeah, media shows other wise, powerful tool that media, huh?
oh great!! i dont like bush, so let me send a message to him by attacking all the americans throughout the world, how is that fair? the more i read posts, the more im thinking, the issue here is just because danish are westerners people here are trying to justify their cartoons.

[archibaldcrane]

Oh fuck you. Why is it that i find it offensive when you shameless bastards make fun of your own religion?

simply Muslims being fucking butt-hurt whiny bitches

Is that your reply? the great art of quoting, you astonish me.

You asked me why you find it offensive when Christians poke fun of Jesus, and I replied that it's because you are oversensitive, in so many words.

Also, so we can make some skewed sense out of this matter, can you quote a Qur'an passage or something that will make us understand why drawing a picture of Muhammed is prohibited in Islam? I don't think I've ever seen or heard the actual reason.

What I also don't get...is why is a picture of Muhammed more offensive than the idea that 4.5 billion infidels in the world don't recognize him as a prophet and don't believe he ever communicated with Allah? It seems that drawing a picture is offensive because it undermines his sanctity or something...but if the people drawing it don't recognize him as a sacred figure to begin with, isn't it just kind of a logical step to the drawing? It almost feels like the entire Muslim world didn't realize that there were people that didn't share their faith for the past 1300 years, and found out when a cartoon was published in a Danish newspaper.

[Kaelan]

aah, so let me put this concept in another situation. and correct me if im wrong please. I'm just trying to understand your views.
you see a shark swimming and you go poking it with your toes just because it will give a rush, and when it bites your leg off, you blame the shark, cus its not supposed to bite your leg off?
or you shoot heroin for the pleasure, but when you overdose and die, you will blame it on drugs?

Those are all bad comparisons. I can't change how a shark behaves or how chemicals affect my body. Changing how people behave on the other hand, is not only doable but essential to actually having a working society (nevermind a free one). The reason it's not considered kosher anymore to stone non-married non-virgins on their father's steps is because people had the notion to think "Hey wait, this is wrong and we need to do something about it", despite the fact that the Bible says it's ok. It's not because people thought "oh it's wrong, but let's respect the views of the people who think this is a good idea".

what the fuck? So, when you disagree with something do you HAVE to mock it?....TWICE? I still dont understand how is that just, i'm sorry.

Only if whatever I disagree with is trying to intimidate me into letting go of my rights

And yet again, i have to repeat myself, the danish is sending a message to the muslim world, not to extremists only, the major part of muslims are NOT extremists, believe it or not..yeah, media shows other wise, powerful tool that media, huh?

The message they're sending is they won't be intimidated by what the extremists are doing. All Muslims have every right to disagree with them and not buy any of the papers and tell their friends not to either and that they hate these guys for publishing it. They don't have any right to do anything beyond that. If the entire muslim world decides to be offended by what they did, then that's fine. They have no authority tell the Danish papers to "stop publishing or else", though.

Let me try to put this in context: How would you feel if the american religious conservatives suddenly passed a law saying that Christ is the true Son of God and whoever doesn't believe in him is an infidel to whom Human Rights no longer apply? Would it be a legitimate position to say "Oh I don't agree with that as a Muslim, but I shouldn't offend them by opposing what they're doing as unethical"?