ITS ON NOW, Denmark!

[Day]

I don't have a lot to add that hasn't been said, but I did want to say that Muslims aren't Sharks or Heroin, they are people like everyone else. The way you should have worked that analogy is one shark taunting another shark. You aren't any better or more important than the people of Denmark and they don't have to live by your rules, which is what I'm pretty sure they are trying to show you by reprinting the comic.

You were offended? Well that's ok, it happens all the time. People are constantly offended at something or another, but just because of your religon people are supposed to be scared and self censor themselves? That's bullshit dude. I mean really, you compared your fellow muslims to a shark someone was poking a stick at. Personally I happen to think the Denmark newspaper is the Shark in this situation, poke it some more, maybe they will reprint next week.

[Faris]

I don't have a lot to add that hasn't been said, but I did want to say that Muslims aren't Sharks or Heroin, they are people like everyone else. The way you should have worked that analogy is one shark taunting another shark. You aren't any better or more important than the people of Denmark and they don't have to live by your rules, which is what I'm pretty sure they are trying to show you by reprinting the comic.

You were offended? Well that's ok, it happens all the time. People are constantly offended at something or another, but just because of your religon people are supposed to be scared and self censor themselves? That's bullshit dude. I mean really, you compared your fellow muslims to a shark someone was poking a stick at. Personally I happen to think the Denmark newspaper is the Shark in this situation, poke it some more, maybe they will reprint next week.

nono, we're not going to poke the shark, we going to make it starve to death, teehee.

[Delta_9]

And that's fine, just don't kill its citizens.

[Day]

Then as you said, don't be surprised when it bites you, out of hunger this time though.

Lets see how far we can stretch this analogy.

[Shuemue]

Stalker because I read BG a lot and know how to click 'search this user's posts' ?

Come on, you're either just trolling or you're a hypocrite, which is it?

And don't forget to tell your Imam that you're watching porn, having sex, gender issues and so on.

[ozz]

Stalker because I read BG a lot and know how to click 'search this user's posts' ?

Come on, you're either just trolling or you're a hypocrite, which is it?

And don't forget to tell your Imam that you're watching porn, having sex, gender issues and so on.

that'd be a pretty funny story: man beheaded after angered forum outs him to mosque

[pirahna1]

...
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?

Let me put this into perspective, since you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of freedom of speech.

Mel Gibson apologized because he made a mistake, he was drunk and said stupid shit. He would normally have not said said stupid shit if he wasn't drunk. Hence he apologizes because he doesn't want people to judge based on 10 seconds of his entire life. He wants them to form an opinion on his work, his great movies, and his abilities as an actor, not what he says when he's drunk out of his mind. Kramer did the same thing, he was drunk, made a mistake and apologized because he really would never use that word in public. Both of these people are celebrities and have to do whatever it takes to appease the masses, because the masses sign their paychecks.

If I call my g/f a stupid cuntrag bitch when I'm drunk, guess what I'm gonna do when I'm sober the next morning? Apologize, because I made a mistake and would normally not feel that she is a stupid cuntrag bitch and don't want to live the rest of my life having her think I think of her that way. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with ETHICS, I'm not sure if your country believes in them, but wiki ethics. (This is not an attack on you or your country, nor am I saying your stupid or uninformed. I just have no idea what your country is about or what you believe in or what your ALLOWED to think, especially after that mohammad bullshit, so I put this disclaimer). If I want to draw a cartoon, damn you if you want to hate me for it. I think that's fucking ridiculous.

And don't give me anything about political cartoons. In my american history class, which I took senior year in highschool along with 90% of my classmates, all we did was look at political cartoons and interperate their meaning. The public is allowed to attack the government if they are wrong, or if they're right and the public is wrong. Same with religion - separation of church and state. The pope can not determine laws nor determine what should be taught in schools, because it infringes on EVERYONES rights to live a free life.

I NEVER knew you couldn't depict mohammad in any way shape or form, to me that ludicrous. We do it everyday in the rest of the world. I have no religion, and therefor do not care if someone gets butthurt over a cartoon depicting a religious figure. You can feel its wrong to do so, but the minute you push those views onto me is the minute I get militant and fuck you up. You CAN NOT push your ideals onto others and get away with it. Reference Adolf Hitler for that lesson in history.

[Faris]

Stalker because I read BG a lot and know how to click 'search this user's posts' ?

Come on, you're either just trolling or you're a hypocrite, which is it?

And don't forget to tell your Imam that you're watching porn, having sex, gender issues and so on.

it got boring, im trolling now

[Tyr]

I don't want to fuel any ensuing flame wars, or ones already in progress. Nor do I want to drag on a subject that just bothers me for a variety of reasons--ones which don't need to be repeated.

The last thing I want to mention is this.

We have two cartoons, one which has as its underlying premise that the Holocaust was a fabricated event, and the other which is identical to this cartoon by a publishing company in Denmark. Why is it that in the case of the latter, we stand firm about the value of the cartoon as a form of free speech, whereas the former is just branded as hate speech. Why is there a double standard?

I personally stand against either of these two, however, I can't stand how one is considered free speech and the other is slander.


EDIT: Sorry, one last thing. "Islams" is not a word, Islam is a religion, followers of are Muslims.
"The Islam" usually doesn't make sense either.

[Brill Weave]

Who cares? It's fucking Denmark.

[Faris]

you think if a huge american company did a thing like this, and publicized it. you think we'll see towers dropping again?

I really thought a tasteless cartoon would come out of America, rather than lolDenmark.

[Day]

Cmon man that's not even a good troll Firas.

[Faris]

Cmon man that's not even a good troll Firas.

sorry not good at trolling;;

okok, so to recap. Majority agrees with freedom of speech. Majority agrees in freedom of boycotting.

We all happy here i guess

[Day]

Awww. Here I'll humor you.

you think if a huge american company did a thing like this, and publicized it. you think we'll see towers dropping again?

I really thought a tasteless cartoon would come out of America, rather than lolDenmark.

If a huge american company did this and publicized it, you'd probably cry about the same amount.

What kind of sterotyping bullshit is your second statement, all american's are tasteless is that what you are trying to say?? Hypocrite, I hope you dont enjoy any american entertainment, you'd probably be to offended anyways.

[Faris]

Awww. Here I'll humor you.

you think if a huge american company did a thing like this, and publicized it. you think we'll see towers dropping again?

I really thought a tasteless cartoon would come out of America, rather than lolDenmark.

If a huge american company did this and publicized it, you'd probably cry about the same amount.

What kind of sterotyping bullshit is your second statement, all american's are tasteless is that what you are trying to say?? Hypocrite, I hope you dont enjoy any american entertainment, you'd probably be to offended anyways.

haha, did i offend you kind sir?

[Day]

Yes you did, prepare for incoming death threats and boycotting of all that is UAE related.

[Kuya]

I don't want to fuel any ensuing flame wars, or ones already in progress. Nor do I want to drag on a subject that just bothers me for a variety of reasons--ones which don't need to be repeated.

The last thing I want to mention is this.

We have two cartoons, one which has as its underlying premise that the Holocaust was a fabricated event, and the other which is identical to this cartoon by a publishing company in Denmark. Why is it that in the case of the latter, we stand firm about the value of the cartoon as a form of free speech, whereas the former is just branded as hate speech. Why is there a double standard?

I personally stand against either of these two, however, I can't stand how one is considered free speech and the other is slander.


EDIT: Sorry, one last thing. "Islams" is not a word, Islam is a religion, followers of are Muslims.
"The Islam" usually doesn't make sense either.

Ok, so one cartoon tried to say the holocaust was a hoax, and another tried to say all muslims are violent. A question, which do you think is even a little bit true? And furthermore, which do you think is going to cause the most violent riots and death threats? Perhaps the difference between this and when Mel and Kramer said this those was that the protests and outrage agaisnt it was actually civil and did not involve 100 dead people.

Did you forget the occurence where a woman wanted to name a teddybear Muhamed(sp?) because the kids wanted to, and muslims wanted her executed? Was it her intention to cause this and insult Islam? It's not just this cartoon thing that's reenforcing the view that some muslims are violent and irrational, we have had many such events where the people who commited the offense did it unknowlingly and without malicious intent and STILL got numerous death threats and even riots calling for execution.

So you saying that the Danish writers did it maliciously with the intent to incite muslims cannot be applied in the example of the brittish teacher, she had no malicious intent and still got treated the same. The Danish writers weren't just talking out of their asses here, there is a large amount of muslims who maintain this stereotype of violence, and the cartoon only proved them right. And the fact that this happend again in other moments just implies that there is a problem within the muslim community with this rampant use of violence.

[Melena]

honestly, after watching the extremists demand the execution of a grade school teacher because she allowed her kids to name a teddy bear Mohammad (yet parents name there kids that all the time), do you honestly expect anything less? Until some of these fuck heads get there heads out of there asses and realize the world does not revolve around them and there belief's only, the Muslim religion is going to be looked upon as the spoiled bitch kid of the world to every other civilized country and religion.

[Tyr]

stuff

Ok, so one cartoon tried to say the holocaust was a hoax, and another tried to say all muslims are violent. A question, which do you think is even a little bit true? And furthermore, which do you think is going to cause the most violent riots and death threats? Perhaps the difference between this and when Mel and Kramer said this those was that the protests and outrage agaisnt it was actually civil and did not involve 100 dead people.

Did you forget the occurence where a woman wanted to name a teddybear Muhamed(sp?) because the kids wanted to, and muslims wanted her executed? Was it her intention to cause this and insult Islam? It's not just this cartoon thing that's reenforcing the view that some muslims are violent and irrational, we have had many such events where the people who commited the offense did it unknowlingly and without malicious intent and STILL got numerous death threats and even riots calling for execution.

So you saying that the Danish writers did it maliciously with the intent to incite muslims cannot be applied in the example of the brittish teacher, she had no malicious intent and still got treated the same. The Danish writers weren't just talking out of their asses here, there is a large amount of muslims who maintain this stereotype of violence, and the cartoon only proved them right. And the fact that this happend again in other moments just implies that there is a problem within the muslim community with this rampant use of violence.

So you basically think Muslims are inherently violent? As a Muslim, knowing what I believe in, I'll tell you I'll put my money on my own religion than whether a historical event which I have no first hand experience with.

You fail to realize how different Muslims around the world are. It's as if I was to take the "Christian" group who rallies around the death of U.S. soldiers stating that God is angry for how much America loves faggots, and say that those are all Christians. It's evident from a number of posts in this thread that there is no intimate knowledge of Islam here, rather a tidbit from a wiki-page or what have you. It's as though a number of people posting in this thread have lost sight of the fact that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world, and that, similar to any grouping of people, they come in all colors of the spectrum.

If you think Muslims are inherently violent, understand that this is as fallacious as any other negative generalization, and you just open yourself to insults flying left and right and no conclusion anywhere.

If you think Islam is an inherently violent religion, please, do some adequate reading--I assure you that you are sorely mistaken.

If you want to believe one or the other, and could care less of doing research or approaching the subject, then whatever, keep on truckin'.

[Kuya]

Nowhere did i directly imply that muslims are inherently violent. Not only that, you ignored the example of the brittish teacher which is absolutely relevant to this argument. I'm not discussing whether or not muslims are inherently violent, i'm saying that a large amount of muslims use violence, and this is where public opinion comes from. The writers made the cartoon because they're opinion was that many or all muslims are violent, regardless of whether or not that is entirely accurate it does reflect on a reality. And that reality is that many muslims think it is ok to use violence in the way they do, and many disagree with this.

I'm fully aware that there may be historical and social reasons as to why many muslims act the way they do, but the critic remains the same. And that is that many muslims feel that they're religious beliefs should be applied to everyone and that violence is a legitimate reaction in many cases. Stop trying to argue that not all muslims act or believe this, we already know this, the problem is ALOT of them do, and you're in no way shape or form answering this or even thinking up a nice medium to handle the situation, because i'm out of ideas.

And to reiterate, the cartoons where made because they express the opinions of some people about all or some muslims, the reaction justified their belief, and now we have to question whether the way some muslims handle this situation is really all that wise.