American Consulate Officer Killed, Libya

[Doc Rikowski]

So, to answers your questions, Muslims get possibly very angry when the West or anyone else bashes their prophet cause they are very respectful of Jesus and find it very offensive that their prophet is treated like a joke. They probably find it also very offensive that the West bashes on its own prophet.

look, I understand that they find it offensive. that's pretty obvious.

why they are pissed off is not the mystery.

 

the mystery is why do they get so much more pissed off than other religious people?

and why do they think that it's ok to use violence? other religious people don't use violence like that when someone makes fun of them. they just brush it off and move on.

 

 

World hostage? That's just ridiculous.

no it's not.

 

what I'm talking about is the death threats.

Islam is the only religion that considers it normal to threaten people with physical harm or death if they try to mock Muhammad or even create an image of him. they held South Park and Comedy Central hostage and it worked. they held Family Guy and Fox hostage and it worked. they've tried to hold countless newspapers and artists hostage and it usually works. they threaten to blow something up or kill somebody, and everybody bends over backwards to meet their demands.

 

no other religion behaves this way in the face of criticism.

only Islam.

I'm quite sure I answered to that already. It's not only about religion. There's more frustration coming from political, historical and economical reasons.

After they are mocked by the West in all fields they certainly draw the line when it comes to what is most sacred to them.

 

Other religious people don't just brush it off and move on. That is what non religious people do.

Countless examples are out there.

 

---

 

I answered to that too. In the West you can be threaten with physical harm or death for many things that do not involve religion at all.

It doesn't matter if a death threat is fired by religious matters or else. It is still a death threat.

Being Money the West's main religion, well, that causes many death threats and deaths. Sometimes on a larger scale with which no fundamentalists can compete.

Anyway, just for the sake of information, in some European countries you can get jail time by law just for disrespecting Catholicism or the Pope.

In Russia they just gave a few years to that chick group for the same reason.

 

And tbh I really don't care about what South Park, Comedy Central or Family Guy can or can't mock. They're ain't some kind of intellectual guide of civilization in my book.

They're just stupid TV shows...

[El Dildo]

 

I'm quite sure I answered to that already. It's not only about religion. There's more frustration coming from political, historical and economical reasons.

After they are mocked by the West in all fields they certainly draw the line when it comes to what is most sacred to them.

 

Other religious people don't just brush it off and move on. That is what non religious people do.

Countless examples are out there.

then your answer is just poor.

 

there are many societies of people that have had to deal with difficult and turbulent historical, political, or economic hardships. many that still do to this day.

so what makes Muslim hardships any more special that they get to react as violently as they do?

 

and yes, other religious people DO just brush it off.

in the United States, Canada, most of Central/South America, most of India, Europe, Italy, Spain, Eastern Asia, and Russia they allow all kinds of criticism and mocking of the various religions that exist in those societies. it happens all the time; in movies, in TV shows, in literature, in art, etc. and most of these people are some type of Christian. like I said, Jesus Christ gets made fun of and blasphemed more than any other religious prophet by a HUGE margin.

 

and yet you don't see people in the United States, Canada, most of Central/South America, most of India, Europe, Italy, Spain, Eastern Asia, or Russia spilling into the streets to riot and kill innocent government employees or those who were responsible for the mockery. pretty much all of them just brush it off and move on with their lives. they understand the importance of freedom of speech.

 

the extremists of Christian faith (and Jewish and Hindu, for that matter) almost NEVER behave the way the extremists of Islam behave CONSTANTLY.

 

 

In the West you can be threaten with physical harm or death for many things that do not involve religion at all.

this is a false equivalency.

you're totally missing the point.

 

obviously people make death threats for all sorts of things.

but what are we talking about? we're talking about religious mockery and criticism.

 

even the most hardcore Christians in the West almost never make death threats based on religious mocking.

the worst they've ever done is threaten abortion doctors. and they usually don't even follow through on those threats. Islamic extremists call for Jihads (like it's no big deal) and regularly follow through on their threats of violence. this is many factors worse than the behavior exhibited by even the most extreme fundamentalists in the Western world.

 

 

in some European countries you can get jail time by law just for disrespecting Catholicism or the Pope.

yeah I don't know if that's true.

you'd have to prove that statement. or at least tell me which country you're referring to.

 

 

In Russia they just gave a few years to that chick group for the same reason.

I already know this isn't true.

 

you're referring to the female punk band Pussy Riot.

they were locked up for mocking the government, not religion.

 

 

And tbh I really don't care about what South Park, Comedy Central or Family Guy can or can't mock. They're ain't some kind of intellectual guide of civilization in my book.

They're just stupid TV shows...

see?

I knew you didn't get it. you're nowhere near the point.

 

the point isn't about whether or not you like those shows.

the point is freedom of speech. Islamic fundamentalists are the only group in the world who can effectively hold free speech hostage by threatening to kill anyone who violates it.

[Gtaghost22]

 

Actually, considering the Taliban banned chess, I think my point still stands.

Taliban banned what..? Taliban is an islamist militant movement, it's not a country mate, they can't ban sh*t.

 

But no, go on, keep defending bigots, keep insulting me, keep getting angry.

Come, lay out some more insults. Show us all how tolerant you are as you tacitly support homophobes and misogynistic swine.

 

just a note, my sister is a lesbian, she is stil alive despite my mom being a muslim, that must be really weird and a rare occassion according to you, right?

I will defend them, ever met or interacted with a muslim? No? shut up then please.

 

Show us just how educated you are as you continuously mistake condemnation for theocratic parasites for lurid ethnic slurs.

You're a better man than me, aren't you? You're a wonderful human being, the best there ever was. How noble you are, how honest, how well informed. None of us are even one tenth as enlightened as you.

Insult me, I deserve to be insulted. Make me pay for my sins, make me suffer.

Nice little speech you got there, wasted your time writing that as i haven't insulted you, and i'm not the best human being, i'm just a normal one.

If you were strawmanning any harder you'd put scarecrow factories out of business.

Rob, i already said i know the freaking point he was trying to make, i only quoted the part that really annoyed me, i didn't quote Typhus's whole post, did i?

 

He's always like that. He asks a question and then answers it for the poster with the answer he wants in order to continue flaming/act like the victim who is being attacked.

I put a question mark after the "No" which means i was asking him, he could've easily said "Yes, i have met one, stop making assumptions you stupid f*ck" but he didn't.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Gtaghost22

[guib]

I put a question mark after the "No" which means i was asking him, he could've easily and "Yes, i have met one, stop making assumptions you stupid f*ck" but he didn't.

So you assume that, because he is not answering your question, he meant no?

[Gtaghost22]

I put a question mark after the "No" which means i was asking him, he could've easily and "Yes, i have met one, stop making assumptions you stupid f*ck" but he didn't.

So you assume that, because he is not answering your question, he meant no?

No, that's not what i meant..

It's like me saying "we had a topic like this a month ago, no?" i was just asking a simple quesion and he didn't answer, it's nothing special, i'm not assuming anything.

[Doc Rikowski]

@ El_Diablo: I also think your answers are overall poor and usually extremely subjective (although all opinions are) so I guess we agree on something.

 

Anyway, societies that "have had to deal with difficult and turbulent historical, political, or economic hardships" usually react with violence and/or revolution.

History tells us this quite clearly and it's full of examples in Western history too.

 

 

and yes, other religious people DO just brush it off.

Most people brush it off in the West cause most people isn't religious at all. Enter any Catholic church in Southern Europe, even in the supposedly most Catholic countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France) and you won't find a person under 60y old on any given Sunday. I'm not a religious person even though I was baptized and I sincerely don't give a damn about any religious mockery. We are talking about extremists in here and extremists from any religion don't just brush it off.

The level of "rioting" can also depend on the level of the offense and the level of fear the extremist can or can't have towards the authority that should sanction any violent act.

As we speak hundreds of people are wounded by the authorities in Arab countries while protesting against this absurdly offensive movie.

Not so far from the level of violence deployed by the Italian Police during the 2001 G8 when hundreds of peaceful protesters were beaten down on the street, incarcerated and then beaten down again and tortured in hospitals and jails. And yes, tortured physically and psychologically by a Western Police Force (and doctors) for expressing their right of freedom of speech.

People are still fighting the authorities in courts to see these people punished but it's a tough fight cause usually the involved ones rather than being punished have been promoted.

 

What happened in Bengasi is also a direct consequence of a weak and extremist political power financed, supported and finally established in the country by the West's "foreign policies".

 

You also seem to ignore Hindu nationalism and their terrorist ramifications... And saying that there's no extremism in the Jewish religion is definitely a statement disproved by history. Make some research... In many European countries is forbidden by law to even question any element of the WWII Holocaust. So much for freedom of speech...

 

So, it is not a false equivalency. Death threats and other forms of oppression are carried on constantly against citizens, journalists, activists and writers who try to freely speak/write/protest about a number of themes.

It is very hypocritical to condemn only one part of the world religious extremism when the West is pretty much extremist on a wider number of subjects and matters.

 

---

 

 

yeah I don't know if that's true.

you'd have to prove that statement. or at least tell me which country you're referring to.

 

 

In fact you don't know.

In Italy you can still get fined for blasphemy. Till 1999 it was still considered a crime.

You can find here other examples of laws against blasphemy present in a number of countries including the "civilized" ones.

 

---

 

 

I already know this isn't true.

 

you're referring to the female punk band Pussy Riot.

they were locked up for mocking the government, not reli

 

Well I know it is true. Since they pulled their stunt in the most sacred Church of Orthodoxy:

"All three were convicted and sentenced to two years in a penal colony on August 17, 2012. The judge stated that they had “crudely undermined the social order” with their protest, showing a “complete lack of respect” for believers."

Also: "The Russian Orthodox Church stated that while the actions of Pussy Riot were offensive to “millions of people,” the Church called “on the state authorities to show mercy to the people convicted within the framework of the law, in the hope that they will refrain from repeating blasphemous actions.”"

 

Definitely a conviction based on blasphemy too.

 

---

 

 

the point isn't about whether or not you like those shows.

the point is freedom of speech. Islamic fundamentalists are the only group in the world who can effectively hold free speech hostage by threatening to kill anyone who violates it.

 

The point is exactly about that. We consider some clownish show that mocks religion and other things as some kind of bastion of our freedom of speech when in reality it's just a clownish show that confuses the right of freedom of speech with the right to offend, mock, denigrate and ultimately disrespect something that is sacred to millions of people.

 

The West is full of groups and lobbies that "can effectively hold free speech hostage by threatening to kill [or jail, or beat down, or persecute] anyone who violates it".

Most of these groups are called governments.

[DeeperRed]

 

the point isn't about whether or not you like those shows.

the point is freedom of speech. Islamic fundamentalists are the only group in the world who can effectively hold free speech hostage by threatening to kill anyone who violates it.

 

The point is exactly about that. We consider some clownish show that mocks religion and other things as some kind of bastion of our freedom of speech when in reality it's just a clownish show that confuses the right of freedom of speech with the right to offend, mock, denigrate and ultimately disrespect something that is sacred to millions of people.

 

The West is full of groups and lobbies that "can effectively hold free speech hostage by threatening to kill [or jail, or beat down, or persecute] anyone who violates it".

Most of these groups are called governments.

Do you really not get it ?

 

Freedom of speech is to completely mock anything. When you start drawing lines on what is and isn't OK you are castrating free speech. If I want to make 9/11 jokes on the anniversary , I should be able to. Now is that bad taste ? Well yeah but it's still subjective. The way people react to that would be to insult me and probably hate me which would be expected. You don't retaliate with violence to something that wasn't violent in the first place (That is barbaric).

 

Also Islamic people have burned American/British/Danish flags, poppys and pictures of the president. Things that I am sure are sacred to millions of people. Do we go around retaliating with violence ? Nope. We get angered by it, we insult them and then we move on (maybe a longer time for others).

 

That stupid show South Park is in fact not stupid at all, it is one of the most intelligent shows out there (admittedly not as good as it used to be). Whether you like it or not thats fine, but to call it stupid in comparison to other television only shows that you don't get the points it makes.

 

Also, The Pussy Riot was completely about the mocking of the government. They used blasphemy as it would look much worse to arrest someone for speaking out against the government.

Edited September 14, 2012 by DeeperRed

[inflamedeyeball]

On the subject of comedy: Here is Dutch comedian Hans Teeuwen (a close friend of Theo van Gogh) trying to explain why comedians need to be able to mock religion to a group of muslim women. It is a series of the best arguments I've ever seen on this subject, and I agree with every single word he says here. It was voted 'TV moment of the year 2007'.

 

[Jackal1337]

why they get mad over facts? It is known that mohammed was married to a child.

[sivispacem]

why they get mad over facts? It is known that mohammed was married to a child.

Stuff like this in no way contributes to reasonable discussion of the topic at hand. For instance, there are a raft of European monarchs, lords and barons who have married minors in the last two millennia; judging issues like that from a modern perspective is pure idiocy and does nothing other than inflame tensions.

[inflamedeyeball]

why they get mad over facts? It is known that mohammed was married to a child.

Stuff like this in no way contributes to reasonable discussion of the topic at hand. For instance, there are a raft of European monarchs, lords and barons who have married minors in the last two millennia; judging issues like that from a modern perspective is pure idiocy and does nothing other than inflame tensions.

Is it? You name one European monarch, lord, or baron who married a six year old child that's being worshipped by 1.57 billion people today as the most perfect man that ever was and ever will be, peace be upon him.

 

It's this kind of self-reflection that is absent in the realm of hard-core muslims, and allows, and will continue to allow, the kind of heinous acts this topic is about, in my opinion.

 

'Everyone was doing it at the time' isn't a valid excuse for the one and only prophet of the creator of the universe. The fact that merely mentioning this can infuriate some people to the point that they start murdering cannot be computed by my brain. But I guess that's all part of the glories of religion.

[sivispacem]

 

Is it?

Yes it is. By the very same token, all our ancestors are paedophiles. It's a logical fallacy to judge a historical culture by modern standards and then dismiss it. The number of worshippers is entirely irrelevant. The only aspect of it that is relevant is that it was a social and customary norm in the sixth century. And that's quite apart from the question of her actual age, which is open to considerable academic debate because of differing systems for calculating the passage of time and the lack of certainty around the calendar system being used by sixth century nomadic tribes who left little, if any, evidence of their existence. Why should an individual, regardless of standing and implicit perfection, be condemned for doing something that was a social norm; in fact actively encouraged? If you start doing that, them, well you can throw out most other religious texts as well.

 

 

It's this kind of self-reflection that is absent in the realm of hard-core muslims

It's nothing to do with self-reflection. It's a simple statement of fact that it's illogical to judge historic events by modern moral standards- the evolution in morality precludes us from being able to do this with any real conviction. As I've said before, it's absolutely irrelevant and historically a non-event; you don't see the numerous members of royalty in the United Kingdom having their reputations besmirched for marrying children- its an insult saved solely for Muhammed and the hypocrisy of that is utterly bewildering. It's nothing more than a slur aimed at inciting sectarianism and aggression; otherwise you'd realise that it's historical significance is deeply questionable, if not downright non-existent.

 

 

'Everyone was doing it at the time' isn't a valid excuse for the one and only prophet of the creator of the universe.

It doesn't have to be an excuse. You're falling into the typical presumptuous trap of judging historical acts as a modern day interpretation. Charles I had a 13-year-old wife. Edward III married his wife when they were both 13. It was common for Byzantine emperors to have multiple wives as you as eight. Isabella of Valois married Richard II at the age of six. These were universally several hundred years after Muhammed's purported death, and in some cases as recently as four hundred years ago. It's pure ignorance on your part that you choose to use this as some kind of attack, nothing more.

[inflamedeyeball]

 

Is it?

Yes it is. By the very same token, all our ancestors are paedophiles. It's a logical fallacy to judge a historical culture by modern standards and then dismiss it. The number of worshippers is entirely irrelevant. The only aspect of it that is relevant is that it was a social and customary norm in the sixth century. And that's quite apart from the question of her actual age, which is open to considerable academic debate because of differing systems for calculating the passage of time and the lack of certainty around the calendar system being used by sixth century nomadic tribes who left little, if any, evidence of their existence. Why should an individual, regardless of standing and implicit perfection, be condemned for doing something that was a social norm; in fact actively encouraged? If you start doing that, them, well you can throw out most other religious texts as well.

I'm not saying it makes less sense than other religious texts at all. In fact, I'm not opposed to throwing all of that stuff out the window, so to speak.

 

 

It's this kind of self-reflection that is absent in the realm of hard-core muslims

It's nothing to do with self-reflection. It's a simple statement of fact that it's illogical to judge historic events by modern moral standards- the evolution in morality precludes us from being able to do this with any real conviction. As I've said before, it's absolutely irrelevant and historically a non-event; you don't see the numerous members of royalty in the United Kingdom having their reputations besmirched for marrying children- its an insult saved solely for Muhammed and the hypocrisy of that is utterly bewildering. It's nothing more than a slur aimed at inciting sectarianism and aggression; otherwise you'd realise that it's historical significance is deeply questionable, if not downright non-existent.

Still, no person of UK royalty is being revered as a perfect person, and nobody sets buildings and people on fire because other people dare to question their perfection, which is what we are talking about in this thread. The notion of anybody being perfect isn't a healthy one, you have to admit that. Also, I'm not inciting sectarianism and aggression, the people who are rioting are.

 

 

'Everyone was doing it at the time' isn't a valid excuse for the one and only prophet of the creator of the universe.

It doesn't have to be an excuse. You're falling into the typical presumptuous trap of judging historical acts as a modern day interpretation. Charles I had a 13-year-old wife. Edward III married his wife when they were both 13. It was common for Byzantine emperors to have multiple wives as you as eight. Isabella of Valois married Richard II at the age of six. These were universally several hundred years after Muhammed's purported death, and in some cases as recently as four hundred years ago. It's pure ignorance on your part that you choose to use this as some kind of attack, nothing more.

Again, I don't think you are getting my point. Somebody who has conversations with the creator of the universe should know better than to marry a child, regardless of what age he is living in. Unless of course he isn't talking to this creator at all, and making it all up. Nowhere in the Koran does it say that the wisdom contained in the book has a limited shelf life, it wouldn't work as a source of universal truth otherwise. This is the same with any other religious text I have ever heard about.

 

Point being, we need to be able to talk about this, without the fear of cencorship, death, or having our consulates burnt to the ground.

[sivispacem]

Somebody who has conversations with the creator of the universe should know better than to marry a child, regardless of what age he is living in.

It's almost as if you don't understand the point I'm making. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.

 

It is not possible to judge historical decisions using a modern ethical code. You are still trying to do this by saying that someone should "know better".

[inflamedeyeball]

Somebody who has conversations with the creator of the universe should know better than to marry a child, regardless of what age he is living in.

It's almost as if you don't understand the point I'm making. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.

 

It is not possible to judge historical decisions using a modern ethical code. You are still trying to do this by saying that someone should "know better".

Likewise; I don't think you are getting my point. Of course I agree that it's impossible for a normal human being to act according to ethical codes from 1400 years in the future, but that's just it. Mohammed wan't a normal person; he was supposed to be guided by the one and only omniscient deity. This makes it a just criticism, unless you question his divine inspiration.

 

That kind of questioning is what sparked the wrath of Muslims worldwide.

 

It's a catch 22, really.

[Typhus]

Somebody who has conversations with the creator of the universe should know better than to marry a child, regardless of what age he is living in.

It's almost as if you don't understand the point I'm making. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.

 

It is not possible to judge historical decisions using a modern ethical code. You are still trying to do this by saying that someone should "know better".

But how better to slander the extremists than by slurring their prophet as a pedophile? You are of course correct that to judge a figure of the ancient world by our own standards is wrong, but isn't it a good sign if what we say can rile up and infuriate the Islamists? I personally believe that we should continue to antagonise them because eventually people will stop defending their actions and see the foolishness of responding to words with murder.

 

Truth, tact and historical considerations are irrelevant. I'll gladly call Mohammed a child molester a million times over if it meant getting under the skin of the fascists.

[EscoLehGo]

Typhus is right, we should keep poking these people with a metaphorical stick to expose their stupidly over the top reactions to slight criticisms of their religion. They should constantly be mocked just like everything else is, that "stupid show" South Park had a great series of episodes about this.

[sivispacem]

Somebody who has conversations with the creator of the universe should know better than to marry a child, regardless of what age he is living in.

It's almost as if you don't understand the point I'm making. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.

 

It is not possible to judge historical decisions using a modern ethical code. You are still trying to do this by saying that someone should "know better".

Likewise; I don't think you are getting my point. Of course I agree that it's impossible for a normal human being to act according to ethical codes from 1400 years in the future, but that's just it. Mohammed wan't a normal person; he was supposed to be guided by the one and only omniscient deity. This makes it a just criticism, unless you question his divine inspiration.

Not really. If you consider that the biblical God of the old testament is entirely different to the biblical God of the new testament, there doesn't appear to be any definitive element of clarity in terms of morality- why should the same not be translated onto his prophets? Besides, it's not as if child marriages have ceased to exist in the modern world, just in the West.

[El Dildo]

 

societies that "have had to deal with difficult and turbulent historical, political, or economic hardships" usually react with violence and/or revolution.

History tells us this quite clearly and it's full of examples in Western history too.

you're still missing the point.

 

no one is talking about revolutions.

we're talking about individuals who go out looking to cause violence and harm to innocent people just because someone made fun of their religion.

 

 

Most people brush it off in the West cause most people isn't religious at all.

the reason they brush it off is NOT because they aren't religious.

it's because they understand freedom of speech and they're much more rational about accepting criticism.

 

look up some polling data for the Western hemisphere or Northern Europe.

you'll see that when it comes to religion versus atheism, the majority of people are religious. most people identify with some religion. but most people don't really care when someone makes fun of Jesus or Buddha or Shiva, etc etc. they don't lose their cool or their temper.

 

remember we're talking about extremists, not just anyone religious person.

Christian-type extremists are still far more peaceful than Islamic extremists by direct comparison.

 

 

As we speak hundreds of people are wounded by the authorities in Arab countries while protesting against this absurdly offensive movie.

is that true? I don't know.

 

it's unfortunate that the police would have to beat or wound these people.

but these people also should not be rioting in the first place.

 

I don't care how offensive they think the movie is.

it's just a freakin' movie. the people rioting are out of line. whatever harm comes to them, they brought on themselves. no one else is to blame for how they reacted.

 

 

tortured physically and psychologically by a Western Police Force (and doctors) for expressing their right of freedom of speech.

yeah, again, I don't know if this is true.

you'd have to cite your sources on this information.

 

 

You also seem to ignore Hindu nationalism and their terrorist ramifications... And saying that there's no extremism in the Jewish religion is definitely a statement disproved by history.

I never said that Jewish or Hindu extremists didn't exist.

I just didn't mention them specifically.

 

I can't sit here and list EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE RELIGION just to satisfy nit-pickers.

it doesn't change my overall point.

 

the point being that Islamic fundamentalists are worse (in the 21st century) than any other type of fundamentalist.

 

 

So, it is not a false equivalency. Death threats and other forms of oppression are carried on constantly against citizens, journalists, activists and writers who try to freely speak/write/protest about a number of themes.

you still don't get it.

 

we're not talking about any "number of themes."

we're talking about religion.

 

Islam threatens more people based on religious criticism than any other religion.

period.

 

 

Definitely a conviction based on blasphemy too.

all you did was quote press releases from church organizations.

those are just opinion pieces.

 

those girls were not arrested for religious blasphemy.

the legal grounds for their arrest were based on anti-political activism and criticizing the Putin government.

 

 

The point is exactly about that. We consider some clownish show that mocks religion and other things as some kind of bastion of our freedom of speech when in reality it's just a clownish show

WOW.

wow.

wow.

 

you're so far off it's almost comical.

lemme repeat this since you have trouble understanding: it doesn't matter what you personally think of the media in question, what matters is freedom of speech and the press. your personal opinions don't mean sh*t. we're talking about society which either respects or suppresses freedom of speech. whenever a society suppresses freedom of speech, it only leads to bad things. whenever a society embraces freedom of speech, it only leads to good things.

 

get your head out of your ass.

 

 

The West is full of groups and lobbies that "can effectively hold free speech hostage by threatening to kill [or jail, or beat down, or persecute] anyone who violates it".

Most of these groups are called governments.

this is not true at all.

this is such bullsh*t.

 

Western governments DO NOT threaten the public with violence or jail time for freedom of speech.

if they do, then guess what? they're not a Western government!

[Doc Rikowski]

 

the point isn't about whether or not you like those shows.

the point is freedom of speech. Islamic fundamentalists are the only group in the world who can effectively hold free speech hostage by threatening to kill anyone who violates it.

 

The point is exactly about that. We consider some clownish show that mocks religion and other things as some kind of bastion of our freedom of speech when in reality it's just a clownish show that confuses the right of freedom of speech with the right to offend, mock, denigrate and ultimately disrespect something that is sacred to millions of people.

 

The West is full of groups and lobbies that "can effectively hold free speech hostage by threatening to kill [or jail, or beat down, or persecute] anyone who violates it".

Most of these groups are called governments.

Do you really not get it ?

 

Freedom of speech is to completely mock anything. When you start drawing lines on what is and isn't OK you are castrating free speech. If I want to make 9/11 jokes on the anniversary , I should be able to. Now is that bad taste ? Well yeah but it's still subjective. The way people react to that would be to insult me and probably hate me which would be expected. You don't retaliate with violence to something that wasn't violent in the first place (That is barbaric).

 

Also Islamic people have burned American/British/Danish flags, poppys and pictures of the president. Things that I am sure are sacred to millions of people. Do we go around retaliating with violence ? Nope. We get angered by it, we insult them and then we move on (maybe a longer time for others).

 

That stupid show South Park is in fact not stupid at all, it is one of the most intelligent shows out there (admittedly not as good as it used to be). Whether you like it or not thats fine, but to call it stupid in comparison to other television only shows that you don't get the points it makes.

 

Also, The Pussy Riot was completely about the mocking of the government. They used blasphemy as it would look much worse to arrest someone for speaking out against the government.

That's exactly the point. In the West freedom of speech is very relative and not respected on so many subjects and matters that it is highly hypocritical to criticize another culture for the same faults. You can only do it on a personal and subjective level but you can't say "we, the West, respect freedom of speech and you Arabs don't" cause that's far from the truth.

You can say "I, DeeperRed , respect freedom of speech and you, Arab guy being violent cause of religious matters, don't".

And even then it all depends on the perspective people have of things.

Freedom of speech applies also to any Arab that will protest against that movie in an angry, but non violent way.

They have the right to protest just as you have the right, on a personal level, to criticize them for protesting.

 

---

 

Well, two wars in the past 10 years... Millions of Arab civilians dead... That looks like retaliating with violence to me...

 

---

 

Btw American flags have been burned in the past by Americans and Europeans, and, in case you didn't know, burning the American flag it has been declared as constitutionally-protected free speech.

 

---

 

I don't watch cartoons sorry.

 

---

 

Your opinion on why Pussy Riot were condemned is strictly subjective and it doesn't change the terms of the sentence that include an accusation of blasphemy (since their stunt was pulled inside the most sacred Orthodox Church in Russia).

Aslo, I can assure you that if the same group would have pulled the same stunt inside Saint Peter's Church in Rome they would have get decades of jail (unless someone shot them before the sentence).

 

--------------------------------

 

@ El_Diablo

 

You miss the point cause all you see in these protests is the "our religion was insulted" cause.

Religion is just part of the issue if not even a pretext.

 

 

look up some polling data

You know people do lie in polls?

I'm telling you. Go to a Church on a Sunday and see it for yourself. God is pretty much dead in Europe.

 

 

it's unfortunate that the police would have to beat or wound these people.

but these people also should not be rioting in the first place.

 

So if your protest is just a bit angry the Police has the right to beat you down?

Well, isn't that Fascism?

Aren't in fact most of the Arab governments Fascists?

Rhetorical questions of course.

 

 

yeah, again, I don't know if this is true.

you'd have to cite your sources on this information.

 

You seriously don't know anything about these nor can't you find it with a simple Google search?

Even wikipedia has a page about that!

"..."the terrible injuries inflicted on defenceless people, the premeditation, the covered faces, the falsification of statements by the 93 anti-globalisation protesters, the lies about their alleged resistance [to arrest]."..."

 

 

Also, ain't got much time sorry, to resume:

 

- you did mention Jewish and Hindu on an earlier post.

- we're talking about religion but we can't ignore how the whole thing is connected to other "themes". You need to see the big picture, not just the closed perspective.

- on Pussy Riot: you are still wrong and you are ignoring the official sentence; I'm sorry but you are just repeating some mainstream media distorted view of the facts.

- about freedom of speech you can read the above reply

 

To conclude: your language is typically fascist and aggressive, it is quite clear that you are the kind of person deeply annoyed by freedom of speech cause when cornered in a debate or exchange of opinions you usually resort to the use of insults and other terms I would never use in a civilized discussion.

For you someone else different opinion is either

such bullsh*t.

or in the best case scenario someone else opinions

don't mean sh*t

.

I'll spare you the quote about the usual remark you do on where other people that differ with your opinion should put their head...

 

At this point I got nothing to add cause I think you are a clear case of a person that is not informed on a number of subjects, nor does know history (past or recent) and on top of that has the attitude of someone that pretends to know things when in reality only knows how to be arrogant and disrespectful in a civilized discussion.

You certainly have a lot in common with the people you pretend to criticize.

Edited September 14, 2012 by docrikowski

[El Dildo]

I'll spare you the quote about the usual remark you do on where other people that differ with your opinion should put their head...

it's not about differing opinions.

it's about consistently failing to comprehend the difference between specifics and generalities.

 

I'm speaking in specifics. you're speaking in generalities.

why? I don't know. you seem to be defending extreme Islam, which would certainly be easier to do when you ignore their specific actions versus the specific actions of other radical groups.

 

I'm not even the only person who has tried to point this out to you.

DeeperRed also noticed how you keep ignoring the bigger picture but you replied to him with the same dismissive attitude as you did to me. you keep taking steps backwards and trying to talk about how it's not religion but society or history.

 

those things matter obviously. unfortunately it doesn't address the fact that virtually every nation of people has had to endure hardships and historical religious or economic grievances. there's no religion or group of people that hasn't made it to the 21st century without it's share of turmoil and unrest. we've all been through it.

 

but most of us don't react to perceived religious slights the way Islamic fundamentalists do.

if they were truly a strong and noble religion comprised of strong and noble people, they would be ABOVE this kind of nonsense. they would turn the other cheek and focus on ways to improve their livelihood instead of just looking for outlets to vent their senseless rage.

[sivispacem]

Well, two wars in the past 10 years... Millions of Arab civilians dead... That looks like retaliating with violence to me...

I've been quite enjoying the back-and-forth but can I just interject here? Even if you take The Lancent's absurd 600,000+ civilians dead in Iraq as a direct result of "violent actions" figure (every other measure has been about one-fifth of that) the total fatalities, civilian, insurgent and regular combatant combined, across both Iraq and Afghanistan comes out at well under a million- around 850,000 if my rudimentary mental arithmetic serves me correctly. That's not a million, let alone multiples of them.

[Doc Rikowski]

Well, two wars in the past 10 years... Millions of Arab civilians dead... That looks like retaliating with violence to me... 

I've been quite enjoying the back-and-forth but can I just interject here? Even if you take The Lancent's absurd 600,000+ civilians dead in Iraq as a direct result of "violent actions" figure (every other measure has been about one-fifth of that) the total fatalities, civilian, insurgent and regular combatant combined, across both Iraq and Afghanistan comes out at well under a million- around 850,000 if my rudimentary mental arithmetic serves me correctly. That's not a million, let alone multiples of them.

You are right. I guess I got caught in the moment.

And it is always a pleasure to read your posts even when I disagree with what you're saying.

 

---

 

@ El_Diablo

 

Well, allow me to express the personal opinion that is by talking about specifics that there are more chances of missing the big picture.

I just can't see things black and white. History is pretty much gray all around.

That's why I just can't deal with this particular episode without looking at the general context (being that economical, social, cultural and historical).

 

I doubt I've been dismissive with anyone's opinion in here. That's not how I debate but if that is how it came through then I apologize.

 

I certainly do not defend any type of extremism but I try to comprehend the reasons and the causes behind any event.

Also, I try to not judge cause during my life I've seen myself changing opinion on a large amount of matters when I realized my view was either wrong or distorted by a partial representation of the facts given to me either by the media or by other sources.

 

Anyway, if you are talking about specifics then you are talking about extremists only. The only problem is that you seem to generalize and apply the Islamic extremism to anything related to Islam and its believers when in fact it's usually minorities that are extremists and violent (just like among the fans of a soccer team only a minority is extremist and violent).

After the attack to the Embassy there have been manifestations in Libya in support of the US and against extremism.

The people in the manifestation were of Islamic religion.

 

[EscoLehGo]

Yea, I think he was just saying that Islamic extremists tend to be more vocal and violent than any other religious extremists, not that everything affiliated with Islam is extreme. They're even rioting now in Australia over this, it's ridiculous.

[JOSEPH X]

Film sounds like a 'must watch' for muslims.

[Doc Rikowski]

Film sounds like a 'must watch' for muslims.

This made me lol

I just love black humor.

[Audiophile]

Well it seems like they're rioting in Sydney now and even attacking the police/horses. Very peaceful religion, indeed.

 

http://www.news.com.au/national/police-use...t-1226474744811

 

 

Right....They do realize this is Australia?

 

What a pathetic group of human-beings to react like this over a movie.

[lil weasel]

The best part is they want U.S. to scrap freedom of speech regarding Islam.

No religious Jokes allowed.

Didn't England have such a law about Christians before the 60s?

Maybe that would be a good idea. Then we could arrest those bible thumpers for making a mockery of it.

[Icarus]

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/09/15/1226474/786997-protest-involves-children.jpg

 

This picture bothers me. It's a kid holding that sign; I highly doubt he has a full understanding of what's going on, much less the message he's broadcasting with that sign.

 

I really hate it when parents use their kids to spread these kind of messages, given that the kid likely has no idea what the hell is going on.

[Typhus]

The best part is they want U.S. to scrap freedom of speech regarding Islam.

No religious Jokes allowed.

Didn't England have such a law about Christians before the 60s?

Maybe that would be a good idea. Then we could arrest those bible thumpers for making a mockery of it.

I really hope you're joking.

Do you really hold your liberty so cheaply?