Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (3 Viewers)

[SashatheMan]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

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

yeh fully bro, his argument is so much less significant now bro. habibbi

 

[Optophobia]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Where the heck did this topic come from?

It says the original post was made on the 31 Jan 2006, 11:05 AM, but i have been browsing this forum for days, and i swear to god that i haven't seen it until today?

 

[ihavenothing]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

The mod changed the title from Jihad Against Danish Newspaper to the more logical Muhammed Cartoon Controversy.

 

[HotShot]

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

Now, isnt this the same as the cartoon that was published? I am "cricticising" the jewish religion, and accordingly i have the right to do so. Why should I apologise, i didnt notice the publisher apologising as soon they published it? it was only after some protest tat the dudes said sorry.

This just proves that the cartoon was clearly offensive and it whole purpose was a move against he islamic religon. Think of the background under the circumstances when the cartoon was published, Hamas in power, iraq crisis, etc. It is clear the cartoon's purpose was to insult the islamic religion and as a result it received enormous opposition, as it should.

Dont expect a bunch of muslims to take shit from a few danish editor, they have every right to oppose, whether they have right to destroy things is another matter.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Now, isnt this the same as the cartoon that was published? I am "cricticising" the jewish religion, and accordingly i have the right to do so. Why should I apologise, i didnt notice the publisher apologising as soon they published it? it was only after some protest tat the dudes said sorry.

This just proves that the cartoon was clearly offensive and it whole purpose was a move against he islamic religon. Think of the background under the circumstances when the cartoon was published, Hamas in power, iraq crisis, etc. It is clear the cartoon's purpose was to insult the islamic religion and as a result it received enormous opposition, as it should.

Dont expect a bunch of muslims to take shit from a few danish editor, they have every right to oppose, whether they have right to destroy things is another matter.

Well 'jew' is a race... but other than that I think you just fell perfectly into his trap and showed that you do believe there are groups which we can offend/criticise because of their beliefs/practices...

 

[davin]

HotShot, i pose that request purely because if you don't, you're being hypocritical, because you're opposed to the paper being offensive to a group, but you've no problem making a public statement against another group. its a double standard.

 

[HotShot]

Well 'jew' is a race... but other than that I think you just fell perfectly into his trap and showed that you do believe there are groups which we can offend/criticise because of their beliefs/practices...

NO u fell into my trap, nice trying to cover up that "1,2,c" i highly doubt that intended "c" to mean conlcusion lol, if it wasnt for xayma, you would look really foolish, but u still do.

Jew is a religion....they consider it to be race, but its a religion! I do believe you can criticise religions etc whatever, buts its how you do it that matters. It is not necessary to draw insulting cartoon to for criticism. you could do same thing by writing it down or even posting it on internet.

But why draw cartoons, when you know tat it would clearly insult the islamichood. There is a way to criticise, there boundary between you "critcising" and " you insulting", my comment earlier was an insult much like the cartoon, and i should be condemned for saying such thing - as david pointed i should apologise. Similarly so should the publishers, and they shoudlnt have to worsen the situation by republishing it- knowing more trouble would boil.

It doesnt make any sense, after protest, riots etc. More newspapers publish the cartoons- and they claim " they didnt realise publishing such a cartoon would have such an outcome"- sounds stupid if other newspapers publish.

Democracy is about the right of all people to live in a way they believe is right and good but without hurting others. In democratic countries we restrict the rights of groups and individuals through censorship, noise control, pollution control, sedition laws and a host of others.

Would respecting Muslim beliefs and stopping the printing of images of Muhammad because we know they hurt others, really infringe our rights so much?

AS this person says.

 

[davin]

except, within my view, you SHOULDN'T be forced to apologise. you've got every right to be a bigoted jerk. and anyone else has the right to call you on it.
and second, how do you draw such a subjective line as insult vs criticise?

i don't think that society should be ran by the heckler's veto.

 

[HotShot]

except, within my view, you SHOULDN'T be forced to apologise. you've got every right to be a bigoted jerk. and anyone else has the right to call you on it.
and second, how do you draw such a subjective line as insult vs criticise?

i don't think that society should be ran by the heckler's veto.

thats bit like saying, the terrorists shouldnt be forced to stop sucide bombers...

u can still be jerk and apologise.

An insult it when do you something intentionally to harm ones feelings, where as criticisation is often something like "find fault with; express criticism of; point out real or perceived flaws;"
insult - "To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness""To give offense; offend"

tats the difference, an insult will always be an insult. The cartoon was insult to muslims, it wasnt a critcising cartoon.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

NO u fell into my trap, nice trying to cover up that "1,2,c" i highly doubt that intended "c" to mean conlcusion lol, if it wasnt for xayma, you would look really foolish, but u still do.

In logical notation the way it works is you state the premises... and then the conclusion you can draw from those premises.

P1. you suck
P2. you're muslim.
C. all muslims suck.

 

[davin]

thats bit like saying, the terrorists shouldnt be forced to stop sucide bombers...

feel like clarifying the analogy there?

ok, and well, how about the fact that, since i, and others, find the idea of censorship and limiting free speech offensive, which fits your definition of insult there, then it would, in fact, within your theory, be illegal to have that law in the first place as THAT LAW would be an insult? second, the cartoons WERE expressing a criticism of islam, in that they were pointing out a flaw they saw, which was that there was such a great fear of retribution that they couldn't find someone to do the illustrations for a book about Mohommad. The drawings were then criticisms of that flaw.

 

[HotShot]

In logical notation the way it works is you state the premises... and then the conclusion you can draw from those premises.

P1. you suck
P2. you're muslim.
C. all muslims suck.

p1.we all suck
p2.i am chrisitian
c. All christians suck

..very logical.

 

[HotShot]

feel like clarifying the analogy there?

ok, and well, how about the fact that, since i, and others, find the idea of censorship and limiting free speech offensive, which fits your definition of insult there, then it would, in fact, within your theory, be illegal to have that law in the first place as THAT LAW would be an insult? second, the cartoons WERE expressing a criticism of islam, in that they were pointing out a flaw they saw, which was that there was such a great fear of retribution that they couldn't find someone to do the illustrations for a book about Mohommad. The drawings were then criticisms of that flaw.

thats bit like saying, can you find person that would write a "new bible" and claim it as the original true bible. - u wont find person, and if a person wrote such book he will humiliated deemed an outcast etc.

i didnt say it was illegal, i main point being put here, is such a cartoon necessary to achieve its purpose, when if you it is a cricisation, can it not be put in such that would less insulting and offensive, if you put in such a way, not only will the muslims not riot and but they will realise this 'flaw'.

Such a small, finding an illustrator, has made such havoc all because of a cartoon, is it necessary when it could be achieved simply by going to imam and interviewing his views on the topic?.

 

[davin]

religions tend to have it included in them that criticism is always offensive. just ask Martin Luther. and see, all the past attempts to say "hey, why are you not differentiating yourselves from islamic fundamentalism" seems to not be working. plus, the main issue here isn't if the cartoons were in bad taste or not, but about the idea that somehow gov't shouldn't have allowed the cartoons to have been published. this has nothing to do with bad taste.

and well, apparently it might well have been necessary as its become very clear that the paper was criticising a flaw that is very present and extremely dangerous.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

p1.we all suck
p2.i am chrisitian
c. All christians suck

..very logical.

Well it's bad logic, but it's still logical notation - look you learnt something today Now lets see if you can judge your own logic in your posts before you post them, and maybe that'll save us a shitload of time pointing out your obvious flaws.

 

[HotShot]

religions tend to have it included in them that criticism is always offensive. just ask Martin Luther. and see, all the past attempts to say "hey, why are you not differentiating yourselves from islamic fundamentalism" seems to not be working. plus, the main issue here isn't if the cartoons were in bad taste or not, but about the idea that somehow gov't shouldn't have allowed the cartoons to have been published. this has nothing to do with bad taste.

and well, apparently it might well have been necessary as its become very clear that the paper was criticising a flaw that is very present and extremely dangerous.

I dont understand how the flaw is dangerous, if the "flaw" had existed since islam was introduced.

the government is directly responsible for this, after their editors, journaleist represent their country, much like sportspeople. But as you say the government cannot really control that, but the editor has the control to do so. Ultimately its his decision whether to publish the cartoons, and under his judgement he should have realised that such a cartoon would have negative impact. Failure to do this, will as has happened, lead to his sacking, he has failed to do his job. His judgement was poor, and it cannot be excused because he is an editor, not a child.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ultimately its his decision whether to publish the cartoons, and under his judgement he should have realised that such a cartoon would have negative impact.

Newspapers should not bend to the will of special interest groups... Sure, he probably realised muslims might be offended by this (i doubt he could imagine by how much) but he also thought it was a meaningful piece of political commentary that is needed on the subject.

The fact that muslims have shown themselves to be so uptight about it has probably just got cartoonists/comics/etc going overtime comming up with new ways to make fun of you guys. People are ALWAYS alot more fun to make fun of if they're dead serious.

 

[YBK]

bah, I wanna see the cartoon.

 

[volition]

Sorry YBK, I don't wanna post the image here for fear of some idiot muslim trying to stab/bomb me because of it.

Anyway, now that that's said, Tim Blair has posted them on his site.
http://timblair.net/

 

[tiya]

wow..this has really become a very ugly affair huh?

just wented to see wat pplz had written and was quite frankly pretty shocked to see what both sides have written...asked a muslim friend today what he thought abt it all and he was casual but you could see he really didnt appreciate it too much, it wasnt one of the things they would be sitting around the family dinner laughing about, and i understand cause i rekon its like this:

we laugh at ourselves, im hindu and indian and i probably know more curry jokes then my aussie friends, i laugh with them when they imitate the accent and when they crack a joke but it depends on what context it was said in, though some of the ruder jokes my aussie friends dont even approch but all my curry friends will say it and we'll laugh to it cause we know we respect our culture and we know it was said in jest and we encourage people to laugh at the things we too find funny.

BUT i dont laugh at jokes that disrespect anything i believe in like my religon, and if a libral hindu cant accept jokes in poor taste on their religon then why should strict muslims? making jokes on aspects that muslims do find humerous is fine but i dont know one muslim that doesnt take their religon seriously...

the carttons that are printed in australia know where to draw the line, ive never seen one that is demeaning of any religon and if it is, it is of christanity, which is not only drawn by a christan but for a nation in which the majority of people are christan and for that can laugh at themselves..But in all honestly, what did the Danish paper think that would happen?

at the same time i think the reaction by the arab nations is drastic and is only escalating the problem, the reaction by the public is because of the properganda by the media which is just stupid!!! MEDIA IS AT FAULT!!

your right, we should have the power of free speech, and in an ideal world we would but we dont live in the ideal world!! WAKE UP!!! smell the fumes in the air, see the corruption, feel the unfairness, hear the despair and taste the sourness of a world that is not PERFECT!! make the best of what we have though...

After all we live in Australia, an awsome country with awsome people from different backgrounds and different ideologies(and thats waht makes it AWSOME!) and we all live here in harmony.

dont let threads like this make you hate muslims or christaans or even hindus for that matter, dont judge a person on their religon, background and family but on WHO THEY ARE> we dont choose our life, culture, religon or background so never take that into account when you do judge people.

Dont go makeing generalisations "i hate muslims", because that is stupid! There is always a bad apple in every crate and yea, unfortuantely for the muslims they ended up withan espeacially bad bunch but thats not their fault! Every religon has their share of idiots!!(need i remind you of hitler?) Im sure 99% of the muslims on BOS will agree the terrorist option is bloody idiotic and im sure they dont see the sense!

i hope i've made you think even if i ahvnt changed your mind...

i'm sorry this has turned into a bloody thesis...sorry...didn't mean to...