• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (2 Viewers)

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
and my main point is racial characteristics are more relevant to a crime, esp if someone isn't caught, than otehr sorts of stories.

also, since you argue the two girls weren't identified as australian, wouldn't the following, "The girls, of Liverpool and Canley Heights," rather identify them as australian? or is it the fact that one would ASSUME a crime committed in australia would be commited by australians?
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
HotShot said:
the main point is the inconsistency of the papers. anything that is gud is deemed australian, while if its bad its labelled arab middle eastern etc.
you mean like how plenty of people born outside of Australia are simply counted as Australian without mentioning their origins as well? I mean, if the chess champ has effectivly lived all his life in australia, does taht bug you as much as Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, or Nicole Kidman being referred to as Australians with no further explanation?
 

SashatheMan

StudyforEver
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
5,656
Location
Queensland
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
"THE controversial cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, which have caused outrage around the Islamic world, are unlikely to be found offensive under Victoria's anti-vilification laws."

www.news.com.au/story/0,...30-26619,00.html

"In general, racially stereotyping comments, blasphemy, off-hand remarks or racist or religious jokes, while offensive to some people, are unlikely to be considered vilifying."
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
HotShot said:
the main point is the inconsistency of the papers. anything that is gud is deemed australian, while if its bad its labelled arab middle eastern etc.
I find your post to be arab at best, middle eastern at worst.
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
davin said:
you mean like how plenty of people born outside of Australia are simply counted as Australian without mentioning their origins as well? I mean, if the chess champ has effectivly lived all his life in australia, does taht bug you as much as Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, or Nicole Kidman being referred to as Australians with no further explanation?
u missed my point, that same chess champ was called an australian, but when he raped a women, he was no labelled as an aussie, but as an arab. Isnt that discrimination?

Basically this potrays arabs as rapists which isnt true!
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
give a link to the two articles, if possible

and while its something perhaps to look into, i think you're making very large generalisations with little to back it up
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
davin said:
give a link to the two articles, if possible

and while its something perhaps to look into, i think you're making very large generalisations with little to back it up
um, they were made up examples..........:bomb:
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
so, you give an example of discrimination by making up the examples. well, i'm impressed.
 

sly fly

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
581
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Not-That-Bright said:
Um ok... Why?

When someone criticises a religion... they are usually criticising some sort of belief or practice which permeates through the religion. There are no permeating beliefs throughout a race, there are no practices which permeate throughout a race... If you criticise a race you are just being racist as there is no substance to your criticisms - practices/beliefs do not go along with race.

Also as MLS pointed out, you can't change your race - You can change your beliefs.
Here's what you don't understand. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticising a religion in an intelligent manner. However, there is a difference between criticising and downright insulting. You can criticise Islam without depicting our holiest figure in such an insulting way.

The reason I think it's worse to insult somebody's religion is because they themselves chose that religion and agreed to it's scriptures/teachings etc. Therefore, they have a much stronger bond with their religion than they do with their race because they had no choice in their race. That's not to say racism is ok, racism is just plain foolish. But when you insult somebody's religion, it's insulting something which they hold very close to their heart. I'm not saying you can't be critical of the religion, but care should be taken in not being rude and insulting their religion or their God or whatever.

Not-That-Bright said:
Well the prophet or someone from his family can then sue the newspaper. However even then I imagine it could be easily argued that muhammed in this sense is not a 'person' but a mythical figure and symbol of the religion of Islam - while there may have been a person, the person was not what was being portrayed in the cartoons.
It's just cowardly to mock someone who is no longer alive. They aren't here to defend themselves against any claims made by them, nor is his family.

Not-That-Bright said:
Well I don't support such laws, however your reference I believe points out the confusion...



This is not an example of those laws in practice... Universities can sack professors whom are doing poor quality research or even fabricating research. Another point to make is that there should be restrictions on freedom of speech when it comes to teachers due to their position.
I don't think the problem was with poor quality research, but simply the fact that he was questioning the holocaust. I think you're right about the rest though.

Not-That-Bright said:
ALL of the protests that I have seen are about violence and call for ends to freedom of speech. If the muslims were simply protesting because they didn't like it and were perhaps asking for an appology I imagine alot of people on this board would be on their side - but they're not. They're asking for the newspaper to be severely punished, they want to hurt the people of denmark (and now europe) and they're going on like a pack of babies that need a good spanking.

The reason why Islam is portrayed close to terrorism is because... well it is. There's no denying that Islam has been hijacked by alot of fundamentalist terrorists whom we all should hate... Does this mean all muslims are evil? No. Does this mean Islam is severely tainted by terrorism? Yes.
I think the reason why the protests turned violent wasn't simply over the cartoons but alot of these people have been under years of persecution, occupation etc so it all adds up. Also, I think it has alot to do with crowd mentality and behanviour. People tend to get more violent in a crowd or they try and impress their mates or whatever. I'm not in any way saying that that is a justification for their behaviour, but it is a reason. I think the best thing for Muslims to have done would have been to protest peacefully, request for an apology and boycott the newspaper until they got their apology.

Unfortunately, you're right in that alot of Muslims have the terrorist mentality. I was discussing this with a friend last night. It's like, they go from clubbing to abstaining from anything and everything - things which aren't even forbidden in Islam. These people are what you would call wahabbi's, and they need to go off to their own little island and they can all kill eachother there because civilised people want nothing to do with them (not all wahabbi's, some are not as bad as others, and others only identify themselves as wahabbi's but don't actually follow all wahabbi teachings). But wahabbiism is a small sect in Islam (maybe 2% of all Muslims?)and of those 2%, I'm guessing only about 30% are hardcore extremists and possibly about 10% would, in reality, have the potential to become terrorists or involved in terrorist activity.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Here's what you don't understand. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticising a religion in an intelligent manner. However, there is a difference between criticising and downright insulting.
Actually I see very little difference, criticism is usually insulting to the person(s) whom it is being directed towards.

The reason I think it's worse to insult somebody's religion is because they themselves chose that religion and agreed to it's scriptures/teachings etc. Therefore, they have a much stronger bond with their religion than they do with their race because they had no choice in their race.
This completely ignores what I said in what you quoted... The fact that a religion is a chosen set of beliefs makes it more open to criticism.

But when you insult somebody's religion, it's insulting something which they hold very close to their heart. I'm not saying you can't be critical of the religion, but care should be taken in not being rude and insulting their religion or their God or whatever.
Criticism is rude, it is insulting.

It's just cowardly to mock someone who is no longer alive. They aren't here to defend themselves against any claims made by them, nor is his family.
Again... you ignore parts of my post that you even quote.

me said:
However even then I imagine it could be easily argued that muhammed in this sense is not a 'person' but a mythical figure and symbol of the religion of Islam - while there may have been a person, the person was not what was being portrayed in the cartoons.
I'm guessing only about 30% are hardcore extremists and possibly about 10% would, in reality, have the potential to become terrorists or involved in terrorist activity.
A recent survey done by the BBC asked UK Muslims whether they felt a bomb attack in the UK is justified - 7% of respondents said yes. These are muslims in a country where you would think they would be much more moderate, and in a situation where they would fear to give the answer of 'yes'.

I haven't seen too many studies on how many muslims support suicide bombings - but I'm afraid most signs i've seen so far show the number is probably high.
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
The reason I think it's worse to insult somebody's religion is because they themselves chose that religion and agreed to it's scriptures/teachings etc. Therefore, they have a much stronger bond with their religion than they do with their race because they had no choice in their race. That's not to say racism is ok, racism is just plain foolish. But when you insult somebody's religion, it's insulting something which they hold very close to their heart. I'm not saying you can't be critical of the religion, but care should be taken in not being rude and insulting their religion or their God or whatever.
If its because they chose the belief that it can't be attacked, then what about all those of us that have chosen to believe in free speech while that is being attacked?
Further, to use extreme example...does this mean we can't judge someone that belives in murder or the like? For example, was Charles Manson or Hitler free from criticism because they believed in what they said, did, and had ordered done?
 

SashatheMan

StudyforEver
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
5,656
Location
Queensland
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A

SashatheMan

StudyforEver
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
5,656
Location
Queensland
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
A recent survey done by the BBC asked UK Muslims whether they felt a bomb attack in the UK is justified - 7% of respondents said yes. These are muslims in a country where you would think they would be much more moderate, and in a situation where they would fear to give the answer of 'yes'.

I haven't seen too many studies on how many muslims support suicide bombings - but I'm afraid most signs i've seen so far show the number is probably high.

scary shit. wonder why the UK government not doing sometihng about these fools
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
to be honest, there's not anything the gov't should be able to do, assuming their citizens, and not aiding terrorists. course, if they're trying to immigrate in...then they should prob be sent back
 

SashatheMan

StudyforEver
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
5,656
Location
Queensland
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
lewdogs said:
ask urselfs would christians do this? i dont know just wondering haha
its not a matter of would christians do the same. Christians already showed that they can dislike sometihng and be civilized about it. there have been many things done about jesus and the virgin mary , that christians if they watned to , could start a riot for.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top