Muhammad (S.A.W.) cartoons and the boundaries of satire

[Not_Me]

There are better ways to uphold the freedom of speech than simply inciting violent reactions from those that can bee seen to oppose it.

How? They violently forbid a practice which we cherish. If we submit, then the freedom is gone.

If they used dialog instead of violence, then it would make sense to compromise.

 

[Jaguar]

 

[violaine]

I take a big picture view of these things. The instance in the OP is just a snapshot in time, imo. Any large force for change will always be challenged by others. There isn't a worldwide mono-culture. People rarely forget what this side did to that until something bigger comes along to take it's place. And there will always be friction between cultures as people strive to protect and promote their own ways of living. At this point in time, it happens to be that the boundary between the Islamic world and the rest of the world is getting all of the heat. It makes perfect sense to me in the realms of typical human behavior. So I can't take offense, even if it is offensive.

On the whole, I think satire is a wonderful tool for examination. Yeah, it can hurt, we don't always like it, sometimes it can be off the mark, but if one reflects, it can open one's eyes to other's POV and our own blindspots and inspire wider dialogue. As in this thread.

 

[Viridian]

I think there's a distinction between "not nice" and "ought to be illegal".

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

I think there's a distinction between "not nice" and "ought to be illegal".

facist

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

You people are all far too sensitive about your freedom of speech.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

You people are all far too sensitive about your freedom of speech.

yeah, thats why you want to make me wear a headset????

 

[Not_Me]

Free speech is for little people. I expect to be paid.

 

[A window to the soul]

Defamation unfairly diminishes the victim's standing in society. The dishonesty is what makes it wrong. Intentionally angering or hurting someone's feelings might not be nice, but no dishonesty is involved. The two are not comparable.

In one sentence you indicate that dishonesty is what makes defamation wrong. In the next sentence you attempt a giant leap to "angering or hurting someone's feelings might not be nice, but no dishonesty is involved." When I fill in the large gap in your thought process there, I hear "defamation is dishonesty and dishonesty is wrong; intentionally hurting someone's feelings isn't defamation, so intentionally hurting someone's feelings isn't wrong." Is that an accurate translation of your thoughts? If so, please help me understand how you determine what qualifies as "wrong". I'm not seeing the same clear distinction as you are.

EDIT: A mass published warped depiction of something that's sacred to the masses, is far from what I call "honest."

How? They violently forbid a practice which we cherish. If we submit, then the freedom is gone.

If they used dialog instead of violence, then it would make sense to compromise.

Come on. Are they wanting to take away your freedom or do they just want you to be respectful?

 

[Nicodemus]

You people are all far too sensitive about your freedom of speech.

I would love to set you straight (haha) but, contrary to what you like to pretend, I am quite convinced you already are.

 

[Mole]

A Totalitarian Political Religion

Do you think it's okay to offend hundreds of millions of people in the name of satire, just for the sake of doing so?
I personally don't think so, and I was pretty mad during the abovementioned controversy. I believe it in inexcusable to mock something so many people find precious and sacred. It was also a pretty stupid move by the newspaper. They must have known that the cartoons would create a big reaction in the Middle East.

Fifty-seven Islamic countries have openly and publicly rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so that they can continue to abuse human rights.

In particular they have rejected freedom of speech, and have sought to make freedom of speech illegal in infidel countries.

None of this should come as a surprise as Islam is a totalitarian political religion.

 

[A window to the soul]

Fifty-seven Islamic countries have openly and publicly rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so that they can continue to abuse human rights.

In particular they have rejected freedom of speech, and have sought to make freedom of speech illegal in infidel countries.

None of this should come as a surprise as Islam is a totalitarian political religion.

Oh lawd. Context fail.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

awwwee :c

 

[Not_Me]

I hear "defamation is dishonesty and dishonesty is wrong; intentionally hurting someone's feelings isn't defamation, so intentionally hurting someone's feelings isn't wrong." Is that an accurate translation of your thoughts?

Exactly. There are countless examples. Should I refrain from stating that I like apples better than oranges if it offends/hurts the feelings of orange farmers?

If so, please help me understand how you determine what qualifies as "wrong". I'm not seeing a clear distinction as you are.

Anything can be "right" or "wrong" as long as the two sides agree to it.

If I was a radical atheist who gets offended when people attend church, would you be obligated to respect my sensibilities?

Come on. Are they wanting to take away your freedom or do they just want you to be respectful?

Death threats and mob violence can hardly be characterized as "just want you to be respectful".

 

[A window to the soul]

Perhaps I need more brain washing. I don't get it.

 

[Not_Me]

What don't you get?

 

[lowtech redneck]

But we must remember, Christianity has had 200+ years to get used to criticism whereas most Muslims come from nations where it has long been forbidden to do so. Give them a bit of a break and some time to adjust.

Democratizing countries have not had time to get used to full democracy; let's cut them a break and not complain if they refuse to allow women to vote, after all, it took us 150 years!

 

[A window to the soul]

What don't you get?

That was directed at Victor. Sorry about that Not_Me.

[MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION]: I don't understand where you get your passionate philosophies from. They seem radical in nature. There are extremists in every religion, in all walks of life. The good news is, they (radicals) are the minority. Why must you live in fear and spread the hate? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[lowtech redneck]

You people are all far too sensitive about your freedom of speech.

And you are far too sensitive about your 'prophet'.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

And you are far too sensitive about your 'prophet'.

What is with the reference quotes? Are you belittling my beliefs now?