Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Danish Cartoons of Mohammed
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
This has nothing to do with "judgement" Razor, but rather it deals with tolerance and the lack of it found in the Middle East where dictators and autonomies rule through fear using religion as it's method of delivery...
Razor, lets say I photoshopped a picture of Crocodile Dundee sticking his schlong into a kangaroo and entitled the picture "Australian Mating Ritual"... Would you take it to the streets rock throwing and wishing death upon me? Would you advocate for the destruction of my family and home via suicide bombers? No, in fact, you would probably laugh a little... After all, you are the only dude I have ever known to have a picture of a guy firing an AK 47 while riding a Segway... It is all about tolerance bro, not judgement... You think the creator of Family Guy used his judgement when portraying Jesus as a golfer who cheats? Or when he portrayed God as some loathsome boss at his desk telling Karen to "Turn off the plagues please"... Why do we (as a largely Christian country) let this show stil run? Tolerance brotha...
Its all about judgement because we KNOW how sensitive and reactionary these poeple are.
The reason you know my response to such a picture would be "who gives a crap" is because you know me and you know Australians. Additionally, Christianity does not forbid depictions of thier prophets as Islam does. So there is basically no comparison, even though many of you have made one.
Equally the cartoonist knew Islam and he knew Muslims and he knew what the reaction would be.
So rather than excercise common sense and sound journalistic judegement he decided to say "stuff it if they cant take a joke then bugger them" That was a judegement call.
If your suggesting that the way to form constructive relationships with Islam in these times is to keep pushing them to greater acts of aggresion by continually disregarding their deep spiritual beliefs then I guess we can expect more of the same in the months to come, because sadly, many people seem to feel the same way.
I simply say again.... All questions of "sense of humour", "ability to take a joke" and "over reactions" aside.
Why antagnoise people ? Why, when you KNOW what the response is going to be, do we wish to piss these people off any further ? Whats the point ? Where is it leading ?
Would you crawl into a cave and poke a hibernating, adult grizzly with a stick until it woke up and mauled you half to death then say "damn that bear cant take a joke"
Better to not poke it with a stick in the first place.
This is all about judgement, common sense and respect.
It has less to do with free speech and tolerance than I can explain in words...
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
This is Bob. Bob has a thing. This thing is a great thing. Bob and his followers are proud of this thing.
This thing is the "shit", Bob thinks. This thing gives Bob a cause. This thing is worth fighting for. But Bob has a problem.
On the other side of the road there is a guy called Ben. Ben also has a thing. But Ben's thing isn't the same as Bob's thing.
Bob and Ben don't agree about their things. Bob thinks his thing is perfect. Ben also thinks his thing is perfect. But since they both live in the same street they have to coexist.
So Bob decides to take a debate. Bob knows very well what Ben bad sides are. Bob does indeed. Bob crosses the street. Bob meets Ben. Bob opens with a full broadside. Bob knows that Ben has a hurting tooth. Bob punches Ben on that side of the face where the sore tooth is located. The strike hurts Ben badly. Ben get's angry! Ben get's very angry. Ben has always been shorttempered. Ben starts screaming, spitting and threathening Bob. Bob get's scared. Bob does the only thing that is correct for his cause. Bob hit's Ben another time. This time he hit's abit harder and aims directly at the sore tooth. Ben stumbles back, but soon recovers and hit's back. Ben and his followers start hitting on Bob. The situation get's even more heated. Bob get's more scared. Bob has a big brother. Bob calls his bigbrother. Soon Bob's bigbrother arrives. Bob's Bigbrother also believes in Bob's thing. Bob and his Bigbrother know that their thing is the "shit". Nothing is wrong with their thing, and Ben doesn't have any valid points. Bob and his bigbrother hit Ben again.......
I think Im Bob......
http://euobserver.com/9/20844
3 dead 2 injured from riots over this "joke"
The violence is not justified. Dont think for a second Im saying it is.
I just cannot understand why it was worth kicking it off in the first place. If the purpose of a "joke" is to make people laugh.... Tell me who is laughing ?
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
There is a point here that I think you guys are missing.
Depicting Mohammed may be a sin in the Islamic faith...but the people who drew and puplished those cartoons aren't Islamic.
The cartoons were undoubtedly in poor taste. But I don't give a damn. The day that non-Moslems have to live by Islamic law is the day that western freedom and democracy end.
Should all the women in western countries have to conform to Islam and cover themselves? Should we all have to face Mecca and pray three times a day? Should we stop eating bacon? Should we never, ever, ever draw a cartoon of Mohammed? It's all the same damn thing.
The smartass who drew those cartoons may have been deliberately trying to anger Moslems, but you know what, when it comes right down to it I'll defend his right to do that untill my dying breath. Just like I would defend his right to ridicule Jesus (thou shalt not take thy Lords name in vain) pretty much makes that a sin in Christianity.
Moslems also have a right to complain about it as far as I'm concerned. But when they threaten violence and engage in violence because of it then they have crossed a line. THEY crossed that line, not the guy who drew the cartoons.
And now the gauntlet has been thrown down. They are telling westerners that we can't do this sort of thing. Are we going to cower down and let them frighten us into compromising one of our most basic and cherished rights? I say to hell with that.
Well Razorback, that's a pretty patronizing attitude you have towards muslims, and a very distorted view of the importance of free speech.
You seem to forget that islam is no more a single religion than christianity is. Yes the wabbi sect is spreading rapidly due to the Saudi oil money building mosques around the world and flying the most zealous converts to Saudi Arabia to train to be imams. Even so they are still one of the smallest sects albeit the most visible. The average muslim is very much an average person for whatever part of the world you live in. There's probably a caucasian wherever you go to work/school that is a muslim and you just don't know it. Don't think of muslims as some 'other' people 'over there'. They are your neighbours, they should be treated with the same courtesy (or lack thereof when it comes to satire) and held to the same standards.
The original pictures simply aren't that bad, I'm sure there aren't any muslims that were pleased with them but those aren't the ones they were upset about. You seem to forget that the 3 pictures that have people upset were first published by a few extremist muslim leaders to strengthen their position and power over their followers. The Danes didn't poke anyone with a stick. Indeed, given the penchant for muslims to use mohammed as a name, if the purpose of the pictures hadn't been mentioned in the original newspaper item how would you know if they were pictures of the prophet or any one of the millions of mohammeds living in the middle east and elsewhere? If they had been published seperately as just another political cartoon there would have been no reaction at all.
Don't believe the lie that they're angered by any and all depictions of their prophet. Even in Iran you can buy pictures such as the author was trying to have done for his book (and the first few that were done for the paper). It is very much an issue of free speech that, for fear of their own safety, ALL the artists originally contacted by the auther refused (and we all know how desperate artists are for paying work). Out of 40 contacted by the newspaper 28 also were too afraid to do something that is done routinely in muslim countries. You know they wouldn't have declined in such numbers to do a picture of any non-muslim icon. I think it's telling that most of the 12 artists that agreed to do one were political cartoonists that satirize the self-important on a daily basis and are probably used to threats of tax audits, etc. The paper didn't ask for cartoons specifically. It's just that most of the very few artists that had the moral fibre not to knuckle under happened to be political cartoonists.
You can't have judgement, common sense and respect without free speech. Think about it. How many of the rioters do you think have actually seen any of the pictures? Very few I'm sure. How many of those few do you think are aware that the 3 that actually are offensive were fabricated by imams and not by the newspaper? I'm guessing close to 0. Of course if those countries had freedom of speech then it would be possible to publish an expose of how a very few of their religious leaders are fabricating and exploiting the tension. If they had free speech, and thus accurate and complete information, do you think there would be riots at all? I don't. This situation is a prime example of how the lack of free speech breeds intolerance.
The Danes, by insisting on free speech, and the non-interference of government with the press are ensuring that they will continue to live up to their reputation as one of the most tolerant nations on earth. They have a long tradition of undermining fascists, just look what they accomplished saving their jewish population during WWII. I'm sure there's many New Zealanders wishing their political leadership had the spine to stand up to fascists of both the politically correct and religious kind.
Good point Neanderthal. Non Islamic people shouldnt have to live by Islamic law, I agree.
I also agree strongly that these cartoonists have a perfect right to depict any imgae they want. I too would defend their right to do it and in no way have I suggested at any time, anything other than that.
My entire point has been that the cartoon was thoughtless and unecessary.
It served no purpose other than to antagonise people who are pretty easy to antagonise.
The world will always be a dangerous and peaceless place while we cling to the notion that we can live out our lives however we want, regardless of the effect we have on others. This is just another recent example of the fact that this "live and let die" mentality is alive and well in the world and people are lining up to feed into it...
And Ghost... I am in good company with my take on free speech. The PM of NZ is pretty well regarded as an inteligent and calm commentator. Her take is my take. I can live with that.
I do however agree with you that my attitude toward Muslims may be regarded as patronising. However we do not deal with children the same way we deal with adults and whilst I am not comparing Muslims to children, I am making the point that in order to get along with others we need to take thier feelings, beliefs and reactions into account. Then if we decide to act anyway, we need to be able to deal with the consequences and understand that we had a hand in bringing about those consequences.
It seems right now that the people behind this and those that support it are willing to do neither.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
right on. and iran basing national policy (i.e.,suspending trade with denmark) is alarming and honestly makes me a little more nervous that they're firing up the nuclear facilities.
The iranian government is proving to be a dangerous theocracy indeed.
sorry razorback, this is where you and i disagree. i say screw their beliefs and their feelings. they don't deserve one ounce of respect from the civilized world. the civilized world should not kowtow to these theocratic crazies.
again, i disagree. take iran for example...an artist gave his opinion and iran couldn't handle it SO THEY CHANGED THEIR TRADE POLICY???!!
iran seems to want to play Grownup-Nation by restarting their nuclear program. my question is what happens the next time an artist depicts their god and this time they're armed with nuclear warheads.
/shivers.
==========================
Interesting take FT....
Let me bring it a little closer to home then.
Lets say you had a printed copy of these cartoons and your boss was a Muslim. You like your job and you want to keep it and you suspect your boss will be offended if you put up this print out in your workspace as a "joke"
You decide "screw his feelings, if he cant take a joke thats his problem" and you put up the print out.
He fires you.
You tell him he needs to get a "thicker skin" as you go off to enjoy unemployment.
Was that an exercise in free speech or an exercise in bad judgement ?
I mean you got to excercise your rights, but you lost your job. Was it worth it ?
Alternatively you could have had a giggle at the cartoons, thrown the print out away and kept your job.
Which seems smarter ?
Which seems more personally productive ?
Which has the least feelings hurt ?
Thats all Im saying, that using your so called "rights" to beat yourself to a bloody pulp with, doesnt make a lot of sense.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
but these are nothing to giggle at their making fun of at least 2/5 the population of the world based on nothing but cultural differences.
mind you i believe certain elements of islam such as women being regarded as property and other such things is wrong.
but i will not make fun of their entire culture.
i respect their rights to an extent until they abuse a woman in front of me.
these attacks on islam arent valid they are just racism
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
The way I read them he wasn't making fun of Islam. More like he was making fun of the fundamentalists who are misusing Islam to promote violence.
The same way someone could make a political cartoon of Pat Roberston or Jerry Falwell. There are some fundamentalist christians who would get mad about that. But most christians know they're both just agenda driven weirdo's using christianity to preach their hate message.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Actually thats very true.
However perception is truth and the people rioting certainly percieved them as something else. It was a risk judgement on behalf of the publishers that my ENTIRE assertion in this thread is, that they got badly wrong.
They had a right to draw them, they had a right to print them. They had a responsibility to consider the impact, thats where they failed to use sound judgement.
Initial decisions can carry enourmous and lasting consequences. Lead editors and people in senior media and communications positions know this stuff.
So you think that Americans or Australians for that matter were told EVERYTHING about operations in Iraq ? Do you think we are being told now ?
Of course not, because EVERYONE realises that certain information has concequences and should be handled accordingly. If you take the naively simplistic interpretation of free speech being bandied about in this thread, you would have G W Bush on TV revealing the locations of CIA agents in Iran and Jessie Jackson discussing his favorite masturbation techniques in church this sunday. Because according to some here, nothing is "sacred", nothing is beyind discussion and if you dont like it TOUGH, thats free speech.
That IS free speech, but it's free speech taken to a level that leaves behind decency, common sense, judgement, compasion, empathy and almost every other in built alarm bell that our brains posses (some in greater degrees than others) that says "DONT DO THIS, ITS A BAD IDEA!"
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Iran's biggest newspaper has today launched a competetion to find the 12 best cartoons about the holocaust.
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2027749,00.html
Off course they do it as a provocation to see how far the freedom of speech reaches,but those things can't be compared if you ask me.
Drawing pictures of a man that noone knows for sure lived and what he looked like is 1 thing.
(That goes for Jesus,Buddha,Hare Krishna or any other religious persons as well.Religions are based on various individuals and noone knows for sure if they lived or if it's just misstold fairytales.
I for one would like to believe on a religion that has an afterlife but nothing today has prooven it to be true.
The day science can proove it i might join one but until then i see religions as people needs for believing in something more than just this life.)
Drawing funny cartoons of the holocaust started by a sick sick person is another thing.
Making fun of massmurders commited less than 70 years ago is a lame provocation from a muslim country that we all know want to nuke the hell out of Israel.(and maybe they will if they are allowed to continue to build and improve their nucleartech)
The freedom of speech works,but this provocation from Iran is just an attempt to stir the pot.
Sometimes I'm so tired of all the various religions.
They started more wars than anything else and they dig trenches throughout the world between cultures and countries.
Maybe we should start banning religions and just live this life,like it was the only life we would ever get.
___________________________________________
How many languages has that been said in over the past 7 days alone ?
We are in a period of history where we are re-testing the theory that 2 wrongs dont make a right.
Nothing wrong with that...
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
since its a privately owned business my free speech does not apply. unless the company has a policy for free speech, then i could appeal to his boss and try to keep my job. i'm not in disagreement with you in that the cartoons were bad taste...to me, that's an irrelevent issue. my problem is changing our behaviour to cater to their irrational beliefs.
again, i had no rights unless the company grants me them. this is not a valid analogy to the situation.
i see what you're saying and i understand your point. again, i think we all agree the cartoons were in bad taste. however, the way iran and those muslims reacted is unacceptable. and i have a big problem with the idea we must change our behaviour (i.e., artists can no longer print satire) because it offends people. free speech does not give one a right not to be offended. As an atheist, tons of things offend me...i don't demand people stop offending me.
==========================
Thinker is right Razor, when you enter the public sphere, pretty much all of the rules go out the window... In the private sector, you either tow the company line or find a job with a union to represent you...
I wonder if Iran will continue to shut itself out from the rest of the world and start ceasing oil supply to the west... This could get real interesting... They are already pretty much guaranteed to receive sanctions, and even China and Russia elected to send them to the security council...
I say the words "sanctions" and "security council" like they actually mean something, do not mistake my intentions, the UN is a completely worthless entity... But sanctions are the last step towards military action, so it is worth mentioning...
Personally i think the danish cartoonist was really dumb to post those cartoons. Yeah you can poke fun at things just dont make fun of the relegion of almost all the oil owners in the world. I think that they cartoonist was wrong to post the drawings but I also think the muslims are way overeacting. Burning flags and causing riots is not the way to solve a problem. They should also be more reasonable and do something like ask the Danish to stop posting the Cartoons. I myself am a Christian and I wouldn't be pleased if jesus ended up on the front page with a bomb or something stupid like that , but I wouldn't be burning some flag or something stupid.
So I guess we've learrned Don't publish cartoons that will piss off 30% of the worlds population, and dont overreact to some stupid cartoons.
It all boils down to respect and understanding. Should freedom of speech be limited to speech that is respectful? I dunno why don't you go call a police officer a "fucking pig" and see how fast you end up in jail. Why don't you go shout "Fire" in a crowded theater and watch people get trampled to death and wonder why you're up on charges of murder?
The fact is you have to respect others and the situation you're in. If the paper had any idea about the culture of islam they wouldnt have published them. Do they have the right? yes. Is it legal? yes. Are they going to suffer in defense of that right? I believe they are. Common sense should always be a guide to the freedoms we enjoy. Just because you have the right to do it doesnt necessarily mean you should.
*edit*
Let me add that i find it kind of funny how these imams can stand up there preaching that islam is about tolerance and acceptance but in the same sentence call for the death of people printing cartoons that they dont agree with. I find it funny that muslims should get so upset about a cartoon while at the same time chanting for the deaths of millions of jews. It boggles my mind actually and i firmly believe all religion should be outlawed.
Make a difference!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're being silly. Do you really think all of those people protesting are terrorists? No they're just muslims who've been offended. Why add more fuel to the fire. Tit for tat only works up to the age of 7 after that its a bad thing.
Make a difference!
Actually, if you call a policeman a "fucking pig" and end up in jail, that policeman would be abusing of his authority.
I understand that these Muslims are offended because their laws prohibit depictions of Mohammed. However their religion and their governments do not allow them to see that the rest of the world does not live by their laws, which is one of the roots of terrorism, intolerance! Ever see the movie The people vs. Harry Flint, or read about the actual case itself?
SOE knows what you like... You don't!
And don't forget... I am forcing you to read this!
I think it's important to note something here...If it can be proven that the artists intent was to incite rioting then i would agree with you. However, there has to be a clear intent. As I understand it, those images were an artistic expression printed as satire from an artist.
shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is not fire is not artistic expression nor is it satire. It's one thing only, trying to incite a riot. The U.S. courts agree with this.
==========================
I think it's important to note something here...If it can be proven that the artists intent was to incite rioting then i would agree with you. However, there has to be a clear intent. As I understand it, those images were an artistic expression printed as satire from an artist.
shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is not fire is not artistic expression nor is it satire. It's one thing only, trying to incite a riot. The U.S. courts agree with this.
The original artist intention was not to incite but given the initial reaction the only plausible motive for the rest of the printings is to do exactly that.
Make a difference!
I guess that depends on each states individual obscenity laws. In some places you can be locked up for swearing at an officer of the law. Ofcourse its only a fine and they do it mainly to be mean LOL.
Make a difference!
Generalizing all Muslims as scavengers isnt a good thing to say. Actually islam isnt that much different than christianity and you have extremists in all religions. All populations are suseptible to manipulation by those in power. Look at the USA. Americans are smart people the majority of which are well educated but look at how those in power have twisted facts, lied and manipulated americans through fear to take away americans rights and start wars.
The people of islam are mad. Sure they've been lied to and manipulated to increase the furor but the base argument is still there regardless of their actions. Should we respect people or mock them? Obviously respect will go much further in the long run. There was no need for the french or norwegian newspapers to reprint the cartoons just to show we have freedome of the press. They know they have that freedom and what they did they did only to incite muslims.
Make a difference!