Humans are generally more intelligent than dogs.
Generally. cos even dogs aren't upset by cartoons!
Security guard injured in Texas Muhammed cartoon conference
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Humans are generally more intelligent than dogs.
Generally. cos even dogs aren't upset by cartoons!
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
She gave birth to Monica and Ross, I never could stand Ross.
She doesn't like Islam.
if you say that about a drunk girl walking home alone in a short skirt then you'd get in a bit of hot water
yet it is somehow accepted that some muslims can get violent over trivial things so you're clearly asking for it if you do something they don't like
(having said that the competition is a bit weird and I suspect was a big circle jerk of far right types rather than people trying to satirise religion)
What a stupid comment. How the hell were they asking for it by drawing pictures. Or are you one of these retards who think women are asking to get raped for wearing short skirts too?
If people are that insecure in their faith they can't cope with a few cartoons they should get the guns put them in their mouths aim upwards and pull the trigger. Preferably before they breed and spread their nonsense.
quite, I'd assume that if people tried to organise a similar event in say Bradford or the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets then the police would quite sensibly prevent the event from even taking place.... though in a Republican heartland in the US bible belt where the locals are often very well armed - the attack was a bit bold
If you know that some people have a peanut sized brain and their behaviour is unpredictable, why go out there to intentionally provoke them?
Yes I understand that this is freedom of speech etc but everything has a limit.
I think that you will find this in human nature, you provoke people in any way and they will get violent. You can't tar everyone with the same brush.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Freedom of expression should be protected of course but there are and always have been some limits (certainly in the UK) about how far it can be extended. In some instances it does appear that people are using that freedom to be gratuitously offensive - maybe it's for a good reason and maybe we just shouldn't care about them using their freedom in that way but it's worth being clear what that reason is and what the likely end result will be before it happens.
To be clear while I suspect this conference was probably put on to provoke a reaction and to stir up feelings there is no excuse for attempted violence on the people involved. That said it's a sensitive subject and it's not exactly a surprise given past history that a violent reaction was forthcoming - it's unequivocally wrong but not unexpected.
As Nitefly points out other people being more wrong (or more offensive) than you doesn't necessarily mean you're not also being a bit obnoxious.
I agree it's not a carte blanche to do what you want but in this case it was drawing pictures. You are moving perilously close, in fact you actually are, apportioning some blame on the people who were getting shot at rather than those who did the shooting. Note you can't make people angry or offended - that is of their doing. It's kind of a thing you learn as a kid - not to let people control your emotions as you are the one who is totally responsible for your personal demonstration of what you are feeling.
Do you personally want a world where we have to pussy foot around sensibilities that are in stark contrast to a culture we have in this country of mocking and lampooning things that exert power over the people. This is a fundamental aspect of British humour both currently and traditionally. Would you say the same if this event occurred in Britain? And if challenging people who don't like that is offensive then so be it. If they don't like that there are plenty of countries that will allow them such latitude. They should go to them ...
Last edited:
So some people find what they are doing offensive, so what? I would include Stephen Fry's video here, but it contains swearing.
It's this very reason why the First Amendment exists in the US, to speak openly without someone demanding you stop because they are offended.
Democrats offends people.
Republicans offends people.
Atheism offends people.
Christianity offends people.
Etc...
You would never get anywhere if you bowed to censorship due to offence.
Last edited:
That is exactly what is happening.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm not apportioning blame to them, I am pointing out that the reaction was not entirely unexpected. The reaction is disproportionate and cannot be justified but to note that it's not without precedent is not the same thing as saying that it's reasonable. You can undertake actions knowing that a certain type of outcome is likely to be forthcoming - if you want to say that it isn't making people angry or offended because it's their choice to be angry or offended then fair enough. Understanding that your actions can have undesirable consequences and that other people may have different feelings and beliefs to you is also something that you teach children - if you aren't teaching them that they should consider the feelings of others then that in itself would be odd, they don't necessarily have to change their behaviour in light of that but to pretend that they don't interact or influence others would be very strange.
Would I say that the reaction was wrong but not entirely unexpected? Yep, I'm pretty sure I would.
And I've not said that they can't be gratuitously offensive, I've said that we should be clear why they're doing so and what the results might be.
On a personal level your chances of offending me are so slim as to be practically non-existent but I can see why if you attack other peoples beliefs they get upset and may react. Acknowledging that is little more than not blithely going through life expressing surprise that anyone else may have a reaction to what I say or do.
In this case, is it really about the freedom of speech? What I'm seeing is an event hosted by hate group that targets a particular religion and a (not confirmed) response from another hate group that decided to 'defend' that religion.
If a girl, wearing revealing clothing, walks past a gang late at night would you say that if the gang attacked her that the attack was not entirely unexpected?
As to the rest I refuse to be respectful of peoples' beliefs when they clash with some core principles held by Western civilisation. That is why I will happily draw cartoons of mohammed and I will laugh at the suggestion that the universe was created 5000 years ago.
We shouldn't be humouring such ill-educated nonsense we should be stamping it out in the aim of progress. Look how well Western civilisation did when it removed the shackles of the church.
Unfortunately when you champion basic moral and ethical principles you have to commence with those who are in all likelihood arguably least deserving of your attention. Freedom of speech for those who say things people don't like, removal of the death penalty for people who have committed heinous crimes, etc.
So yes it is about Freedom of Speech. The Freedom to say stupid stuff and not get shot for it. I find the notion that there is a god pretty offensive but I don't go shooting churches and mosques up - I respect the fact people see things differently to me and only get irate if people try and ram that rubbish down kids throats at school in place of proven science.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Excellent piece of fundie baiting.