Prophet Muhammad Cartoon.

[Lukus]

"I am deeply sorry that you as muslims have had your religous feelings hurt."

Most phony apology ever.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

"I am deeply sorry that you as muslims have had your religous feelings hurt.

I am deeply sorry that you, as a man, have had your balls removed. :lightning:

 

[Jebus]

And why don't you come back when yours drop?

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

'Cause it won't happen, they're built to endure.

Looking for a fight weakling ?
Watch out then. I quote Torquemada the god, future embodiment of absolute intolerance. You quote Baudelaire, shypillitic embodiment of past boniments. You'll run out of smartassed one-liners before i do !

 

[Brother None]

Then call the government of those nations 'savage'. I sure as hell do.

I'm not calling anyone savage.

See, I know that. I'm not calling for any anti-free speech laws, just like you (I hope) aren't calling for anti-protests laws in Islamic countries. It's a matter of moral and ethics - I believe in free speech, but I do not believe in 'open' speech. There should be moral boundaries to what one may publish in the press - not neccesairily bound by law, but press agencies should regulate themselves in matters like this.

*snigger*

Could've should've didn't. "Should" outside of laws does not operate in our current essentially moral-less society.

In this case, they did so in the US - oddly enough. They knew publishing stuff like that is morally reprehensible, and they didn't do it. Not because any law was forcing them, but because of good old human decency.

Ahahahahahaa!

Sorry.

Are you that naive?

The US refusal to print those cartoons was a nation-wide concious effort to regain a bit of muslim goodwill. No decency, no morals, just politics. Half the world and their donkey knows this.

don't get how you deducted that from what I said.

Silent majority should not be held responsible for not rising against the protests (you) => but the protests are pretty serious (me)

Oui?

Potatoes, potàtoes.
Whatever the means, whatever the reasons, it got spread.

Yes, I supposed the means of spreading are as irrelevant as those of the bird flu, hmmm?

And is it not the godgiven right of any civilian to make political statements?

It is their right, but they are making statements with it. Shooting an ambassador is also a political statement, but it is not void of meaning, it is not a political statement an sich. Hell, the whole point of political statements are that they do not remain an sich. It becomes relevant outside of their own borders.

The anology isn't with freedom of speech here, it's with religion. They're protesting because they are hurt in their religious beliefs, not because they dislike the fact the fact that we have freedom of speech.

Whoa, back up here, because your analogy-skills are really messed up. Analogy;
1. Boycotting Danish products to protest against the Danish right to publish cartoons offensive to religions.
2. Boycotting products because they come from sources you disagree with (child labour, exploitation, etc.)

The analogy centers at freedom of speech. Their religion is not relevant, their religion is just what gets offended. What gets offended could be anything. It could be your religions, your job, your country, your mom, whatever. What's relevant is that you do not accept a basic premise of freedom of speech to "insult" this, what's irrelevant is that it's about religion.

See, you're confusing two things, target and source. You can twist the situations about. Say the target was Christianity. If there was a protest then, the Christians would've been mocked as backwards and idiots and cast away. But they're not Christians, they're muslims. The *source*, however, doesn't change, it's the same insult being cast at muslims as at Christians. The difference is the reaction, the target.

But we can not adapt to this reaction, because essential of freedom of speech is that we don't. Freedom of speech isn't an absolute, never has been, but within freedom of speech putting source above target has always been an absolute.

Incidentally, many *are* calling for a Saudi product boycott.

Many? Many what? Nobody here, for sure. Maybe your moron Filip Dewinter and his supporters are, but that's hardly relevant to the rest of the world.

I'm not claiming that the West is acting worse than the muslim protesters here, Kharn. For crying out loud - at least try to get my point.

Yeah, that's the problem, you don't seem to have any point. Except "don't generalize", which neither adresses the issue nor offers a solution. If that's really all your argument entails, you should just shut up, because an irrelevant argument is equal to a non-argument.

Everybody is in the wrong here. 'We' are for not respecting their religious values

And that puts us in the wrong? How? We didn't create their religious values any more than they created ours.

Respect is essential to co-existence, but it should go both ways. It isn't now.

The exact words of Filip DeWinter, frontman of the Flemish Block, by the way.

Zwaktebod. Serious zwaktebod. You just failed Discourse 101.

Wrong.

Source.

People should drop the typical Western outlook of
35-year old muslim protester in Gaza = 78-year old muslim retired teacher in Java = 18-year old muslim computer programmer in India = the muslim next door.

*sniggers*

I think you've been twisted by your Belgian right-wing politics, because that's not "the typical Western outlook".

 

[Lukus]

See, I know that. I'm not calling for any anti-free speech laws, just like you (I hope) aren't calling for anti-protests laws in Islamic countries. It's a matter of moral and ethics - I believe in free speech, but I do not believe in 'open' speech. There should be moral boundaries to what one may publish in the press - not neccesairily bound by law, but press agencies should regulate themselves in matters like this.

*snigger*

Could've should've didn't. "Should" outside of laws does not operate in our current essentially moral-less society.

Exactly, and this is IMO the most interesting aspect of this debate. A question to everyone who argues furiously like Jebus; what exactly should be done about this whole thing if not anti-free speech laws? Do you have a solution, or are you just, as it seems, filling page after page arguing that "I wish the world was a better place, that people had better judgement and that everyone would get along."? What specifically do you mean "There should be moral boundaries"?

human decency

Comedy gholde.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Something that kind of annoys me about this sort of brouhaha is that totally justified sense of outrage the primary debatees get when this sort of thing happens. Voices of dissent and reason are tossed to the wayside.

Though in this case I think the problem is pretty clear-cut, which is that we are not allowed to mess with their beliefs in any way while they believe ("they" being the assholes who burnt down an embassy, for example) that they can spit on our institutions, and that the comparison is not valid because we are infidels.

 

[Jebus]

Then call the government of those nations 'savage'. I sure as hell do.

I'm not calling anyone savage.

Wussy.

See, I know that. I'm not calling for any anti-free speech laws, just like you (I hope) aren't calling for anti-protests laws in Islamic countries. It's a matter of moral and ethics - I believe in free speech, but I do not believe in 'open' speech. There should be moral boundaries to what one may publish in the press - not neccesairily bound by law, but press agencies should regulate themselves in matters like this.

*snigger*

Could've should've didn't. "Should" outside of laws does not operate in our current essentially moral-less society.

Yes it does. In Belgium, we have a self-regulating body the press associations set up, that keeps its eye on ethics in journalism. They can't formulate any sentences, and aren't based on any law, but when a journalist, newpaper, television channel etc. goes out of line they will give them a blame. Nothing more, nothing less - yet it is very effective. 'Should' outside of laws does very much excist.

Your cinicism is cute and, of course, very much in fashion; but you seem to be underestimating people.

In this case, they did so in the US - oddly enough. They knew publishing stuff like that is morally reprehensible, and they didn't do it. Not because any law was forcing them, but because of good old human decency.

Ahahahahahaa!

Sorry.

Are you that naive?

The US refusal to print those cartoons was a nation-wide concious effort to regain a bit of muslim goodwill. No decency, no morals, just politics. Half the world and their donkey knows this.

The truth will probably lie in the middle.
You're a 'hater', Kharnie.

don't get how you deducted that from what I said.

Silent majority should not be held responsible for not rising against the protests (you) => but the protests are pretty serious (me)

Oui?

Qué?

Potatoes, potàtoes.
Whatever the means, whatever the reasons, it got spread.

Yes, I supposed the means of spreading are as irrelevant as those of the bird flu, hmmm?

Why so agressive? Do you see this as a contest, or something?

Wether it got spead by an imam, a dolphin or a tube of toothpaste, it got spread. In an age of global communication and information networks, nothing of this relevance will stay unknown to the group in question.

And is it not the godgiven right of any civilian to make political statements?

It is their right, but they are making statements with it. Shooting an ambassador is also a political statement, but it is not void of meaning, it is not a political statement an sich. Hell, the whole point of political statements are that they do not remain an sich. It becomes relevant outside of their own borders.

... sure. It sucks for the companies involved, of course - but I don't presume a muslim boycot of Jylland Poste (or whatever the name of that magazine was) would have all that much effect. They're making their statements with the means available to them, I guess.

Again, please do not assume I am somehow defending boycotts of any kind.

Incidentally, many *are* calling for a Saudi product boycott.

Many? Many what? Nobody here, for sure. Maybe your moron Filip Dewinter and his supporters are, but that's hardly relevant to the rest of the world.

That's why I wrote 'incidentally'.

in·ci·den·tal·ly Audio pronunciation of "Incidentally" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ns-dntl-)
adv.

1. As a minor or subordinate matter: by profession a lawyer and incidentally a musician.
2. (also -dntl) Apart from the main subject; parenthetically.

I am no stranger to the world, my love.

I'm not claiming that the West is acting worse than the muslim protesters here, Kharn. For crying out loud - at least try to get my point.

Yeah, that's the problem, you don't seem to have any point. Except "don't generalize", which neither adresses the issue nor offers a solution. If that's really all your argument entails, you should just shut up, because an irrelevant argument is equal to a non-argument.

Yes, the fact that one should not generalize is my point. Nothing more.

It might seem irrelevant to you, but not to me. Generalizing leads to preconceptions, preconceptions lead to innocent victims. It starts with a whole group of people being blamed for the actions of a few, it ends with actions against that entire group. That happened to the Jews throughout history, the early Christians, Communists, Asian types in America during WWII, intellectuals during Pol Pots regime, and so on, and so on ad infinitum. You might not care a shit about them, but a lot of innocent muslims *are* going to suffer because people are to lazy or stupid to direct their anger correctly.
Calling this irrelevant is stone-cold, dutchie.

Everybody is in the wrong here. 'We' are for not respecting their religious values

And that puts us in the wrong? How? We didn't create their religious values any more than they created ours.

What kind of an argument is that?
Hey, I didn't create *any* value that's in the world today, so I guess I don't have to care about anything then? If I were to piss in the holy water, shit on the altar, and kick the priest in the nuts, then *I* wouldn't be in the wrong - because it's THEY who attach importance to such silly things!
You seem to have a pretty skewed interpretation of the word 'respect' there, Kharn.

Respect is essential to co-existence, but it should go both ways. It isn't now.

Exactly. From neither way.

]

The exact words of Filip DeWinter, frontman of the Flemish Block, by the way.

Zwaktebod. Serious zwaktebod. You just failed Discourse 101.

Note the words 'by the way'. I refer you to the dictionary entry I posted above. This was not an argument.

And again, stop being so hostile. I don't see how I am offending you here.

Wrong.

Source.

Google link.

People should drop the typical Western outlook of
35-year old muslim protester in Gaza = 78-year old muslim retired teacher in Java = 18-year old muslim computer programmer in India = the muslim next door.

*sniggers*

I think you've been twisted by your Belgian right-wing politics, because that's not "the typical Western outlook".

Well, it seems to be the outlook on this forum, at least.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Yes, the fact that one should not generalize is my point. Nothing more.

Good point, since the entire cartoon-discussion (so far as it is still a discussion about the cartoons) is about generalizing. It isn't theology, as nothing forbids the portrayal of Muhammed, but about portraying Muhammed as a terrorist, thereby generalizing Muslims as terrorists.

The AEL makes a pretty good case for European hypocrisy in finding Iranian anti-semite satire reprehensible and applauding the Danish cartoons. The Iranians hate the Zionist for the occupation of Palestine. The Iranians generalize all Jews into being Zionist, ergo they make anti-semitic satire. Ignoring the similarity is short-sighted.

but,

In Belgium, we have a self-regulating body the press associations set up, that keeps its eye on ethics in journalism

makes little sense. Not being a moral absolutist, you must see that no institution can "keep an eye on ethics". If a journalist disagrees with the given institution's ethics and there are no sanctions, he's free to act as he wishes.

You can either say said institution has knowledge of ethical facts, and therefor all journalists must abide by its rules, or that you think sanctions should be in place for islamophobic satire, there's no middle road.

Of course, a much less troublesome alternative would be to let cartoonists draw whatever they want.

 

[Jebus]

In Belgium, we have a self-regulating body the press associations set up, that keeps its eye on ethics in journalism

makes little sense. Not being a moral absolutist, you must see that no institution can "keep an eye on ethics". If a journalist disagrees with the given institution's ethics and there are no sanctions, he's free to act as he wishes.

You can either say said institution has knowledge of ethical facts, and therefor all journalists must abide by its rules, or that you think sanctions should be in place for islamophobic satire, there's no middle road.

Of course, a much less troublesome alternative would be to let cartoonists draw whatever they want.

http://www.rvdj.be/engels.php

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Procedural differences don't really make my point any less valid. If the council says "saying A was wrong, please post a rectification" then the journalist can still say he doesn't find A wrong and therefor doesn't find a rectification necessary.

The fact that newspapers do cave in, isn't because of ethics, but because of sanctions in the sense of decreasing sales. All forms of media in the US are heavily influenced by the Religious Right regarding their content. Is this because they agree with the RR's ethics?

Newspapers playing it safe has little to do with ethics and a lot with common sense.

 

[Brother None]

Google link.

I will get to the rest tomorrow, perhaps, but this is just too "what the fuck, chuck?" I asked you to cite instances of muslims speaking against the overreaction of their fellow religionists.

And you come up with a man who not only expressed his outrage quite clearly, but who is also the head of the world leading *secularist* authority, unequalled in any nation as a non-religious entity. What the fuck, chuck?

 

[Jebus]

Procedural differences don't really make my point any less valid. If the council says "saying A was wrong, please post a rectification" then the journalist can still say he doesn't find A wrong and therefor doesn't find a rectification necessary.

The fact that newspapers do cave in, isn't because of ethics, but because of sanctions in the sense of decreasing sales. All forms of media in the US are heavily influenced by the Religious Right regarding their content. Is this because they agree with the RR's ethics?

Newspapers playing it safe has little to do with ethics and a lot with common sense.

First of all, the council is far to unkown to the general public to have any true effect on sales.

Secondly, it's very hard to disagree with any decision they make, since they base themselves off the charters listed on their site - and those rules are barely susceptible to interpretation.

Thirdly, you seem to completely overlook the fact that this is a self-regulating body, and is hence formed by the pressgroups themselves, with the pressgroups actually presiding in the council themselves. It would be incredibly silly for a pressgroup to ignore any decision of their own council.

Fourthly, the reason this council was founded was to intoduce ethical standards into journalism and to adapt the decisions of the aforementioned charters in practice. I don't see how promoting ethical journalism would increase sales, as we all know gutter journalism sells way better.

Again with the cynicism, ey?

And you come up with a man who not only expressed his outrage quite clearly, but who is also the head of the world leading *secularist* authority, unequalled in any nation as a non-religious entity. What the fuck, chuck?

Yes, he expressed his outrage. DUH. Every muslim did. That was not your point though - your point was that nobdoy urged for calm. He did.

And, it's rather hard to find any statements from muslim organisations, as there are very precious few non-politic of them around. 't Would be so much easier if they had a Church or something

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Secondly, it's very hard to disagree with any decision they make, since they base themselves off the charters listed on their site - and those rules are barely susceptible to interpretation.

The charter mostly just says a journalist should always report the truth. Are you saying journalists follow these rules just because they're ethical? Who in their right mind would buy the economist if they weren't using factual information as a source?

Thirdly, you seem to completely overlook the fact that this is a self-regulating body, and is hence formed by the pressgroups themselves, with the pressgroups actually presiding in the council themselves. It would be incredibly silly for a pressgroup to ignore any decision of their own council.

How is this silly? A decision made by a journalist council isn't a religious commandment. An individual journalist can always have a different opinion. However, when this opinion has the potential of harming the newspaper he works for, why wouldn't the head editor put a stop to it?

Jyllands Posten had refused satirical cartoons based on Jesus (it was deemed too offensive) just before allowing the Muhammed satire. It would probably be cynical of me to think that the Muslim readership of the Jyllands Posten was negligible and that Christian reader protest would instead be capable of impacting sales.

Fourthly, the reason this council was founded was to intoduce ethical standards into journalism and to adapt the decisions of the aforementioned charters in practice. I don't see how promoting ethical journalism would increase sales, as we all know gutter journalism sells way better.

As I said before, if a serious paper would resort to gutter journalism, sales would definitely plummet. Same goes for tabloids adopting serious journalism.

I'm also still waiting for your interpretation of "ethical journalism" without resorting to moral absolutism.

Again with the cynicism, ey?

Oh my, this reminds me so much of the recent health care discussion in the Netherlands. Doctors are getting bonuses from health insurance companies if they prescribe cheaper medication to patients. Won't this cause doctors to prescribe inferior medication? No, of course not, because doctors take an oath saying they will always offer the best possible health care.

You may call me cynical for doubting the importance of this sacred oath, but I'd rather rely on regulation grounded in fact instead of myth.

 

[Brother None]

Again with the cynicism, ey?

Cynicism doesn't detract from an argument anymore than optimist does.

Yes, he expressed his outrage. DUH. Every muslim did. That was not your point though - your point was that nobdoy urged for calm. He did.

And, it's rather hard to find any statements from muslim organisations, as there are very precious few non-politic of them around. 't Would be so much easier if they had a Church or something

My point was that no muslim organisation urged for calm. The head of a secular state does not represent a muslim organisation.

They don't have a church, they have organisations. I have seen none rise in protest.

Yes it does. In Belgium, we have a self-regulating body the press associations set up, that keeps its eye on ethics in journalism. They can't formulate any sentences, and aren't based on any law, but when a journalist, newpaper, television channel etc. goes out of line they will give them a blame. Nothing more, nothing less - yet it is very effective. 'Should' outside of laws does very much excist.

Your cinicism is cute and, of course, very much in fashion; but you seem to be underestimating people.

Not really. I'm fine with thinking people can have a bit of decency and not insult other people.

To think that without a law to stop them and often even with a law to stop them that at no point would anybody dare to break these rules of decency is just naive.

The truth will probably lie in the middle.
You're a 'hater', Kharnie.

Are you shitting me? Pretty much every printed or online newspaper I have come across since the shit started from the Sun to Al-Jazeera drew the same conclusion. It's just politics.

Qué?

It's not that hard.

Wether it got spead by an imam, a dolphin or a tube of toothpaste, it got spread. In an age of global communication and information networks, nothing of this relevance will stay unknown to the group in question.

Really? Because it managed to stay unknown for quite some time even while it was known to Danish muslims. And 'cause there were some images much older of Muhammed in school books that have to be removed now to.

The fact that an asshole imam chose to spread it is not irrelevant. Not very important, a la, but not irrelevant.

... sure. It sucks for the companies involved, of course - but I don't presume a muslim boycot of Jylland Poste (or whatever the name of that magazine was) would have all that much effect. They're making their statements with the means available to them, I guess.

They're boycotting all Danish products, the Jylland Poste doesn't publish in the Middle East so is not hurt that much by it.

It's not their means of stating that bothers me about the boycotts, it's what they're stating. "We won't put up with your insults, you must sacrifice your freedom of speech in the face of what are effectively economic sanctions." Imagine the States doing the same, it'd be an outrage.

in·ci·den·tal·ly Audio pronunciation of "Incidentally" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ns-dntl-)
adv.

1. As a minor or subordinate matter: by profession a lawyer and incidentally a musician.
2. (also -dntl) Apart from the main subject; parenthetically.

In your context the second definition applies, which doesn't put it at a subordinate importance, but just adds it as a footnote of equal importence.

Nonetheless, the question still stands, who is shouting for a boycot on Saudi products?

It might seem irrelevant to you, but not to me. Generalizing leads to preconceptions, preconceptions lead to innocent victims. It starts with a whole group of people being blamed for the actions of a few, it ends with actions against that entire group. That happened to the Jews throughout history, the early Christians, Communists, Asian types in America during WWII, intellectuals during Pol Pots regime, and so on, and so on ad infinitum. You might not care a shit about them, but a lot of innocent muslims *are* going to suffer because people are to lazy or stupid to direct their anger correctly.
Calling this irrelevant is stone-cold, dutchie.

No, not really. Generalizing is pretty dangerous and I've always been against it in the case of muslim terrorism, which never seemed to have that much sympathy in the average moderate. A little, maybe, but not much.

Now we're talking about nations, including democratically elected nation thus representative of their people, calling for us to cut off our freedom of speech because they feel offended.

Shit, no, it's not all muslims. A lot of muslims don't even believe showing Muhammed is sacriledge, that's interpretation.

I can't say I'm particularly fretting just because people use the word "muslim", though. No Dutch muslims have been beaten up or harassed as a result of this, as far as I know, because they're not protesting, for the most part.

What kind of an argument is that?
Hey, I didn't create *any* value that's in the world today, so I guess I don't have to care about anything then? If I were to piss in the holy water, shit on the altar, and kick the priest in the nuts, then *I* wouldn't be in the wrong - because it's THEY who attach importance to such silly things!
You seem to have a pretty skewed interpretation of the word 'respect' there, Kharn.

Less skewed than your interpretation, which apparently means holding another person's value higher than your own, if need be.

Exactly. From neither way.

Not my problem, they started it, they can well fucking be the first to draw back.

Note the words 'by the way'. I refer you to the dictionary entry I posted above. This was not an argument.

It is an attack nonetheless, saying someone's words are exactly the same as a Neonazi's is generally not considered a kindness.

And again, stop being so hostile. I don't see how I am offending you here.

Gee, by comparing me to a Neonazi?

Well, it seems to be the outlook on this forum, at least.

Forums are forums.

 

[st0lve]

Living in Norway myself, I don't have any problems at all that they hate us for what we did.
Tbh bashing the Muslim world isn't the smartest thing to do.

But what the hell do you except from fundamentalistic christians?

Now about the embassy and flag burnings, that doesn't really hit me hard, cause burning flags is their way of expressing hate, all my life I've seen flagburning on the news from the Middle-East.

They over-react, and we are dumbasses that offend Islam.

 

[Kamikaze]

They should stop bombing muslim countries. Start dropping Tons of pigs on their cities and settlements. Then bomb them, then drop the pigs. After you've wrecked the country, fortified everything related to oil you tell them they ain't gettin' no food-aid.

"Pick up the pigs, you can roast them over a campfire." That ought to teach them.

If they claim they need more food, drop more pigs on them.

 

[Quantos Leap]

Living in Norway myself, I don't have any problems at all that they hate us for what we did.

You don't have a problem with being hated for not your own actions or opinions, but hated because of the acts of a few people in your country? Man, you've got to be the most spinless SOB I've ever seen.

But what the hell do you except from fundamentalistic christians?

So you're blaming the behavior of fundamentalist muslims on fundamentalist christians?

Now about the embassy and flag burnings, that doesn't really hit me hard, cause burning flags is their way of expressing hate, all my life I've seen flagburning on the news from the Middle-East.

Well, not only is it stupid to hate an entire country because of the acts of a few, but simple flag burning is not what it is limited to. Have you been keeping up with the news at all? People are being killed - shot, burned, falling to their deaths out of burning embassies, and it doesn't bother you?

They over-react, and we are dumbasses that offend Islam.

Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.

 

[Kamikaze]

People are being killed - shot, burned, falling to their deaths out of burning embassies, and it doesn't bother you?

Sorry to be ignorant, uneducated and a real barbarian, but....

Personally I chuckle when I hear another 4 or so silly muslims got shot for throwing rocks at an american tank or something.

Something like "burrrrnnn" pops up in my mind...

It's nice to see the muslims having fun at the west and european culture. Burning flags, protesting, boycotting etc. Europe just calmly more-or-less watches what happens next.

Muslims are not....dumb...enough to cross the border of "good intentions" and actually agitate the populus of europe. Religion does not determine the ability to protest, riot or discriminate.
Let them have a friendly poke, as long as it's all friendly.

 

[victor]

Everyone should just chill the fuck out. I still don't get why everyone is so pissed off all the time. Sexual frustration? Inferiority complex? Whatever. Life is too short to worry about such things. Again, CHILL OUT, EXTREMISTS!