Draw Muhammad day

[Gharib]

They didn't say anything about the right to "be offended". Everybody has that right. The question is about freedom of speech.

What do you think I was speaking about?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No I don't, you might as well.

Well, my personal definition is as follows:

Joke
noun
1) A statement or action intended to bring about a response of laughter.
2) A claim that is not intended to be taken seriously or is exaggerated for comic effect (see: sarcasm, irony).
3) About 70-90% of things said by ImmortalFlame.

 

[Flankerl]

You'd expect a smart person not to enter a tigers cage after it bites him for the first time.

And you are making it sound as though those 'far right' people did nothing wrong and so 'little' that Muslims should not have done anything. A tiger bites you know. But I still disagree with killing an innocent person just because he is of the same nationality or even a blood related relative to the offender.

Are you for real?

No they did nothing wrong. To draw Muhammad in any way is not against law.

Deal with it.


Also a tiger bites? Did you know that the western world perfected the gun and warfare? Tigers usually get shot by rifles and guns.

I don't know Flankerl..I don't see how you can say "..its not about degrading another religion" ... when having/using images .."drawing Muhammad" is offensive.

If you know someone has strong feeling about such representations then why do it? Why go out of your way to offend people?

Why? Because the muslims wont get nice extra rules.
For everyone the same law. Thats how it works here.

If its forbidden for a muslim to draw their prophet... fine. But why should it be forbidden for everyone else?

It's fitting that you use a savage animal as your analogy. Civilized humans behave themselves far better than do savage animals. Savage animals have no place being loose in civilization. A human knows how to handle being offended, and knows how to respond rationally and proportionately. A tiger belongs either in the wild or the zoo, safely away from direct human contract.

Thats a frubal.

 

[A Troubled Man]

What happened to freedom of speech?

It appears to be wide open when Muslims wish to use free speech to share their beliefs with everyone, but closed shut when others wish to criticize those beliefs.

 

[Gharib]

Well, my personal definition is as follows:

Joke
noun
1) A statement or action intended to bring about a response of laughter.
2) A claim that is not intended to be taken seriously or is exaggerated for comic effect (see: sarcasm, irony).
3) About 70-90% of things said by ImmortalFlame.

You took that seriously? OK

 

[beerisit]

opcorn::hotdog: My concession stand is out the back.

 

[Gharib]

It appears to be wide open when Muslims wish to use free speech to share their beliefs with everyone, but closed shut when others wish to criticize those beliefs.

So why are you against Muslims burning down embassies, that too is freedom of expression. Or do you mean to say that there is a line somewhere?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you think I was speaking about?

You said:

"Oh so it's OK to get offended when Muslims express their freedom of speech but it's not OK for Muslims to get offended when, in your words, an 'evil infidel' does it to us?"

But they did not say that it was "not okay" to get offended. What they were talking about was how the fact that some people choose to be offended by the actions or words of others should not curtail freedom of speech.

 

[beerisit]

Oh and eselam, please don't threaten me, I tend to go all muslim when someone threatens me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You took that seriously? OK

*points at the definition*

 

[Father Heathen]

So why are you against Muslims burning down embassies, that too is freedom of expression.

No it isn't, because it victimizes and violates the rights of others in the process. To violate the rights and freedoms of others isn't a right or freedom itself.

A silly cartoon, on the other hand - if you don't like it, don't look at it. Problem solved.

If it's okay for something to be silenced or censored just because someone finds it offensive, then it's only fair that your religion be silenced and censored because I find it offensive. Fair is fair. However, that's not what I believe. I think people should have the freedom to say and express as they wish, and to believe and practice as they wish (as long as they don't violate the rights and freedoms of others in the process). Frankly, I find your religious beliefs to be offensive and repulsive, yet I fully support your right to hold and express those religious beliefs. But if Mohammad cartoons should be banned because you find them offensive, then it would only be fair that the Koran be banned because I find it offensive.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, I've just found a very elegant solution to this whole problem:

I find the notion of being offended by drawings of Muhammed to the extent that it in any way justifies acts of murder or senseless destruction so offensive that I will kill anyone who says so.

I feel it is perfecly justified for me to now kill anybody who believes that mob rule and hive mentality trumps freedom of speech. There, we are now in a state of mutually assured destruction.

 

[beenie]

No one in this thread has said that they support the killing of innocent people. But that's what the Islamophobes of this thread want to hear in order for their "freedom of speech" card to hold validity.

Indeed, that seems to be the case.

 

[Gharib]

Actually, I've just found a very elegant solution to this whole problem:

I find the notion of being offended by drawings of Muhammed to the extent that it in any way justifies acts of murder or senseless destruction so offensive that I will kill anyone who says so.

I feel it is perfecly justified for me to now kill anybody who believes that mob rule and hive mentality trumps freedom of speech. There, we are now in a state of mutually assured destruction.

Which members here supports the killing of innocent people?

Why do you keep adding things to your posts which are not even true? It doesn't help your case in any way.

 

[Gharib]

Oh and eselam, please don't threaten me, I tend to go all muslim when someone threatens me.

I don't threat people, I was just being honest about it and told you how I feel when people falsely accuse me of something.

 

[A Troubled Man]

So why are you against Muslims burning down embassies, that too is freedom of expression.

No, that's criminal intent of arson.

Or do you mean to say that there is a line somewhere?

Yes, freedom of SPEECH is about talking while burning down embassies is ARSON.

 

[Gharib]

Indeed, that seems to be the case.

And still Muslims are to blame.

 

[Gharib]

No, that's criminal intent of arson.

Yes, freedom of SPEECH is about talking while burning down embassies is ARSON.

No one was arrested, it was perfectly legal, no laws were broken. It may be arson in your dictionary but not in their dictionary.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Indeed, that seems to be the case.

Curious, so you agree it's perfectly acceptable to call others Islamophobes?

 

[Father Heathen]

Indeed, that seems to be the case.

Of course no one here said they supported killing people, but they still tried to take the responsibility of those deaths off the murderous mob and place it upon the cartoonists. They "stepped into the tiger's cage", after all.