The debate over these cartoons of Muhammad is ridiculous.

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Oh yeah, like a premier newspaper here have the right to draw a monkey jumping up and down on a car on fire after LA riot? Guess that's alrite too?

My god, how can I make it simple so people understand freedom of speech is not limitless. There is a limit to it, and the most important thing is to not distrub the peace. What the Danish Newspaper did was wrong, plain and simple. The reaction following the cartoon is simply expected, and that IS THE RESULT OF THE CARTOON. Not the other way around. If you want to find someone to blame for this mess, blame the one that started the fire.

Of course there are limits of speech, but you are greatly limiting it beyond a reasonable amount. It's actually quite scary.

Well in your understanding, your culture, and your belief system, not able to draw Mohammed maybe "limiting it to beyond a reasonable amount". But according to other 1.2 billion people, it is not. When can you learn to respect the others?

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Oh yeah, like a premier newspaper here have the right to draw a monkey jumping up and down on a car on fire after LA riot? Guess that's alrite too?

My god, how can I make it simple so people understand freedom of speech is not limitless. There is a limit to it, and the most important thing is to not distrub the peace. What the Danish Newspaper did was wrong, plain and simple. The reaction following the cartoon is simply expected, and that IS THE RESULT OF THE CARTOON. Not the other way around. If you want to find someone to blame for this mess, blame the one that started the fire.

Of course there are limits of speech, but you are greatly limiting it beyond a reasonable amount. It's actually quite scary.

Well in your understanding, your culture, and your belief system, not able to draw Mohammed maybe "limiting it to beyond a reasonable amount". But according to other 1.2 billion people, it is not. When can you learn to respect the others?

They never want to compromise, they know its a sensitive issue yet they went ahead and did it, they knew the outcome. Denmark only did it out of spite.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Let me just ask you if any one of those media outlet is allowed to air something so controversial that it for sure will lead to people demonstrating and even riots and violence? For example making fun of sensitive issue like race? The meaning of disturbing peace is not disturbing the peace of someone's mind. It's making BS statement that accomplish nothing but getting some people pissed enough to take it to the street or maybe burn some cars.

First of all, I doubt that it was the intention of the original newspaper to cause worldwide protests, especially since it was first printed in September and the proteests started in February.

And yes, a media outlet can air controversial things. The breaking story of Abu Ghraib started protests and disturbed the peace. White supremacist literature is certainly troubling and yet is available. Should the media have not aired Rodney King related material?

It easily violates my freedom. Why should I be forced to follow someone else's religious traditions? Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Please answer this.

All I ask is not to have someone else's religious beliefs forced upon me.

Heh, this works just like it is not your freedom to insult someone who is disabled or who doesn't do well in sports or whatever. This is not about forcing you to believe in something. You are free to not believe in Mohammed. But when you draw Mohammed in a demeaning way on a national newspaper for everyone to see, you are insulting a huge group of people. Guess that's hard for you to understand?

Of course it's my freedom to insult anyone I want. I am not taking away anyone's rights by insulting them. But you are taking away my right by restricting me from insulting people. Guess that's hard for you to understand?

Again, answer my question: Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Should they change any text in scripture that is insulting to homosexuals?

How about now I create my own religion around Mohammed and it's ok to publish images of him in my religion. What now?

Your argument is just too dangerous to be enforced upon our society.

 

[DidlySquat]

can we get a link to the so called offensive charicature ? or is freedom of speech being limited here for some reason ?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Let me just ask you if any one of those media outlet is allowed to air something so controversial that it for sure will lead to people demonstrating and even riots and violence? For example making fun of sensitive issue like race? The meaning of disturbing peace is not disturbing the peace of someone's mind. It's making BS statement that accomplish nothing but getting some people pissed enough to take it to the street or maybe burn some cars.

First of all, I doubt that it was the intention of the original newspaper to cause worldwide protests, especially since it was first printed in September and the proteests started in February.

And yes, a media outlet can air controversial things. The breaking story of Abu Ghraib started protests and disturbed the peace. White supremacist literature is certainly troubling and yet is available. Should the media have not aired Rodney King related material?

It easily violates my freedom. Why should I be forced to follow someone else's religious traditions? Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Please answer this.

All I ask is not to have someone else's religious beliefs forced upon me.

Heh, this works just like it is not your freedom to insult someone who is disabled or who doesn't do well in sports or whatever. This is not about forcing you to believe in something. You are free to not believe in Mohammed. But when you draw Mohammed in a demeaning way on a national newspaper for everyone to see, you are insulting a huge group of people. Guess that's hard for you to understand?

Of course it's my freedom to insult anyone I want. I am not taking away anyone's rights by insulting them. But you are taking away my right by restricting me from insulting people. Guess that's hard for you to understand?

Again, answer my question: Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Should they change any text in scripture that is insulting to homosexuals?

How about now I create my own religion around Mohammed and it's ok to publish images of him in my religion. What now?

Your argument is just too dangerous to be enforced upon our society.

Heh, it's a sad day when a Chinese dude have to educate an American on his own law. Take a look a your tort laws, especially under dignitary torts:

"Dignitary torts are torts that cause no tangible injury to a person or his property, but rather cause intangible harm to his reputation. These may include defamation, slander, libel, misappropriation of publicity, invasion of privacy, and disclosure. In the United States, the First Amendment places special limitations on the defamation of public figures with respect to issues of public importance. Abuse of process and malicious prosecution are often classified as dignitary torts as well."

You are the one going around saying it's okay to defame people and their belief system and you are calling my arguement dangerous?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Let me just ask you if any one of those media outlet is allowed to air something so controversial that it for sure will lead to people demonstrating and even riots and violence? For example making fun of sensitive issue like race? The meaning of disturbing peace is not disturbing the peace of someone's mind. It's making BS statement that accomplish nothing but getting some people pissed enough to take it to the street or maybe burn some cars.

First of all, I doubt that it was the intention of the original newspaper to cause worldwide protests, especially since it was first printed in September and the proteests started in February.

And yes, a media outlet can air controversial things. The breaking story of Abu Ghraib started protests and disturbed the peace. White supremacist literature is certainly troubling and yet is available. Should the media have not aired Rodney King related material?

It easily violates my freedom. Why should I be forced to follow someone else's religious traditions? Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Please answer this.

All I ask is not to have someone else's religious beliefs forced upon me.

Heh, this works just like it is not your freedom to insult someone who is disabled or who doesn't do well in sports or whatever. This is not about forcing you to believe in something. You are free to not believe in Mohammed. But when you draw Mohammed in a demeaning way on a national newspaper for everyone to see, you are insulting a huge group of people. Guess that's hard for you to understand?

Of course it's my freedom to insult anyone I want. I am not taking away anyone's rights by insulting them. But you are taking away my right by restricting me from insulting people. Guess that's hard for you to understand?

Again, answer my question: Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Should they change any text in scripture that is insulting to homosexuals?

How about now I create my own religion around Mohammed and it's ok to publish images of him in my religion. What now?

Your argument is just too dangerous to be enforced upon our society.

Heh, it's a sad day when a Chinese dude have to educate an American on his own law. Take a look a your tort laws, especially under dignitary torts:

"Dignitary torts are torts that cause no tangible injury to a person or his property, but rather cause intangible harm to his reputation. These may include defamation, slander, libel, misappropriation of publicity, invasion of privacy, and disclosure. In the United States, the First Amendment places special limitations on the defamation of public figures with respect to issues of public importance. Abuse of process and malicious prosecution are often classified as dignitary torts as well."

You are the one going around saying it's okay to defame people and their belief system and you are calling my arguement dangerous?

I agreed with you that there are limits to freedom of speech, but respecting religious beliefs is not one of them. I can call you an idiot and that does not fall under what you claimed there.

Now, are you going to answer my questions or avoid them for the 5th or so time?

 

[DidlySquat]

can we get a link to the so called offensive cartoon ?

 

[raildogg]

Well I consider Jesus's cross dipped in urine and Mary in dung to be extremely offensive and so do christians. But we don't attack people, we don't advocate violence, we don't storm the offices of a country, we don't commit acts of violence and we don't force resignations.

They are free to express their opinions. These muslims are missing that. They are in a foreign country and want to shove their beliefs down the throats of that country. Why? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? The muslims should change a little bit and show some respect for their host country.

Show some respect to the country that took you in. I know that many muslims don't understand the concept of freedom of speech because their countries are ruled by despotic regimes, but you're in another country now. Don't take your tyrannical political views and shove it down the throat of the country you are in. I understand that depicting muhammed in any way is against the holy book and the religion. But not everyone can be pleased all the time.

Yes, the world does not revolve around Islam.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I agreed with you that there are limits to freedom of speech, but respecting religious beliefs is not one of them. I can call you an idiot and that does not fall under what you claimed there.

Now, are you going to answer my questions or avoid them for the 5th or so time?

Why do I have to waste my time talking about religious beliefs. How many time do I have tell you that this is not about Mulsim making you beliving their God and religion. It is about the Danish paper insulting their religion. When you draw a demeaning picture of their prophet, it is not about believing in Muslim or not, it is about insulting Muslim. The Muslim world didn't get pissed because the Danish newspaper didn't believe in Muslim, it was because the newspaper draw something that's insulting to Muslim. You can't say oh I don't believe in the religion, therefore drawing those image doesn't insult me. Well, it isn't about insulting you, it is about insulting those that believe in those religion.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Well I consider Jesus's cross dipped in urine and Mary in dung to be extremely offensive and so do christians. But we don't attack people, we don't advocate violence, we don't storm the offices of a country, we don't commit acts of violence and we don't force resignations.

They are free to express their opinions. These muslims are missing that. They are in a foreign country and want to shove their beliefs down the throats of that country. Why? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? The muslims should change a little bit and show some respect for their host country.

Show some respect to the country that took you in. I know that many muslims don't understand the concept of freedom of speech because their countries are ruled by despotic regimes, but you're in another country now. Don't take your tyrannical political views and shove it down the throat of the country you are in. I understand that depicting muhammed in any way is against the holy book and the religion. But not everyone can be pleased all the time.

Yes, the world does not revolve around Islam.

Yeah, just because the country take people in, they have the right to insult their belief...

 

[raildogg]

What would happen if someone drew a cartoon about Jesus and christians throughout the world reacted this way? What if a muslim drew a cartoon about Jesus or Mary or any other christian holy figure and christians acted the way the muslims are acting? What if the christians did this in muslim countries?

Would their police beat them down? Would their police crush the demonstrations, peaceful or not? Would their government kill as many christians as they could?

I guess muslims are above the law, all the time.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: raildogg
Well I consider Jesus's cross dipped in urine and Mary in dung to be extremely offensive and so do christians. But we don't attack people, we don't advocate violence, we don't storm the offices of a country, we don't commit acts of violence and we don't force resignations.

They are free to express their opinions. These muslims are missing that. They are in a foreign country and want to shove their beliefs down the throats of that country. Why? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? The muslims should change a little bit and show some respect for their host country.

Show some respect to the country that took you in. I know that many muslims don't understand the concept of freedom of speech because their countries are ruled by despotic regimes, but you're in another country now. Don't take your tyrannical political views and shove it down the throat of the country you are in. I understand that depicting muhammed in any way is against the holy book and the religion. But not everyone can be pleased all the time.

Yes, the world does not revolve around Islam.

Yeah, just because the country take people in, they have the right to insult their belief...

Hey, I was insulted when Jesus's cross was dipped in urine and Mary had dung around her.

But yeah, you are basically saying muslims should be treated differently than everybody else. They are above the law.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I agreed with you that there are limits to freedom of speech, but respecting religious beliefs is not one of them. I can call you an idiot and that does not fall under what you claimed there.

Now, are you going to answer my questions or avoid them for the 5th or so time?

Why do I have to waste my time talking about religious beliefs. How many time do I have tell you that this is not about Mulsim making you beliving their God and religion. It is about the Danish paper insulting their religion. When you draw a demeaning picture of their prophet, it is not about believing in Muslim or not, it is about insulting Muslim. The Muslim world didn't get pissed because the Danish newspaper didn't believe in Muslim, it was because the newspaper draw something that's insulting to Muslim. You can't say oh I don't believe in the religion, therefore drawing those image doesn't insult me. Well, it isn't about insulting you, it is about insulting those that believe in those religion.

WTF are you talking about. I think you meant to reply to someone else. I never claimed that people are mad because they don't believe in God and Islam.

Please answer my previous questions. Thanks. Here they are again:

Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Should they change any text in scripture that is insulting to homosexuals?

How about now I create my own religion around Mohammed and it's ok to publish images of him in my religion. What now?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Why do I have to waste my time talking about religious beliefs. How many time do I have tell you that this is not about Mulsim making you beliving their God and religion. It is about the Danish paper insulting their religion.

It is also about whatever freedom of expression exists in Denmark that allows them to do so.

As offended as Muslims may be, it is not their country, and it is not exclusively their planet. They have all the right they want to object and express their displeasure, but they do not have the right to threaten, intimidate or attack the free speech of others. That is one hallmark of a civilized society.

If we're going to share this planet, we're going to have to make allowances and have tolerance for the beliefs of others. That tolerance ends at about the point that any group insists on asserting the superiority of their beliefs over others to the point of enforcing them by violence.

Now you know one reason I'm a devout atheist.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I agreed with you that there are limits to freedom of speech, but respecting religious beliefs is not one of them. I can call you an idiot and that does not fall under what you claimed there.

Now, are you going to answer my questions or avoid them for the 5th or so time?

Why do I have to waste my time talking about religious beliefs. How many time do I have tell you that this is not about Mulsim making you beliving their God and religion. It is about the Danish paper insulting their religion. When you draw a demeaning picture of their prophet, it is not about believing in Muslim or not, it is about insulting Muslim. The Muslim world didn't get pissed because the Danish newspaper didn't believe in Muslim, it was because the newspaper draw something that's insulting to Muslim. You can't say oh I don't believe in the religion, therefore drawing those image doesn't insult me. Well, it isn't about insulting you, it is about insulting those that believe in those religion.

WTF are you talking about. I think you meant to reply to someone else. I never claimed that people are mad because they don't believe in God and Islam.

Please answer my previous questions. Thanks. Here they are again:

Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Should they change any text in scripture that is insulting to homosexuals?

How about now I create my own religion around Mohammed and it's ok to publish images of him in my religion. What now?

Okay, let me make myself clear. In this case here, it is not about Muslim accepting other people's right to defame their prophet. They do not have to, other people do not have the right to do something as insulting as defaming their prophet. They are not forcing you to have the same belief as they do. They just ask you to not do something that's insulting to them.

In your example of Muslim accepting homosexual, let me use this as an example to demonstrate my point. Muslims don't have to be pushed to accept homosexuality, just like you should not be force to believe in defamation of their prophet is bad. But if Muslim goes out on their newspaper and demonstrate homosexuals in demeaning and insulting way, it is not right, just like the Danish going out and publish those cartoons. Those actions amount to insults and that's where the damage was done in this incident.

If you got your own religion and you want to publish images of mohammed in a place only you can see, who cares. But when you publish it and shove it in the face of entire Muslim world, that's an insult to them.

Is it clear enough?

 

[raildogg]

hey rchiu, answer this:

Let's 1 million gays immigrate to Saudi Arabia tomorrow, and a Saudi paper publishes something nasty about how evil gays are, etc. Gays start using violence, using force to make sure the newspaper editors and publishers fire the person who wrote that article. Obviously, since Saudi Arabia is a country that believes in punishing gays, they will not fire the author of that article.

The gays are deeply offended. Their feelings are hurt.

Who is at fault here? Gays for being gay?

Yes, this is an extremely poor example of a situation that will not occur, but I'm tired of this debate.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Okay, let me make myself clear. In this case here, it is not about Muslim accepting other people's right to defame their prophet. They do not have to, other people do not have the right to do something as insulting as defaming their prophet. They are not forcing you to have the same belief as they do. They just ask you to not do something that's insulting to them.

Okay, let me make myself clear. We do have the right to insult the prophet. People such as yourself are not asking others not to insult the prophet, you are trying to force us not to.

In your example of Muslim accepting homosexual, let me use this as an example to demonstrate my point. Muslims don't have to be pushed to accept homosexuality, just like you should not be force to believe in defamation of their prophet is bad. But if Muslim goes out on their newspaper and demonstrate homosexuals in demeaning and insulting way, it is not right, just like the Danish going out and publish those cartoons. Those actions amount to insults and that's where the damage was done in this incident.

Korans are published, just like newspapers. Should the Koran be altered to phase out offense text to homosexuals?

If you got your own religion and you want to publish images of mohammed in a place only you can see, who cares. But when you publish it and shove it in the face of entire Muslim world, that's an insult to them.

No, I have to have Mo tatooed onto my cheek, so it's quite impossible to keep it hidden. Why should my religion be persecuted so??? Do you think that Muslims should protest in private now since apparently these sort of issues should not be shoved in the face of the world?

Is it clear enough?

No, not really. Some of your messed up views are clear, but it still needs some clarification.

 

[DidlySquat]

Originally posted by: raildogg
What would happen if someone drew a cartoon about Jesus and christians throughout the world reacted this way? What if a muslim drew a cartoon about Jesus or Mary or any other christian holy figure and christians acted the way the muslims are acting? What if the christians did this in muslim countries?

Would their police beat them down? Would their police crush the demonstrations, peaceful or not? Would their government kill as many christians as they could?

I guess muslims are above the law, all the time.

what if ? you should open up any egyptian newspaper and look for cartoon about Israel, its leader, its religion including the biblical ancestors depicted in the most deragotary way. 100 times worse than any european cartoon, and in fact similar to antisemitic cartoons in europe in the first half of the 20th century. Many many cartoons equating judaism with greediness, blood-lust, conspirations of the worst kind. It's so common no one even thinks its out of the ordinary. I think they are allowed to print this anywhere, it's just sad that so many people in the arab world like to see such cartoons and agree with them.

But if anyone insults them, they should be killed right ?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: raildogg
hey rchiu, answer this:

Let's 1 million gays immigrate to Saudi Arabia tomorrow, and a Saudi paper publishes something nasty about how evil gays are, etc. Gays start using violence, using force to make sure the newspaper editors and publishers fire the person who wrote that article. Obviously, since Saudi Arabia is a country that believes in punishing gays, they will not fire the author of that article.

The gays are deeply offended. Their feelings are hurt.

Who is at fault here? Gays for being gay?

Yes, this is an extremely poor example of a situation that will not occur, but I'm tired of this debate.

Hehe who cares, like you said that didn't occure. What occured here is.
1st: Danish Newspaper published cartoon that's insulting to 1.2 billion people
2nd: People started demonstration, violence death threat.

Notice the order? Notice the what's the cause and what's the result? and you here are blaming the people who are just reacting to something they never started.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: raildogg
hey rchiu, answer this:

Let's 1 million gays immigrate to Saudi Arabia tomorrow, and a Saudi paper publishes something nasty about how evil gays are, etc. Gays start using violence, using force to make sure the newspaper editors and publishers fire the person who wrote that article. Obviously, since Saudi Arabia is a country that believes in punishing gays, they will not fire the author of that article.

The gays are deeply offended. Their feelings are hurt.

Who is at fault here? Gays for being gay?

Yes, this is an extremely poor example of a situation that will not occur, but I'm tired of this debate.

Hehe who cares, like you said that didn't occure. What occured here is.
1st: Danish Newspaper published cartoon that's insulting to 1.2 billion people
2nd: People started demonstration, violence death threat.

Notice the order? Notice the what's the cause and what's the result? and you here are blaming the people who are just reacting to something they never started.

I guess I'll have to post it again.

1. You just offended the U.S. members of P&N.
2. We all want to kill you.

Notice what's the cause and what's the result?

/sarcasm

That's not the way it works.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Okay, let me make myself clear. We do have the right to insult the prophet. People such as yourself are not asking others not to insult the prophet, you are trying to force us not to.

Korans are published, just like newspapers. Should the Koran be altered to phase out offense text to homosexuals?

No, I have to have Mo tatooed onto my cheek, so it's quite impossible to keep it hidden. Why should my religion be persecuted so??? Do you think that Muslims should protest in private now since apparently these sort of issues should not be shoved in the face of the world?


No, not really. Some of your messed up views are clear, but it still needs some clarification.

Hehe, is this like you saying you have the right to insult people? Do we have to go back to the US tort law that you don't have the right to defame and slander people? keep in mind dafaming a prophet is defaming the entire religion and the people believing it.

You know, when the homosexuals actually reads korans and take it seriousely, we can start talking about phasing out offensive text on homesexuals.

Like I said, if you want mohanned tattoed to your cheek, that's your freedom. But when that act becomes insulting to someone else, they have the right to file grievence against you. In the case of Muslim, they don't file grievence, they take it to the street, make violent protest, whatever way. I am not saying their violent is justified, but I am saying you are the cause of it.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

I agreed with you that there are limits to freedom of speech, but respecting religious beliefs is not one of them. I can call you an idiot and that does not fall under what you claimed there.

Now, are you going to answer my questions or avoid them for the 5th or so time?

Why do I have to waste my time talking about religious beliefs. How many time do I have tell you that this is not about Mulsim making you beliving their God and religion. It is about the Danish paper insulting their religion. When you draw a demeaning picture of their prophet, it is not about believing in Muslim or not, it is about insulting Muslim. The Muslim world didn't get pissed because the Danish newspaper didn't believe in Muslim, it was because the newspaper draw something that's insulting to Muslim. You can't say oh I don't believe in the religion, therefore drawing those image doesn't insult me. Well, it isn't about insulting you, it is about insulting those that believe in those religion.

WTF are you talking about. I think you meant to reply to someone else. I never claimed that people are mad because they don't believe in God and Islam.

Please answer my previous questions. Thanks. Here they are again:

Should Muslims be forced to be accepting of homosexuals? Should they change any text in scripture that is insulting to homosexuals?

How about now I create my own religion around Mohammed and it's ok to publish images of him in my religion. What now?

Okay, let me make myself clear. In this case here, it is not about Muslim accepting other people's right to defame their prophet. They do not have to, other people do not have the right to do something as insulting as defaming their prophet. They are not forcing you to have the same belief as they do. They just ask you to not do something that's insulting to them.

In your example of Muslim accepting homosexual, let me use this as an example to demonstrate my point. Muslims don't have to be pushed to accept homosexuality, just like you should not be force to believe in defamation of their prophet is bad. But if Muslim goes out on their newspaper and demonstrate homosexuals in demeaning and insulting way, it is not right, just like the Danish going out and publish those cartoons. Those actions amount to insults and that's where the damage was done in this incident.

If you got your own religion and you want to publish images of mohammed in a place only you can see, who cares. But when you publish it and shove it in the face of entire Muslim world, that's an insult to them.

Is it clear enough?

:thumbsup:

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: raildogg
hey rchiu, answer this:

Let's 1 million gays immigrate to Saudi Arabia tomorrow, and a Saudi paper publishes something nasty about how evil gays are, etc. Gays start using violence, using force to make sure the newspaper editors and publishers fire the person who wrote that article. Obviously, since Saudi Arabia is a country that believes in punishing gays, they will not fire the author of that article.

The gays are deeply offended. Their feelings are hurt.

Who is at fault here? Gays for being gay?

Yes, this is an extremely poor example of a situation that will not occur, but I'm tired of this debate.

Hehe who cares, like you said that didn't occure. What occured here is.
1st: Danish Newspaper published cartoon that's insulting to 1.2 billion people
2nd: People started demonstration, violence death threat.

Notice the order? Notice the what's the cause and what's the result? and you here are blaming the people who are just reacting to something they never started.

I thought my example was weak, now yours is ...

Anyway, you failed the answer. You keep blah blah blahing over and over again without answering key issues.

Lets say the Jews are living in Saudi Arabia, for example, and Saudi newspaper publishes something that totally insults them. They start acting out like the muslims currently are.

Who is right here and who is wrong?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Your going around in circles now. They can draw cartoons without worrying about offending me and I can do the same. If they don't like it, that's too bad. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but at the same time I don't let others use me for their doormat either.

Dude, you really have no idea what's the real definition of freedom of speech do you? It's not about saying anything you want, there is limit to it.

here is a definition from answer.com:

speech, freedom of, liberty to speak and otherwise express oneself and one's opinions. Like freedom of the press (see press, freedom of the), which pertains to the publication of speech, freedom of speech itself has been absolute in no time or place. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars the federal government from ?abridging the freedom of speech?; since the 1920s the amendment's protections have been extended against state, as well as against federal, action.

Although speech is freer in the United States than in many societies, federal and state laws do restrict many kinds of expression. Some kinds of speech regarded as damaging to individual interests (e.g., libel and slander) are limited primarily by the threat of tort action; other forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) are restricted by law because they are regarded as damaging to society as a whole. Speech that is regarded as disruptive of public order has long been beyond protection (e.g., ?fighting words? that cause a breach of the peace or false statements that cause general panic). The government also limits speech that threatens it directly; although sedition laws are rarely prosecuted in the United States, such rationales as a danger to ?national security? have been invoked to silence criticism of or opposition to the government. Laws designed to silence opposition to organized religion (e.g., laws against blasphemy or heresy), common in some other countries, would run afoul of the First Amendment.

In recent decades speech controversies in the United States have involved, among other issues, whether and how ?hate speech? directed at racial or other groups can be suppressed and what limitations may be imposed on speech in an attempt to combat sexual harassment. The definition of speech itself has been broadened to encompass ?symbolic speech,? which consists of actions that express opinions; thus, U.S. courts have held that burning the American flag as a protest is protected speech.

It's really not that complicated. If they are free to do it, then it is unreasonable of them to try and intimidate us into not doing it. They need to practice what they preach.

That would make sense if Muslim practice freedom of speech. Well I'd be the first one to admit, that much of the Muslim world do not practice freedom of speech. But the point is the West suppose to follow the freedom of speech, and suppose to know the difference between freedom of speech and some dumb cartoon that does nothing but breach the peace of entire world.

What I don't get is why everyone here are so surprised at the Muslim world reaction yet no one says anything about the Danish Newspaper that started the whole mess. If that's not a biased point of view, I don't know what is.

It makes perfect sense, for whatever reason you just don't want to admit it. You even admit it's "some dumb cartoon", so what's the big deal?

If the Muslims are so mad about it then they are free to draw and publish some derogatory cartoons of Jesus, Bush, or any other subject they can dream up, but this threatening posture isn't going to work. IMO it's more likely to backfire in their faces.

If you think that's a biased point of view I can live with that, but I'm Christian. 😉 You?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Hehe, is this like you saying you have the right to insult people? Do we have to go back to the US tort law that you don't have the right to defame and slander people? keep in mind dafaming a prophet is defaming the entire religion and the people believing it.

Blasphemy is not defaming or slandering people but a religion. You keep harping on tort law when it is applicable in a different situation.

You know, when the homosexuals actually reads korans and take it seriousely, we can start talking about phasing out offensive text on homesexuals.

I'm sure some homosexuals read religious texts.

Like I said, if you want mohanned tattoed to your cheek, that's your freedom. But when that act becomes insulting to someone else, they have the right to file grievence against you. In the case of Muslim, they don't file grievence, they take it to the street, make violent protest, whatever way. I am not saying their violent is justified, but I am saying you are the cause of it.

Sure, that may be the cause of it. But if some gays riot because of offensive text in the Koran, Muslims should not be forced to change the Koran.