All I meant was I haven't seen anyone use the word deserved (though I may have missed it from one poster or something.) The point is (IMHO) that is the opinion you want to argue against, but it doesn't really exist. Everyone, as I read it, is saying the burning of the place is WRONG. Period. Nobody is saying it was just, and "deserved" for the place to burn. They just don't agree with you that it's smart and noble to insult people who can't take a joke. I'd say, if you want to change people's minds, try to argue exactly where they're standing, instead of exaggerating their claims. It's common D&D stuff, for all of us of course, but these threads are the most repetitive I've ever seen in here. Just my 1.5 cents!
I like what ATW does when he posts these things, sure it is only a small portion of Islam that is doing this, but the common thread is Islam. To bury one's head in the sand and not stop and go...hmmm maybe the relion itself is somewhat culpable is foolish. DD
That makes no sense. I could just as easily say If 90% are not radical terrorist loving Islamists, then the one common thread among those 90% is Islam. To bury one's head in the sand and not stop and go... hmmm maybe the religion itself is somewhat responsible for preventing them from being terrorists is foolish. The fact is Islam is not the one common thread in either case.
It's mixed message, and unwavering committment to being read literally are factors in what is going on because it is so easily manipulated towards violence. The message of Islam changes as Mohammed grows in political stature, why would God's message change based on the life of one little human? Islam's mixed message is certainly a factor in all of this, not the root cause (poverty, greed, power) but it is a binding agent. DD
If you are going to use Islam as the cause for the 10% who are violent then you must also use it for the 90% that aren't. Islam's message on charity, and doing good is part of what keeps the 90% of non-violent Muslims non-violent. It's ridiculous to say that a the religion is a cause for what a small minority of the religion do, but not a root cause for what the vast majority of the religion do.
It is easily manipulated because of it's convoluted message. Almost all religions have a history of being a baseline for violence. But, Islam has some of the most easily manipulated textual language, and thus is a binding agent for violence. Not to mention it's message to spread through the use of the bully pulpit. Islam - you are either with us, or against us ! DD
Yes, I believe you missed a few here. And I am not only talking about explicitly saying it is "deserved", but I also disagree with those who say they should not have dared to make fun of Islamists - while they would be free to make fun of everyone and everything else - just because they "should have known" that Islamists are more prone to violence than others. Actually, that is quite an "Islamophobic" and patronizing (toward Muslims) stance, if you think of it. da_juice - while putting in a disclaimer that he thinks burning the place is wrong - says they should not have "dared" to do what they did because it was predictable that something bad would happen to them. In other words - restrict your own free speech because of bullies and threats. That is essentially the same argument the French bureau chief of Time is making in his editorial (and basically all >500 comments to his article vehemently disagree). I believe that argument is wrong, and I believe it is worth discussing this. Clearly, pouhe puts the responsibility for the arson on the satirists and says if they do not take extra security measures, it's (at least partly) their own fault if something happens to them. meh says that if you "provoke" people by satire, you should have to face the consequence of arson .
100% agree with ATW in post 50. This pattern has been seen repeatedly in this forum regarding similar incidents. It's the "mathlooming" technique of paying lip service to free speech while indirectly (or directly) advocating it's repression.
Thanks ATW and rhad. I guess I can see your point, and I don't follow these as closely. I do think they're repetitive threads and posts, but I can see the reason it's important. I can't recall, but how did people come down on the whole "I'm gonna burn the Quran!" whacko guy in Florida? Isn't that kind of like this cartoon issue? If we believe in free speech, we protect that guy, and that one whacky group protesting those mourning at funerals of American soldiers, etc.? Would you say that? I guess there's "rights" versus cultural "good tastes," and they're too different issues that collide here.
Agreed, but I would add that, surprisingly, they can and do serve each other well...provided one does not violently react to them. And that's the crux of the issue here.
Yes. But I am much less sympathetic to the funeral protesters because I think they are basically jerks. I'd still protect their speech. But I see a huge difference between satire and what they do (basically it's much different if you put out a piece of satire toward an undefined number of recipients or if you "crash" a funeral and disturb and offend a specific grieving family. In law (at least in German law), the distinction of whether you address an abstract number of people or direct your insult at a specified person or small group is important. Yes. And personally, I think satire has a right to be "tasteless". It certainly has a right not to be responded to with violence.
