Look at that last cartoon I posted. 4th and 6th bullet point from above apply to you. I do not hate muslims - criticizing Islamist intolerance != "hating Muslims". Any such angry and hateful reactions as yours in the post above speak for themselves.
You protest the KKK because you're aiming to get government to change the laws or enforce the laws to stop them. There's no issue of governments not chasing after cartoonist-killing Muslim extremists here. If you're just protesting the KKK for the hell of it, yeah, it's just as stupid. I think the Muslim protests are the same damn thing - stupid and pointless. Like this reaction-protest, they serve no purpose and have no real aim except to complain. Just a bunch of people wanting to protest for the hell of it. They have no end goal, and not surprisingly, it's been a useless protest that people just laugh at, essentially. I think the Greek protesters are morons too, but at least they have a theoretical change they are trying to see occur (stopping the pension reforms). It's a bunch of people who don't understand basic economics, but nevertheless, they are protesting for a specific purpose.
Don't worry kid, maybe MacBeth will come back soon and then you can resume living through him vicariously and detailing his every move on the internets. You're a champ!
Interesting. So you think it is no problem that he wants the cartoonist to live in fear for the rest of his life, as long as he does not kill anyone. Noted. That's what you lack. That is your opinion. You are entitled to being stupid. Obviously you fail to address the reasons given by Ottomaton and myself.
No - but all of these people had an end in mind. They want rights. They want laws passed. They want a revolution. What exactly do these protests want? Who is their target audience and what are they hoping that audience will do? So your target audience for the protest is the extremist Muslims? OK, that's a fair starting point. Now let's look at this - if you have a target audience, your goal should be to reach them in a way that will encourage them to listen, right/ So this protest's way of trying to reach them is by doing exactly what they hate? In any relationship you've ever been in - whether personal, business, family, friend, etc - did you ever find that if you have a conflict with someone, that insulting or mocking them makes them listen more to what you have to say? This is what you're suggesting here as your method of getting them to listen. Sure - but if the goal is to walk down the hallway, this is like randomly trying to climb a side wall or walking backwards or anything else that doesn't further you going down the hallway. Sam Fisher's 1000 thread doesn't annoy a group on non-radical Muslims by rubbing their religion in their face. There are lots of regular Muslims who don't think people should be killed but don't appreciate seeing Mohammad mocked or made fun of in cartoons. Those are the only people you're actually going to successfully reach here, and the message being sent is that we're happy to mock your religion due to a tiny set of extremists.
And yet you plan to participate in a protest that mocks their religious figures in a way that you know will annoy them. You say it annoys you when Muslims pray in public because they are pushing their views into your face, despite them actually have a legit reason other than to annoy you for doing it. How exactly is this better, when the entire purpose is basically to annoy them?
:grin: see, some Middle Easterners have a sense of humor But seriously, I am not and would not be offended by any cartoons anyone draws of pretty much any historical figure, be it religious or otherwise. The sad part about this exercise of "free speech" is the intent behind it, and if you pay close attention to the participants in such endeavor, you would quickly find out that it is nothing more than a like-minded group of individuals getting together for one big "bash a Muslim Day" and little more, hiding behind the beautiful ideals of "free speech" to do it. They have every right to it, but while you can ask me to tolerate people with such views, it does not mean I will respect them or what they are doing. This is nothing more than a "veiled" (see what I did there?) attempt at provoking Muslims and little more. It is not different than those idiots on Revolution Muslim website making a commentary about how previous artists didn't end up doing too well for provoking extremists into action. That was a clear "veiled" threat and this draw Mohamad Day is also a clear "veiled" exercise in pissing off Muslims and little else. At this point, I am pretty much numb to this childish idiocy. IMO it adds nothing, and ultimately these little things add up and contribute to a less desirable world to live in.
No, you just choose not to comprehend. Questions for you, simplified: 1. Who is your target audience for this protest? 2. What is the action/change you hope will come from this? 3. What is the method of achieving that action? Every legitimate protest can answer all of these questions with a definitive, direct purpose.
In contrast to your screwed-up view of the world, not all demonstrations or protests are aimed at the government. A few years ago, some right-wing extremists set a house on fire in Germany in which some Turkish children died. Hundreds of thousands of Germans gathered on streets for peaceful demonstrations against the neo-nazis who committed the crime. This was not to aim to get government to do anything - it was a display of solidarity for the people who got killed and against racism, xenophobia and violence. Basically to show that the vast, vast majority of Germans does not in any way approve of what happened to this poor Turkish family, on the contrary, we wanted to show our solidarity. Similarly, when people and values get threatened and attacked by Islamo-fascists, a showing of solidarity is in order. Not every demonstration has to be aimed at the government. No, it is not. Stupid is that you do not understand that not every demonstration needs to be directed at the government. First of all, interesting that you would equate violent protests in which 139 people got killed over a cartoon with a harmless online showing of solidarity by drawing cartoons. Secondly, just because you keep repeating your idiotic stance that it serves no purpose, it does not become any more correct. Conveniently, you keep ignoring the reasons given. Laugh at? How funny - 139 people got killed, several embassies got burned down. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8E4rMJVHyeg&hl=de_DE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8E4rMJVHyeg&hl=de_DE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Oh, people just "laugh at that, essentially". Right. You are completely clueless and much less intelligent than I thought.
This post pretty much renders everything I have said redundant. I did not see it earlier or I would not have posted my own take on it. Well said. Two stupids add up to a stupider and less mature world, that is exactly how I feel.
I never said it had to be aimed at the government - I said it had to have a target audience. Reading comprehension tends to be useful. So this example you have, the target audience was the Turks or others that might be concerned about similar violence. The goal was to get them to understand that this wasn't acceptable. The method was marching. Notice that the protest didn't involve mocking anyone. It didn't involve intentionally pissing people off. Again, I posed 3 simple questions - I'm curious to your answers. Stupid is your reading comprehension abilities. When it comes to purpose and usefulness, they are exactly the same. Neither has any, regardless of the levels of violence. Either that, or you can't come up with an actual purpose and just keep wandering aimlessly between topics. Yes, lots of people made fun of those protesters as being idiots, regardless of how many people they killed - I'm betting if you find the thread on this board, you'll find lots of people mocking them. Just as people make fun of the G8 protesters that do damage. And the Greek protesters that led to 3 people's deaths. Given that you've called me a moron in multiple threads, I can't imagine this is particularly possible. I'm still waiting on that full list of insults that you deem acceptable, by the way.
Your questions are beyond stupid and your statement that every legitimate protest can answer all of these dumb questions is simply incorrect, made-up nonsense. But let me try to explain it once again for you slowly (even though you keep ignoring that it has already been explained to you): First of all, this is not a "protest". Let me copy the info from the Facebook page about this: Speaking up to defend people who exercise basic liberties from attacks and death threats, and to express solidarity with the victims of such attacks, is not a "protest". So to answer your little silly questions: 1) The target audience is everyone. 2) The change that should come from this is that everyone shall see that the islamo-fascist bullies who try to intimidate and threaten people will not be getting their way. 3) The method of achieving this action is basically to expose the ridiculousness of their outrage by increasing the number of targets they would have to kill. The best way to shield the cartoonists who have received death threats is basically to make them disappear in a group of many thousands who take the same harmless action of drawing a cartoon. What are they going to do, kill everyone? Or threaten to kill everyone? Or "hoping that they ALL live in fear for the rest of their lives" (the Mathloom stance)?
I do think you are a moron who considers himself very smart, based on your posting history, and who has managed to impress some slower people like groogrux et al. and to fool them into thinking you are as smart as you think you are. But you keep looking dumber and dumber with every additional post.
I am coming late to this thread and once again Major has stated a lot of what I was going to say. Just to throw my two cents in I find this protests to be unecessary and the defense of it by comparing it to the Civil Rights movement bizarre. We are not talking about discrimination based upon skin color, sexual orientation or even religion which would be a civil rights matter. Clearly yes free speech is an important right but for something like this we have to consider to what end is it for? For non-Muslims, or really anyone, is there some inherent necessity to depict Mohammed? To me this strikes me as akin to non-African Americans getting upset that they can't say "N-i-&&-e-r" without getting their ass kicked so they decide to have a say the N-word day to counter the threat of to free speech. As I have said before I believe we should be able to have express speech, even highly offensive speech, without the threat of violence and I condemn the threats made to the Danish Cartoonists, Trey Parker and Matt Stone and others who have been threatened over their depiction of Mohammed. ON the flip side that doesn't mean that there aren't people who legitimately are offeneded by that who aren't violent. Again free speech goes both ways and Muslims are as much free to express their offense at something they find offensive. To me that is what is totally lost in the discussion as people focus so heavily on the crazies ignore that there are a lot of people who aren't. Instead of a discussion we end up with a shouting match where people don't care that a lot of perfectly peaceful people might actually have a legitimate point just to get back at the crazies. To me this would be like me, an Asian, going around saying the "N-Word" and getting my ass kicked by some blacks. In retaliation a bunch of non-African Americans decide to say the N-Word as much as possible to make a statement that free speech is sacrosanct and those blacks are just crazy and a threat to free speech. Now forgetting the fact that African-Americans consider that term a hateful term even while some of them use it and going aroudn saying it rather than a statement of free speech and non-violence just ends up widening the chasm between races and likely leads to more violence.
Indeed...indeed. No, no, no, you got it all wrong. It's like you convince yourself of some little criteria you came up with and then you try to fit everything in there. The target audience was everyone. The Turks certainly knew this wasn't acceptable - they did not need to "get to understand" this - but they appreciated the showing of solidarity. I am actually quite sure that it pissed off the Neo-Nazis. Just like mocking the Islamo-Fascists who threaten to kill people and who burn down embassies will piss off the Islamo-Fascists. And it has been posted by numerous Muslim posters in this thread and in other threads that there is actually no rule in Islam that the prophet must not be depicted and that they would not be offended or outraged by that happening. So what if the extremists are pissed off - only helps to isolate them even more.
Are you seriously comparing calling someone "ni&&er" to a cartoon? There really is no legitimate outrage because of a cartoon. Certainly. I wish they could do it with a sense of humor, but I don't see much of that. Funnily enough, none of them got threatened with death because of expressing their opinion. Again, your example would be great if it wasn't so stupid. Calling someone the "N-word" is not comparable to drawing a cartoon about someone who died ages ago.
They should be able to deal with it. I'm not asking them of anything that every other religion in the USA has had to learn to deal with it. After years and years of concerted effort, when I was very young people finally managed to more or less evict the Christians from having veto power over every aspect of our lives out of "respect" (i.e. businesses closed by law on Sundays, homosexuality being illegal, etc.). I'm not keen on just replacing universal deference to Christian sensibilities with universal deference to Muslim sensibilities. Like everybody else in the world, learn to deal with it. I mean, the Christian crazies tell me that they have a mission from God to murder sodomites and abortionists, and outlaw godless evolution in favor of Creationism. Should we show "proper deference" to them as well? Again, if the "moderates" think killing me for not kowtowing to their God is understandable, **** 'em too. Same to all you Christians, Jews, Hindus, Jainists, Zoroastrians, Yazidis, Buddhists and Sikhs. Deal. With. It. Welcome to the USA.
LOL! It is funny how sensitive you are to those who expose you for whom you really are, so sensitive in fact that you call them "hateful" when the crux of your argument is that your actions may be extreme or childish in nature BUT are not "hateful." Sense a double-standard there as far as your sensibilities are concerned? It is funny how you advocate a thicker skin and yet you label every single person who points at you an ridicules you for your approach "hateful" LOL! The hypocrisy is deafening. You are essentially validating those who critique your position as Islamophobic since you have no qualms about calling people hateful and extremists if they disagree with your extremist views. I seriously have a problem taking you seriously, you are like a mildly interesting Internet parody. I enjoy reading your vitriol though, so keep it going by all means
Putting it on the internet or making a drawing in my own house isn't "walking up to their face". I'm not picketing outside of mosques with drawings of Muhammad receiving the Hathaway. The internet is full of people saying bad things about other things. Anti-christian websites, anti-atheist websites, anti-black websites, anti-white websites, anti-racist websites, anti-Democrat websites, anti-Republican websites, anti-Israeli websites, anti-Palestinian websites, anti-environment websites, anti-corporate websites, anti-exercise websites, anti-fatty websites. Even anti-people-that-shop-at-Walmart websites. To me, what is going on here, is something equivalent to me and a bunch of other people putting an anti-Iraq war bumper sticker on my car, and having the Gestapo come around and randomly arrest people in those cars for sedition. If you don't like what it says on my bumper sticker, don't ram my car. You can change lanes and look at something else. But you don't have the right to threaten my life because you don't like the bumper stickers I've put on my car. South Park aired on a cable television station that you can subscribe to or not. If you do, you can change the channel or watch. Nobody kidnapped Danish Muslims, tied them to chairs and forced them to read Jyllands-Posten over and over. If they accidentally did, and it really offended them, they could show their displeasure with the paper by never buying it again, the way people organized a boycott of Glenn Beck when he said racist crap. I can't believe that people really think it is appropriate for my actions in my house that I own with my own pen and paper to be dictated by concerns that it could upset some religious people I will never meet in my life.
you're confusing freedom of speech with being a provocative a$$hat. When I got my ass kicked for flicking off the guy behind my for honking at me, my freedom of expression right wasn't violated in any way. I just got my asskicked because, well, I pissed off that crazy dude. I have learned since then to never piss off crazy a$$ dudes anymore.
