Support NeoGAF

[vas_a_morir]

Most Muslims aren't going to try to kill them for depicting Muhammed. Why shouldn't people do it in a relatively respectful way? It isn't hard to do that.

Because it's a rhetorical trap that these thugs bought into hook line and sinker. You draw a picture of a militant Mohammed threatening to attack you for drawing him... only to have militant Muslims attack you for drawing him at the exhibit where you debut the drawing. It's... well, perfect. It's so meta. The criminals legitimized the message which they sought to censor. Who would dare argue against its artistic merit now?

In short, 'why shouldn't people do it in a relatively respectful way?' because 'fuck you.' Simple as that. If someone can't handle opinions, then I would prefer they leave this country rather than kill innocent people. They are barking up the wrong tree, anyway. You have little hope of scaring a people whose motto is 'Live Free or Die."

 

[sprsk]

Contest winner's drawing:

What a cunt, right? You would be hard pressed to draw anything more offensive than that.

This has all the subtlety of a shitty republican political cartoon, but the outrage it's causing is pretty hilarious.

You've all heard of Piss Christ right?

 

[BocoDragon]

People should stop acting like all religions are the same.

There are hooks in the doctrines of Islam which motivate themselves to taking offence to images and taking action, and this is why the response to images of Muhammad are inherently different than images of Jesus, Buddha, etc.

I am sure that a modern Islam can evolve in which all Muslims respond as basically all Christians would respond to cartoons of Jesus or all Buddhists would respond to pictures of Buddha.... but it will require more work in interpreting problematic doctrines.

The taboo of depiction of Muhammad in secular society, and the need to accept it, has to be discussed by Muslims specifically. If you say nothing, then certain Muslims will keep getting hooked by those problematic doctrines, and some will come to the natural conclusion....

 

[A Link to the Past]

Because it's a rhetorical trap that these thugs bought into hook line and sinker. You draw a picture of a militant Mohammed threatening to attack you for drawing him... only to have militant Muslims attack you for drawing him at the exhibit where you debut the drawing. It's... well, perfect. It's so meta. The criminals legitimized the message which they sought to censor. Who would dare argue against its artistic merit now?

In short, 'why shouldn't people do it in a relatively respectful way?' because 'fuck you.' Simple as that. If someone can't handle opinions, then I would prefer they leave this country rather than kill innocent people. They are barking up the wrong tree, anyway. You have little hope of scaring a people whose motto is 'Live Free or Die."

I'm not sure if this is clear, but I'm not advocating that the artists or the curator deserved the violence to any degree, regardless of what I think that their motives are.

 

[BocoDragon]

Because it's a rhetorical trap that these thugs bought into hook line and sinker. You draw a picture of a militant Mohammed threatening to attack you for drawing him... only to have militant Muslims attack you for drawing him at the exhibit where you debut the drawing. It's... well, perfect. It's so meta. The criminals legitimized the message which they sought to censor. Who would dare argue against its artistic merit now?

It does kind of tip the scale toward "this exhibit absolutely needed to happen", doesn't it?

 

[necrosis]

the shooters were obviously in the wrong here, but so too are the individuals hosting & participating in an event designed to antagonize muslims and poke the bear of radicalism

 

[rpmurphy]

The "best way to approach the problem" is not the responsibility of citizens that are endowed with the right to express themselves.

Public expression without purpose or audience is meaningless. If there is purpose and an audience, then there is social responsibility attached to it. Especially in this age where communication carries far and wide, what you say and do in the public space is more important than ever before. The people involved in this event are inextricably tied to shaping America's interaction with Muslim minorties, for better or for worse.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Firstly, you are extremely misinformed. It's not the "same exception". Here is a LIST of 1st Amendment exceptions from Wiki:

1. Incitement
2. False statements of fact
3. Obscenity
4. Child pornography
5. Fighting words and offensive speech

Etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

They are categorized as two separate exceptions. Fighting words (where the purpose is to cause a fight) and incitement (inciting lawless activity). They are not the same thing.

Secondly, "fighting words" have nothing to do with the "circumstances" (as you referred to earlier). Do you know what fighting words are? There isn't some new term the Supreme Court came up with. Everyone knows what "fighting words" are: words where the purpose is to start a fight.

Let's just call this a stalemate. Clearly that's what it is. You're citing Wikipedia, I'm citing the official legal research service of the U.S. Congress. Your definition of "fighting words" comes from your brain, mine comes from actual U.S. Supreme Court cases. Clearly there's no way for us to resolve this dispute.

 

[Siegcram]

I've never suggested that the likelihood of a violent response would be reduced. Don't make up arguments for me to take. The point has always been, and I've made this clear multiple times, that doing it in a more respectful manner is of benefit to Muslims who do not kill or advocate killing. If you're going to do something that may incite violence, there is no reason to do it in the worst way possible. Why shouldn't people be encouraged to try harder (but only slightly harder)?

I've never referred to any one piece of art as existing only to piss people off. I did say though that the event, created by an anti-Islam hate group, was most likely created to incite anger.

So you didn't write this then? What does this mean, if not that intent and venue matters?

And the bolded is the most inane sentence I read all day. It's still early, but that nugget is gonna be hard to top.

 

[BocoDragon]

the shooters were obviously in the wrong here, but so too are the individuals hosting & participating in an event designed to antagonize muslims and poke the bear of radicalism

I guess we can make whatever we want taboo if we send a big enough threat.

 

[A Link to the Past]

So you didn't write this then? What does this mean, if not that intent and venue matters?

And the bolded is the most inane sentence I read all day. It's still early, but that nugget is gonna be hard to top.

Can you elaborate on the inanity? The statement meant "just because it may incite violence does not mean that you should go the distance with it, particularly because doing it in a respectful way could speak to Muslims better, and create a dialogue, better than something made to antagonize."

I don't see the issue with that statement at all.

 

[MIMIC]

Let's just call this a stalemate. Clearly that's what it is. You're citing Wikipedia, I'm citing the official legal research service of the U.S. Congress. Your definition of "fighting words" comes from your brain, mine comes from actual U.S. Supreme Court cases. Clearly there's no way for us to resolve this dispute.

I'm citing Wikipedia because 1) I'm in law school, 2) got an A in Constitutional law and 3) it's saying the same thing as my first-year review course book.

 

[Siegcram]

The people involved in this event are inextricably tied to shaping America's interaction with Muslim minorties, for better or for worse.

So are the ones that attacked them. In a far more detrimental fashion.

What does it say about a religion when it's most pious disciples are more damaging to it than organizations that define themselves by opposition of said religion?

 

[HariKari]

So you didn't write this then? What does this mean, if not that intent and venue matters?

And the bolded is the most inane sentence I read all day. It's still early, but that nugget is gonna be hard to top.

He's trying to sit on the fence and play the "no shit" position of the people that put on this event aren't the nicest in the world, then use that as justification for a call to self censor:

I've said that in this case, there are simple, better ways to make their point or to depict their art than the way they chose. It's like suggesting that I shouldn't tell someone to speak more politely. Sure, it's "technically" an attempt at censorship, but it's also an attempt to make the conversation more civil.

It's really just a roundabout way to blame the organizers.

The people involved in this event are inextricably tied to shaping America's interaction with Muslim minorties, for better or for worse.

Radicals tried to interfere with a free society and got killed. Who lost?

 

[Buzzati]

Public expression without purpose or audience is meaningless. If there is purpose and an audience, then there is social responsibility attached to it. Especially in this age where communication carries far and wide, what you say and do in the public space is more important than ever before. The people involved in this event are inextricably tied to shaping America's interaction with Muslim minorties, for better or for worse.

Who are you to say that it has no purpose? The simple fact that one wants to depict the recent threats that the dogmatic idea of enforcing a no-Muhammad drawings rule in Western society is purpose, no? "You can't draw me" in a word bubble is enough, no?

You draw a picture of a militant Mohammed threatening to attack you for drawing him... only to have militant Muslims attack you for drawing him at the exhibit where you debut the drawing. It's... well, perfect. It's so meta. The criminals legitimized the message which they sought to censor. Who would dare argue against its artistic merit now?

 

[daniels]

I'm not sure if this is clear, but I'm not advocating that the artists or the curator deserved the violence to any degree, regardless of what I think that their motives are.

what are you suggesting? Dont forget we are talking about a small radical crazy minority of killers.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Intelligent discourse is impossible in any thread where one side's argument devolves to "you're lying, you actually want to say this."

what are you suggesting? Dont forget we are talking about a small radical minority.
and also dont forget that christianity or any other religion for that matter doesnt response in this kind of matter because of drawings.
and what is the clear defining line that something is NOW offensive i mean we know the line is different for everyone.

I've said, to you and to others, that my issue is with art made to offend. I've also never made any clear, defining line on the matter, as I've not spoken for anyone but myself. Please stop looking for some "gotcha!", because I'm not saying what you think I am saying.

 

[cashman]

10 minutes from where I live. Wow.

 

[BocoDragon]

I can understand why some peaceful Muslims take offence to this. No one wants their spiritual leader dragged through the mud.

But I really think this is better for Islam in the long run. These are the growing pains in adapting to global secular society. Once Muslims get comfortable with the right of secular people to draw what they like, that is adaptation, and Islam is gonna thrive after that....

 

[damisa]

Intelligent discourse is impossible in any thread where one side's argument devolves to "you're lying, you actually want to say this."

So if you were made king of America, would you allow this exhibit or not? If you wouldn't allow this particular exhibit, what kind of exhibit would you allow (if any) that would have cartoons of Muhammad?

 

[Siegcram]

Can you elaborate on the inanity? The statement meant "just because it may incite violence does not mean that you should go the distance with it, particularly because doing it in a respectful way could speak to Muslims better, and create a dialogue, better than something made to antagonize."

I don't see the issue with that statement at all.

Besides the already explained point that there are no degrees of "badness" in the realm of Muhammad depictions, the mere notion that we should pay any mind to the possible extent of offensiveness of a picture and let it dictate our actions is beyond preposterous. Everything "may incite violence".

That doesn't change the fact that the responsibility of said violence lies 100% with those that committed it. The threshold to not acting like a petulant child with access to an AK is far far lower than the one of creating a universally tolerated picture of Muhammad. Which is impossible.

 

[Laughing Banana]

what are you suggesting? Dont forget we are talking about a small radical crazy minority of killers.

I've been reading his responses and, he can correct me on this, I think what he's trying to say is if the intention of the art gallery is to offend (speaking of which, unless I missed it in the article, it didn't actually mention the "hate group" that organized the contest? Which one is it?) then the principle of "you can, but you shouldn't" apply in here.

I mean, sure you *can* offend if you want, but isn't society a better place when those with deliberate intention to offend think that they shouldn't?

Well, judging by the tone of your posts here I suppose you see such a scenario as society being oppressed by Muslims, however.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I've been reading his responses and, he can correct me on this, I think what he's trying to say is if the intention of the art gallery is to offend (speaking of which, unless I missed it in the article, it didn't actually mention the "hate group" that organized the contest? Which one is it?) then the principle of "you can, but you shouldn't" apply in here.

I mean, sure you *can* offend if you want, but isn't society a better place when those with deliberate intention to offend think that they shouldn't?

Well, judging by the tone of your posts here I suppose you see this as society being oppressed by Muslims, however.

Spot on, thanks.

So if you were made king of America, would you allow this exhibit or not? If you wouldn't allow this particular exhibit, what kind of exhibit would you allow (if any) that would have cartoons of Muhammad?

I wouldn't, no. I may express my misgivings about its purpose. I mean, Obama got mad at Kanye when he stole Taylor's thunder, after all!

Besides the already explained point that there are no degrees of "badness" in the realm of Muhammad depictions, the mere notion that we should pay any mind to the possible extent of offensiveness of a picture and let it dictate our actions is beyond preposterous. Everything "may incite violence".

That doesn't change the fact that the responsibility of said violence lies 100% with those that committed it. The threshold to not acting like a petulant child with access to an AK is far far lower than the one of creating a universally tolerated picture of Muhammad. Which is impossible.

You are only looking at it in terms of radical Muslims, and are ignoring the greater point of acknowledging non-radicals. There are clearly degrees in badness, because there's more than just radical extremists who respond to things like this. Do you really think that no Muslims would respond better to something like this being done in a more respectful manner?

 

[vas_a_morir]

It does kind of tip the scale toward "this exhibit absolutely needed to happen", doesn't it?

Easily. Thanks to the terrorists, the message has been legitimized, so what can you say?These people hold an event under the premise that Muslims are violent and a threat to US liberties, only to have Muslims show up and violently threaten US liberties. That is what I call 'Taking an L.' Not only that, but they get shot by authorities and killed nobody. Could this event have been a bigger success? It's now an international news story and the winner's cartoon is published worldwide. Damn, this is the biggest L i've seen anybody take in a long time.

 

[Phased]

That's understandable and it definitely is an ideal worth defending. But in the past years, we have learned that depictions of Muhammed is considered major disrespect, and creating such an event really has just the sole purpose of inciting this kind of reaction. If the end goal is to convince Muslim minorities that human life and social liberties are more valuable than not being offended, is this the best way to approach this problem? Is it even a good way? Secondly, it's also a question of priority. Is being able to draw Muhammed in a cartoon so critically important right this second that it is fine to possibly jeopardize the larger efforts of integrating Muslim minorities into free democratic societies?

I feel like people with honest intentions who are involved in events like this are trying to make things happen and shake the world in ways that they are able to as individuals, which I won't say that it isn't commendable... but at the same time, they are fixated on something that really doesn't need immediate change (especially there just really isn't much demand for drawings of Muhammed in this country to begin with) and causes more harm than good in the current state of the world.

Well...yeah. That's kind of the whole point of this entire thing.

When the Nationalist Socialist Party of America (Basically the American Nazi Party) wanted to march in Skokie in 1977 (A town that was then about 40% Jewish, hugely antagonistic by any definition) it was a Jewish lawyer who got the ACLU to intervene on the NSPA's behalf. That's how important free speech, and conversely everybody getting a voice, is. You don't need to agree with what they're saying to defend their right to say it.

They won the case by the way, although they never marched in Skokie (thankfully)

 

[Siegcram]

You are only looking at it in terms of radical Muslims, and are ignoring the greater point of acknowledging non-radicals. There are clearly degrees in badness, because there's more than just radical extremists who respond to things like this. Do you really think that no Muslims would respond better to something like this being done in a more respectful manner?

I only care about the feelings of Muslim, or any religious person for that matter, to the point where they are actively seeking to force their own code of "morality" onto others, be it through political, societal, or in this case, violent means. Religion is something that should be private and how someone feels about anything, be it art, clothing or premarital sex based on their religion is of no interest to me, unless it impacts others.

If the non-radicals are unperturbed by this exhibition or voice their offense through non-violent means, good on them, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Easily. Thanks to the terrorists, the message has been legitimized, so what can you say?These people hold an event under the premise that Muslims are violent and a threat to US liberties, only to have Muslims show up and violently threaten US liberties. That is what I call 'Taking an L.' Not only that, but they get shot by authorities and killed nobody. Could this event have been a bigger success? It's now an international news story and the winner's cartoon is published worldwide. Damn, this is the biggest L i've seen anybody take in a long time.

Reading the story, yeah pretty much. This exhibition could've been an event that would be forgotten in a week or two; I mean, it took place in Texas of all places(Which has the perception of being 'redneck' outside of the states, and even inside of it.) It wouldn't have been taken seriously(unless, again, if a legitimate group hosted it.)

But because of the actions of a few, suddenly this event is blown across the world. Suddenly Muslim folk have to band together again and decry violence in the name of Religion. It's a very big loss for them. And not because of the art, I can agree that if the art-no matter the intention of it-can be seen as offensive, but because Muslims have to keep saying 'No not everyone is like this' every time this happens. They've been having to do it over and over and over for a long time now. And people will probably start getting weary of it; incidents like this have happened in Europe, the USA, in the Middle East, Muslims keep banding together saying 'Not all Muslims are radicals', but it keeps happening over and over and over again. In a nutshell, there will be people that 'are tired of hearing the same shit over and over again' when it keeps happening.

And that's the biggest tragedy here. This Xenophobia will only grow- From this exhibition, there will only be more exhibitions popping up to 'Prove a point'. More will be offended, the few radicals will react, and the cycle will continue until it gets bigger and bigger.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I only care about the feelings of Muslim, or any religious person for that matter, to the point where they are actively seeking to force their own code of "morality" onto others, be it through political, societal, or in this case, violent means. Religion is something that should be private and how someone feels about anything, be it art, clothing or premarital sex based on their religion is of no interest to me, unless it impacts others.

If the non-radicals are unperturbed by this exhibition or voice their offense through non-violent means, good on them, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.

You're the one dictating their irrelevancy. I'm asking why you see no value in not doing something to an extreme. Why should any attempt at depicting Muhammed not go to one extreme?

 

[daniels]

I've been reading his responses and, he can correct me on this, I think what he's trying to say is if the intention of the art gallery is to offend (speaking of which, unless I missed it in the article, it didn't actually mention the "hate group" that organized the contest? Which one is it?) then the principle of "you can, but you shouldn't" apply in here.

I mean, sure you *can* offend if you want, but isn't society a better place when those with deliberate intention to offend think that they shouldn't?

Well, judging by the tone of your posts here I suppose you see such a scenario as society being oppressed by Muslims, however.

i wish people are more honest because the whole "you can , but you shouldnt" thing only happens with islam, radicals and violence so the whole morale angle comes of as really dishonest and the real reason is fear.
I dont even care how wrong your last sentence is if you consider why this thread exist and how much victim blamig happens that would never ever happen for any othe religion.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm citing Wikipedia because 1) I'm in law school, 2) got an A in Constitutional law and 3) it's saying the same thing as my first-year review course book.

If your first-year review course book teaches that definition of "fighting words," then you need a new course book. Even Wikipedia recognizes that the Supreme Court defines the term as follows: "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Again, we can quibble over whether we should lump Brandenburg with Chaplinsky, as the Congressional Research Service does, or treat them as separate exceptions, as your first-year review course book (and Wikipedia, let's not forget) does; but in the end, neither exception applies here (or, if we treat it as one exception, then that one does not apply here). If you want to argue that this somehow falls within an exception, then make that argument. But let's not waste each other's time debating whether to rely on Wikipedia or the CRS.

Finally--and I mean this sincerely--good luck with law school and the Bar exam a few years hence.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Well...yeah. That's kind of the whole point of this entire thing.

When the Nationalist Socialist Party of America (Basically the American Nazi Party) wanted to march in Skokie in 1977 (A town that was then about 40% Jewish, hugely antagonistic by any definition) it was a Jewish lawyer who got the ACLU to intervene on the NSPA's behalf. That's how important free speech, and conversely everybody getting a voice, is. You don't need to agree with what they're saying to defend their right to say it.

They won the case by the way, although they never marched in Skokie (thankfully)

These marches are disastrous PR, anyway. Think of what the Westboro Baptist Church has done for Evangelicals. If the message is garbage, the more people hear it the more people will recognize that it's garbage. That's how it's supposed to work. Let them dig their own graves.

That's what sucks about this. If nobody reacts, these anti-muslim groups expose themselves. But, instead of using their words, we have some wannabe heroes show up and make the event a massive success and a national news story for days. *applause* way to go, geniuses. I am against prejudice and bigotry of any kind, but what am I going to say? That they are wrong? If a man is having a public speech about how bluejays are dangerous and gets attacked by a bluejay during his speech, how do you rhetorically combat that?

 

[A Link to the Past]

i wish people are more honest because the whole "you can , but you shouldnt" thing only happens with islam, radicals and violence so the whole morale angle comes of as really dishonest and the real reason is fear.
I dont even care how wrong your last sentence is if you consider why this thread exist and how much victim blamig happens that would never ever happen for any othe religion.

This seems somewhat shortsighted. It happens with a lot of things. There are people out there who not only denigrate trans people, but in fact actually get away with it because it's just their opinion. They technically can say the things they say, but it doesn't mean that they should.

 

[rpmurphy]

So are the ones that attacked them. In a far more detrimental fashion.

What does it say about a religion when it's most pious disciples are more damaging to it than organizations that define themselves by opposition of said religion?

Radicals tried to interfere with a free society and got killed. Who lost?

You and I would all like to hope that events such as this would cause the Muslim world to reflect on how they value religious principles and values of the societies which they live in. For the large percentage of Muslims in this country who have nothing to do with and have no sympathy for the radicals who commit these kinds of atrocities or attempts at them, do you believe that they would seek comfort in the presence of people like Geert Wilders? What kind of message does it send to them about how the country perceives them if it sympathizes with this event and organizers of it? People want moderate Muslims to be on their side and condemn the actions of their radical elements and foster change in their institutions, but at the same time, they want them to also take potshots at their religious beliefs just because. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Kettch]

This event ended up being quite a good thing. With SWAT being there, a pair of crazies got taken down without any other deaths. Who knows how many they might have killed elsewhere if they hadn't been drawn out here.

 

[Siegcram]

You're the one dictating their irrelevancy. I'm asking why you see no value in not doing something to an extreme. Why should any attempt at depicting Muhammed not go to one extreme?

Because the one's setting the standard for "extreme" in this case are violent psychopaths.

 

[MisterFalcon]

And that's the biggest tragedy here. This Xenophobia will only grow- From this exhibition, there will only be more exhibitions popping up to 'Prove a point'. More will be offended, the few radicals will react, and the cycle will continue until it gets bigger and bigger.

The biggest tragedy here is a violent attack that is part of a worldwide pattern of similar attacks aimed at killing people for expressing their opinion on a religion.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Because the one's setting the standard for "extreme" in this case are violent psychopaths.

No, the 'extreme' I'm referring to is making the event in order to antagonize people. I'm asking why people can't have their motives questioned if they're going to that extreme instead of another extreme that's not really much harder to go to.

 

[womfalcs3]

Let's take a look at the hosts:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/04/police-shooting-at-muhammad-cartoon-contest-in-texas/

The New York-based American Freedom Defense Initiative had been hosting a contest at the center that would award $10,000 for the best cartoon depicting Muhammad.

...

Pamela Geller, president of the AFDI, told the AP before Sunday's event that she planned the contest to make a stand for free speech in response to outcries and violence over drawings of Muhammad.

...

Geller's group is known for mounting a campaign against the building of an Islamic center blocks from the World Trade Center site and for buying advertising space in cities across the U.S. criticizing Islam.

It's really not too difficult to see this isn't about freedom of speech.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

No, the 'extreme' I'm referring to is making the event in order to antagonize people. I'm asking why people can't have their motives questioned if they're going to that extreme instead of another extreme that's not really much harder to go to.

...Be honest here. There is alot of art that antagonizes different types of people. Should we censor or just stop the showcasing of art that may or may not offend some people? Serious question.

 

[BocoDragon]

Let's take a look at the hosts:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/04/police-shooting-at-muhammad-cartoon-contest-in-texas/

"Geller's group is known for mounting a campaign against the building of an Islamic center blocks from the World Trade Center site and for buying advertising space in cities across the U.S. criticizing Islam."

It's really not too difficult to see this isn't about freedom of speech.

I guess the would-be bombers shouldn't have made it into one, then.

Martyrdom is a two way street.

 

[CadetMahoney]

SWAT team will all the fancy equipment were there ready and waiting. Is that like a honey pot, bait, insurance or something? Not that I'm complaining.

Thanks to the terrorists, the message has been legitimized, so what can you say?These people hold an event under the premise that Muslims are violent and a threat to US liberties, only to have Muslims show up and violently threaten US liberties. That is what I call 'Taking an L.' Not only that, but they get shot by authorities and killed nobody. Could this event have been a bigger success?

A partial swan Song to gun rights too imo.

Because of the actions of a few, suddenly this event is blown across the world. Suddenly Muslim folk have to band together again and decry violence in the name of Religion. It's a very big loss for them.

Because Muslims have to keep saying 'No not everyone is like this' every time this happens. They've been having to do it over and over and over for a long time now. And people will probably start getting weary of it; incidents like this have happened in Europe, the USA, in the Middle East, Muslims keep banding together saying 'Not all Muslims are radicals', but it keeps happening over and over and over again.

Yea, I can see what you mean. It's in danger of becoming an irrelevant counter-argument in the eyes of mainstream casuals who see in every area some radicals pop up and do stuff like this.

 

[Big-E]

Does anyone else think that normal Muslims should just say enough is enough and install a caliphate or something that denounces jihad and the more barbarous aspects of Islam? Christianity has done this and no one makes the mistakes of lumping Catholics with Baptists for instance. As a layman, it seems the only real noticeable separation is the suni and shia but there seems to be overlap in the barbarous aspects in that as well as having strong cultural ties.

 

[A Link to the Past]

...Be honest here. There is alot of art that antagonizes different types of people. Should we censor or just stop the showcasing of art that may or may not offend some people? Serious question.

I'm not actually advocating for the censorship of anyone. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't just do things for the explicit purpose of making people offended. Like Laughing Banana said, just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean that you should.

 

[Siegcram]

No, the 'extreme' I'm referring to is making the event in order to antagonize people. I'm asking why people can't have their motives questioned if they're going to that extreme instead of another extreme that's not really much harder to go to.

Because actions trump intent.

Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows the fool? Especially when the latter guns down people indiscriminately?

These groups define themselves as the opposition of radical Islam. Combat the extremists and these groups will vanish.

 

[damisa]

Does anyone else think that normal Muslims should just say enough is enough and install a caliphate or something that denounces jihad and the more barbarous aspects of Islam? Christianity has done this and no one makes the mistakes of lumping Catholics with Baptists for instance. As a layman, it seems the only real noticeable separation is the suni and shia but there seems to be overlap in the barbarous aspects in that as well as having strong cultural ties.

Islam is in dire need of reformations and fixes. The anti-women and anti-gay parts of it especially will only become more problematic over time.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Because actions trump intent.

Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows the fool? Especially when the latter guns down people indiscriminately?

These groups define themselves as the opposition of radical Islam. Combat the extremists and these groups will vanish.

I have no idea why you're making this a competition when no one else is. What I am saying is that going further to that extreme isn't benefiting anyone, themselves included.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Let's take a look at the hosts:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/04/police-shooting-at-muhammad-cartoon-contest-in-texas/

It's really not too difficult to see this isn't about freedom of speech.

Not difficult to assume that, I guess. But then how do you deal with the facts that it was promoted as a free speech event and that the winning entry was clearly about free speech, and not hatred of Muslims?

 

[vas_a_morir]

A partial swan Song to gun rights too imo.
.

Oh yeah. Dan Carlin had a podcast the other day that got me thinking about gunrights: that in France, Jewish groups are petitioning their govt for the right to arm themselves because they are constantly under threat of attack by armed militant extremists who do NOT obey the law. He framed it as a human right: the right to protect yourself.

A week later, this happens. And the armed society turns what would have been a blood-bath into a crime where virtually nobody but the criminals got seriously hurt. I usually scoff at the idea that guns make us safer. I used to live in a non-gun country and it was WAY safer... but, would it be safer from illegal attacks like this by terrorists? Hell no. These guys would have killed 100 people if they had the ammo. Still, I then get reminded of the horrors of Newtown and remind myself that the price for an armed society can be so steep that it makes me feel ashamed to be an American sometimes.

 

[Laughing Banana]

i wish people are more honest because the whole "you can , but you shouldnt" thing only happens with islam, radicals and violence so the whole morale angle comes of as really dishonest and the real reason is fear.
I dont even care how wrong your last sentence is if you consider why this thread exist and how much victim blamig happens that would never ever happen for any othe religion.

More honest of what? It seems like you are such a vocal supporter of being accepting to others' view and yet here you are, forcing anyone with a different viewpoint as you as a liar with dishonest intentions, or "victim blaming." Will you not be happy unless Link or possibly I state out loud that the victims "deserved" to be killed? Is that the criteria for you to accept us as being "honest"?

It really seems like you're baiting for a response of that nature.

 

[hobblygobbly]

No, the 'extreme' I'm referring to is making the event in order to antagonize people. I'm asking why people can't have their motives questioned if they're going to that extreme instead of another extreme that's not really much harder to go to.

The radicalists brought this on themselves with the first issue of Muhammad drawing attacks. If you avoid drawing Muhammad in an offensive way after the first attack years ago, then you would be bending over to the strength of radicalism. That's why these haven't stopped, they haven't stopped because people don't want to bend. Do you really think these muhammad depictions would be as common as they are now if they didn't get the initial response years ago and similar attacks?

Now people feel compelled that they can never bend to it, so with each attack it is amplyifying this because if you stop now it's in response to the will of radicalism and that will mean radicalism wins. No matter how you look at it, it has been brought on by the radicalists themselves and people will feel the need to defend against radicalism with each violent response, this becomes amplified and if you stop now it shows radicalism works. At this point it'll never stop as a result and it's all the fault of the radicalists in the first place.