QuoteReplyTopic: Hypocrisy of Freedom of Speech Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 10:14
@Seko
In reference to your last post - good to read, balanced insight and good observations.
Let me add a few comments of my own to some of your observations.
"It seems that this multi-faceted issue could go on and on till the chickens come home to roost. Then it still won't be enough time to settle any differences." IMO, we do not necessarily need to settle differences, but a dialog is essential to acheive a better understanding of the other side - and to lessen tension. Someone once said, "We fear what we don't understand."
"Some FOS'ers would have a harder time defending freedom of speech if it were threatened by holocaust deniers instead of bearded muslims." I might be ill informed - but aren't most holocaust deniers muslims?
"Moslems don't need to be told what to think by another person higher up but need to seek information that leads to their own insight." I don't know what you mean by a person "higher up" - but many people worldwide do not have access to sufficient information/opinions to be able to reach a deeper insight. We all tend to think and believe like the group we live in and what the media locally available to us, prefer to broadcast.
Wouldn't it be great if we could upscale and broadcast this debate worldwide to every corner of the globe? Hey, - isn't that what we are doing.... I think it is, and that is the very core of AE - a great place, and more important than we might think.
I'm not religious and I think of all religions as being harmful. In the case of Islam, Omar has failed to convince me that it is a tolerant reigion. My personal opinion, after reading the Quran from a site he gave me a link about two years ago, is that whatever is written there doesn't make Islam different from other religions.
In the cartoon thread and here I can't help to notice that muslims tend to react in disproportion when it comes to their religion. I'm not the man that draw the turban+bomb cartoon. Yet I do think that, potentially, Islam is generating terrorism. Therefore all Muslims are potential terrorists. I fear any kind of extremism. I could even draw a leprechaun in a green coat with a remote detonator to express my fear of the IRA terrorists. I bet the Irish would be offended but that they will admit that there is a problem within their community. The fact is that most Muslims are only concerned with the offense and tend to make the link between their religion and some terrorist groups as being a secondary issue. I'm sorry, but human life is far more important to me than some obscure religious belief, though shared by over 1,5 billion individuals (whatever that figure is supposed to mean - I could say that there are 4,5 billion individuals that do not believe in Islam). If you see muslims as such a huge group you must agree that there are terrorists among muslims. Therefore a link between Islam and terrorism. If you don't make an effort to break this link you should expect more offensive cartoons. And, frankly, biased media or not, there isn't much voicing against terrorism from the Islamic community.
You feel bad because your "core" looks bad in a paper. Why don't you switch to a more resilient core instead of victimizing yourself?
Do you even realize that the "core" was a reason that made some individuals fly a plane filled with innocent people into a buiding filled also with innocent people?
O' wise sage may ye' giveth me the wisdom for I am the ignorant one here who never accepted that the response was wrong nor has anyone here (in actuallity everyone here so far has denounced the response). Now may Seko Bulldog and I prance around the terrorist fields
That's a contradiction. You therefore do NOT respect their right to draw whatever they feel like. According to you, they mustn't say or draw anything you don't like.
Hmm. Like is not true word but harm is. do they have right to harm me ?(like demonizing me)
They have no right to harm you. Demonising you is not harming you. If you personally (repeat personally) can show you were physically or financially harmed then you have the right to recompense.
Offending and insulting you are not harming you.
Moreover, with trash especially, most communities have laws about the placing of trash for purely hygienic reasons - creating sources of infection or breeding grounds for flies is harming the community not just the person on whose property you have placed it
You are talking about potential harm(Like becoming ill), dont you think showing muslim as terrorist also potentially harms muslims?
Nope. What harms Muslims and Islam itself is Muslims committing terrorist acts.
When It comes to law, It has not a holyness. Law is not always right and we are not talking about law.
Respect is earned. Even if it is the default attitude it can be forfeited.
Respect to rights is a must not earned. Noone can ignore other peoples right.(Even he is a murderer and killed your brother.)
That's ridiculous. Any criminal forfeits the right to go free. To suggest that everyone must unconditionally recognise the civil rights of a murderer is incredibly naive. Removing the sanctions of law would lead to a total breakdown of society.
Causing harm to others is a crime. Penalties should not be extreme but there have to be penalties, or civilisation breaks down completely.
You're still refusing to recognise their right to attack you (verbally). It's confusing when you just say 'attack' because generally speaking that implies violence. Yet you claim the right to attack them. You cannot claim a right you refuse to other people.
Calling someone as thief or terrorist is absolute an attack. It may reason violence and I am not attacking them. I am reacting. If they did not attack me, I will not even know they are alive.
What does 'it may reason violence' mean? Calling someone a thief or a terrorist is of course a verbal attack. That's fine. It's not a physical attack and it does no-one any harm in and of itself.
And of course you are reacting. But if you are reacting physically and violently then you are beyond the civilised pale.
Some people should learn that their religion gives them no special privilege. A Muslim is not better than anyone else any more than a Christian is or an atheist is.
Who said you can demonize other ethnics or I support demonize other ethnics?
No-one as far as I know. What on earth has that to do with what I said?
All religions are entitled to freedom of belief, but not to commit crimes in the name of their religion.
They have no right to harm you. Demonising you is not harming you. If you personally (repeat personally) can show you were physically or financially harmed then you have the right to recompense.
Offending and insulting you are not harming you.
Realy? than it is interesting how demonizing jews harmed them before. Yep. They did not suffer because nazis demonized them. No, no ethnic suffered because someone demonized them..
Uh did they?
Nope. What harms Muslims and Islam itself is Muslims committing terrorist acts.
Unrelated, stupidy, powerty or a lot other things harm to muslim too but this is unrelated with cartoons.
But well, thanks for your nice approach to muslims and what harms them..
That's ridiculous. Any criminal forfeits the right to go free. To suggest that everyone must unconditionally recognise the civil rights of a murderer is incredibly naive. Removing the sanctions of law would lead to a total breakdown of society.
Causing harm to others is a crime. Penalties should not be extreme but there have to be penalties, or civilisation breaks down completely.
You cannot torture a murderer because he killed someone. You should respect his rights even you did not respect man himself. whatever you feel about murderer will not change the fact, You should respect his rights. (No need to distort my words)
What does 'it may reason violence' mean? Calling someone a thief or a terrorist is of course a verbal attack. That's fine. It's not a physical attack and it does no-one any harm in and of itself.
It wont? so can you explain why there are some discrimination against muslim? may reason become this?
why do some germans burn turks? Because, they just like fire or because someone already demonized these turks so they do not see any ethic problem to fire some turks house?
Sorry, demonizing harms. If you did not believe this, look at past.
It is like calling a woman witch than saying I am not harming you. For your info, at past or even now at someplaces, people are killed because they are called witch.(So calling someone as terrorist absolutely harm him.)
And of course you are reacting. But if you are reacting physically and violently then you are beyond the civilised pale.
Unrelated, are you answering me or someone else?
No-one as far as I know. What on earth has that to do with what I said?
I do not want anything for muslims extra. Maybe, I cannot explain myself, but If you force you a little more, You can understand what I mean too.
In reference to your last post - good to read, balanced insight and good observations.
Let me add a few comments of my own to some of your observations.
"It seems that this multi-faceted issue could go on and on till the chickens come home to roost. Then it still won't be enough time to settle any differences." IMO, we do not necessarily need to settle differences, but a dialog is essential to acheive a better understanding of the other side - and to lessen tension. Someone once said, "We fear what we don't understand."
This is not a way to understand the other side. This topic started out as an attack on those who hypocritically throw accusations around, generalize and so on. I would suggest another new thread if people want to sincerely discuss differences in religion. That way defending against an accusation is not the premise.
"Some FOS'ers would have a harder time defending freedom of speech if it were threatened by holocaust deniers instead of bearded muslims." I might be ill informed - but aren't most holocaust deniers muslims?
News to me, unless you take the official statement of Iranian leaders or other politically corrupt governments of Moslem countries. Otherwise that statement is so absurd that I can't believe you made it.
"Moslems don't need to be told what to think by another person higher up but need to seek information that leads to their own insight." I don't know what you mean by a person "higher up" - but many people worldwide do not have access to sufficient information/opinions to be able to reach a deeper insight. We all tend to think and believe like the group we live in and what the media locally available to us, prefer to broadcast.
That age old belief is dying out. I think the new generation of people will have access to broad media. I think open minds will be hard to squelch in the near future. That includes society waking up to the tyranny of corruption that established orthodox religions have created unabatedly in the past. 'Higher up' means anyone who you think knows more than you. My suggestion is to learn as much as them and become your own 'higher-up'.
Wouldn't it be great if we could upscale and broadcast this debate worldwide to every corner of the globe? Hey, - isn't that what we are doing.... I think it is, and that is the very core of AE - a great place, and more important than we might think.
Of course it is great to share our opinions with the world. This was going on in AE before this thread ever started. I repeat, if you and anyone else sincerely want to discuss interfaith religion fairly then we should open a new thread under no pretensions.
~ Northman
Sincerely, Seko
ps- I find your knowledge of Islam lacking Northman. In one of your earlier threads you made the statement that you read a couple of ayats from the Koran about the use of force. You also mentioned you got much of your Islamic knowledge from Omar. Before acting judgemental about this religion how about asking more questions. Maybe we can give you detailed answers.
On another note - progressive moslems know the game of the extremist moslems very well. The extremists want to take away rights and go back to the shariah as they know it! This is what frightens me more than any generalization a westerner can construe about Islam in general. The extremists look at fundamentalism as their way. I advocate strong Freedom of Expression. They don't. I advocate secular laws and Islamic family values. They want it all. That is the issue that I try to bring to everyones attention.
Nope. What harms Muslims and Islam itself is Muslims committing terrorist acts.
How can one disagree with this line of thinking? Very true. Moslems have enabled bad press under their own behaviors. That is one example of many. As for the other reasons that harm Moslems? Bad press. Insinuating generalizations. Labelling everything a poverty stricken, economically suffering goup of people that happen to be moslems as terrorists soley sponsored by their religion. That is hogwash. Half of those ninnies don't know much about relgion anyway. They are not my spokesperson. I was never surveyed for approval. They are fodder for gullible eyes though.
To be more specific:
What harms Muslims and Islam is the behavior of those who act on behalf of their political and religious agendas outside of mainstream Islam. Those who do so make terrorist acts and are labelled Muslim terrorists. Not Saudi terrorists or Extremist ideologues. Nope, group them as muslim terrorists and make all muslims guilty by association no matter how distant that association is if at all. The blame also goes to anyone who believes in labelling a billion people as terrorists due to the acts of a few.
So? What on earth has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting murder is more acceptable if it happens among gangsters and drug traffickers? Or what?
That is a risk that the traffickers are comfortable with. It comes with the territory. I do lay some responsibility with those that expose themselves to the risk of their choice. A degree of sexual predation is common to humans(especially males), someone exposing themselves to that 'risk' is their responsibility.
That's 'law of the jungle' stuff, but at least it shows where you are coming from. Most of us are well past that stage of immaturity. A criminal is solely responsible for his crime.
The law of the jungle is not that bad a reference. In fact i am glad that you made it, since It is one solely based on instincts, devoid of any morality. A tiger acts out of instincts and not morality. Humans however have instincts as well as morality. In our societies where instincts overlap with morality, we can live within the moral framework, but not at the expense of ignoring Instincts. We will act in accordance with our instincts when excited to them. A criminal 'is' solely responsible for the crime. A careless person for his carelessness. A stupid person for his stupidity. An ingnorant for his ignorance. If immaturity saves me a broken nose, or being eaten by the tiger, then i wellcome it.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
Again, so what? Do you accept that murder would be not be justified in the tax office, but it's OK elsewhere? Do you think rape is never justified, whatever the circumstances?
We live in an environment of probabilities, what i personally think is irrelevant, because it is immaterial to the existence of a particular risk. What any actor, especially one indulged in negative enterprise has to be ready for is the risk associated with his industry. Boxers should expect injury. litigation lawyers, sleepless nights. Insultive and abusive people reciprocation. Is injury justified? sleep deprivation? blah blah blah...
It's not blah blah at all. It's the very heart of the matter. You are still suggesting that murder and rape can be 'justified' if the victim lays him or herself open to the ridk. That's fallacious and morally unacceptable.
In case your moral inquisistion is complete, i guess you must be truly flattered with yourself, having acted judge, jury and executioner.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Boxers expect injury WITHIN THE RULES they accept. If they are fouled it isn't EVER their fault. When Tyson bit Holyfield's ear no-one with any sens of ethics would say it was Holyfield's fault for entering the ring. It was solely and entirely Tyson's fault, and was so dealt with.
Breaking the law can never be justified by the proposition that the victim laid himself open to the risk. If I'm walking across a pedestrian walkway and a speeding car ignores the lights and hits me, you would say that is my fault for walking across. No-one civilised would ever agree with you.
Albeit that the ring is a controlled environment, it is easily grasped that there is a certain link between enterprise and risk. Your example should maybe have been constructed in the following fashion: Should i walk across a walkway if a speeding truck is approaching me.(And u do have the right of way). The truck shoudln't hit you, but should you really step onto the walkway.Here is Buzz Aldrin, you know the guy that went to the moon. Do you think he could with a bit of benevolance be deemed civilised? What was the basis for his impulse? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IhAFLmVT3w He is neither a child, or immature. Do i think it was right? well my thoughts are with MR. Aldrin. I think the antagonist brought it on himself.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
You are continually ducking the important question that goes to the heart of your position.
Is murder EVER justified? Is rape EVER justified? Is deliberately blinding someone EVER justified?
I have a question of my own, does someone have the right to ruin your public space?
So you ducked it yet again. You just can't face the disgrace of admitting what you believe.
With regard to your question, I've been arguing elsewhere in this thread that anyone who physically or financially damages me should pay me compensation - and should of course be liable under what laws happen to apply in that jurisdiction. So it depends on what you mean by 'ruining' my 'public' space. As far as I'm aware I don't have any public space.
As for private space I've answered that in my other posts.
If i was disgraced to admit something i believed, Why the hell would i believe it. It is irrational. I am not so vaine to worry myself with an AE ego at the expense of an honest statement.
I took your questions at their rhetorical value. In anycase i wouldn't be asking "Graham, do u think it right to push you gran from a cliff?" and be expecting a reply. It is childish. If you wish to ask something 'specific ' and in 'context', be my guest.
Your 'private' space is for example your house. A 'public' libraries, 'public' toilets are all 'public' space. Motorways are public roads, private roads are private. The whole point of having, or their being 'public' space is that you can't have it. So don't be surprised if you don't 'have' public space. Your lack of owenership doesn't mean it is not there.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
Of course there is. What I am saying is that verbal provocation NEVER justifies violence. Obviously they are related.
Why and how are they related?
Because the person committing the violence says they are. D'oh!
Then either you are commiting violence, not answering the question, or being flippant.
Originally posted by gcle2003
So what? My point was that some unnatural things can be justified and some natural things can be unjustified.
Since i don't recall saying anything to the contrary, i frankly don't know what to make of that statement.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
That it is 'natural' doesn't justify it. Unnatural behaviour is quite often justifiable ('turning the other cheek' for instance), while natural behavious is quite often unjustifiable.
Although all natural things are not on the same footing, neither are the unnatural. Eating sand instead of bananas is more unnatural than cannabilism.
So what? My point was that some unnatural things can be justified and some natural things can be unjustified. Once again you're skipping around the issue because you don't want to reveal what you really think. Does something being 'natural' justify doing it? I bet you don't answer.
SKIPPY THE KANGAROO: If morality is to be discussed it can not be done out of context. What reply do you want to your question? What is being discussed here. I mean humans, bears
rabbits, are all natural. Substituting for 'natural', what kind of reply can anyone possibly construct.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
The reason you won't discuss morals is because your position is morally completely untenable, and you realise it. The whooe issue here is a moral one.
Sadly you are failing at mind reading. The issue 'could' be discussed through the 'moral' lense, and i already told you what the limitation is in that regard. I will repeat for the last time. MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE.
True. So is the perception of people's rights. The original issue here was about hypocrisy. That's a moral issue purely and simply, the reasonable assumption being that hypocrisy is wrong. In fact the whole blow-up is about whether the cartoonists were right or wrong to do what they did, and whether the widely publicised reactions were right or wrong.
As in my post to S&D, my position was very clear, my perspective was amoral: "I am not talking about it from the POV of ethics or morals of FOS. I am just citing what is observed. As i have said before in this forum elsewhere, laws only act as deterrents, retrospectively. Ultimately it is the law that defines the acceptable boundaries of all interactions within a society. Incitement is not FOS or FOE. There is no physical or direct contact, but the law deems it an offense. So the general relationship is obvious."
My posts were not related to the cartoons itself. I couldn't care less what those idiots printed, and in my view they were wrong. As i stated when the whole issue first flared up in that nauseating 30 page thread that everyone remembers, but wishes to forget. The very first sentences from the first two posters were ample to end that debate itself, and both were right.
Mughaal: "How is Freedom of Speech used; well, its very subjective." Styrbiorn: "You're title is wrong; it should read "Hypocrisy of Jyllandsposten". "
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
On the taxation bit I don't agree, but I don't see it has anything to do with anything being discussed here.
Because the choice of favorite colour, or preference in tax policy, are both subjective. On some things you will agree and on some you won't, just like you did. I may like blue, you may like pink.
Exactly. And you are saying you think murder is justified when it is natural, and that rape is true, and that indeed any crime may be the fault of the victim for laying himself open to them. That is a subjective MORAL position. And it is MORALLY wrong.
Who said it was right!
Some times victims 'do' lay themselves open to crimes and other detriments, and as such they bear personal responsibility to themselves. It does not justify the motives or the actions of the criminals.
================================================ Preempting things that you may wish to know regarding my position, i offer you the following:
1). No one has the right to violate my public space by willfully insulting me(or anyone) as it pleases him, as i/or anyone go about their own business. To say it is OK to do so is regressive, and is not civilised but brutish behaviour.(moral position)
2). I disagree to place value solely on the the material and physical, while ignoring the emotional harm and all that arises from it, which may well be material.
3). It is not 'morals' that govern freedom of speech, but laws. The state can overnight declare what is acceptable. My position: That is the way it should be, the law must always be the supreme arbitrator. It doesn't mean however that the state is always right.
4). Responding to insults with violence is not childish behaviour, neither immature. Children are least capable of measuring insults. It can be impulsive i.e natural. It should be expected!!! (amoral position) It could mean it is right or wrong given a set of moral principles of the actors, the context, the gravity of the offense.
5). A person should be aware of his actions and the associated risks and should not be surprised when they materialize. This position is amplified when no benefit is to be derived from the done action. This was the original amoral position.
An observation:'People 'will' some time give precedence to their morals over the prescribed law/state. My position: They won't always be wrong to do so.
Seko, as I read your post here with increasing disbelief, and it still baffles me what made you write like you did.
I agreed on most of what you said, gave you credit for it, and just asked you to elaborate a few things. On the other hand, I'm glad you apparently got som frustration out.
Some of your comments seems like they were prewritten - without actually taking the meaning of my words into account.
I will comment each section, unveiled.
Originally posted by Seko
Originally posted by Northman
@Seko
In reference to your last post - good to read, balanced insight and good observations.
Let me add a few comments of my own to some of your observations.
"It seems that this multi-faceted issue could go on and on till the chickens come home to roost. Then it still won't be enough time to settle any differences." IMO, we do not necessarily need to settle differences, but a dialog is essential to acheive a better understanding of the other side - and to lessen tension. Someone once said, "We fear what we don't understand."
This is not a way to understand the other side. This topic started out as an attack on those who hypocritically throw accusations around, generalize and so on. I would suggest another new thread if people want to sincerely discuss differences in religion. That way defending against an accusation is not the premise.
Are you to judge whether I think people have to agree on everything or not? I can easily accept a difference of opinions.
Wrong - This topic started as an attack on Danes - through cartoons a newspaper published and cartoons they didn't publish. I see no hypocrital accusations from my side what so ever, but a comparison of two different events.
Then you switch to mention differences in religion in reference to what was said above. Where did that come from? You didn't mention religion in your statement, nor did I in my response, so how does that relate? Are you talking about something else?
"Some FOS'ers would have a harder time defending freedom of speech if it were threatened by holocaust deniers instead of bearded muslims." I might be ill informed - but aren't most holocaust deniers muslims?
News to me, unless you take the official statement of Iranian leaders or other politically corrupt governments of Moslem countries. Otherwise that statement is so absurd that I can't believe you made it.
I'm glad I'm not making absurd statements, thank you - you got it right the first time around.
"Moslems don't need to be told what to think by another person higher up but need to seek information that leads to their own insight." I don't know what you mean by a person "higher up" - but many people worldwide do not have access to sufficient information/opinions to be able to reach a deeper insight. We all tend to think and believe like the group we live in and what the media locally available to us, prefer to broadcast.
That age old belief is dying out. I think the new generation of people will have access to broad media. I think open minds will be hard to squelch in the near future. That includes society waking up to the tyranny of corruption that established orthodox religions have created unabatedly in the past. 'Higher up' means anyone who you think knows more than you. My suggestion is to learn as much as them and become your own 'higher-up'. We can hope you are right here - I have no doubts though, that it will take a very long time before everyone equally can have access to information - if ever.
This is not exclusively a "Muslim World" observation. I have learned many things about societies I was clueless about, by visiting and talking to people outside my own bubble. How can people find their knowledge and insight without listening to others, different from themselves?
Wouldn't it be great if we could upscale and broadcast this debate worldwide to every corner of the globe? Hey, - isn't that what we are doing.... I think it is, and that is the very core of AE - a great place, and more important than we might think.
Of course it is great to share our opinions with the world. This was going on in AE before this thread ever started. I repeat, if you and anyone else sincerely want to discuss interfaith religion fairly then we should open a new thread under no pretensions.
Religion again - out of the blue, unrelated.
~ Northman
Sincerely, Seko
ps- I find your knowledge of Islam lacking Northman. In one of your earlier threads you made the statement that you read a couple of ayats from the Koran about the use of force. You also mentioned you got much of your Islamic knowledge from Omar. Before acting judgemental about this religion how about asking more questions. Maybe we can give you detailed answers.
PS - What did you expect? Is it required to be an expert or Islamic Scolar before I can post or air an opinion here?
Judgemental towards Islam?
On the contrary - despite from what I can observe, have experienced personally, found and read about Islam, I have chosen to believe Omar, saying that Islam is not a violent religion.
I didn't know this was a problem?
If you call my disgust for fanatic Muslims or fanatics in general being judgemental I can understand you.
If not - Where does this observation come from?
If I have been disrespectful or judgemental towards Islam, Muslims or any other group or individual for that matter, I would like to see where so I can apologize.
I think the opposition in this thread has been rather judgemental towards a people and a nation - but I understand why and tried to answer with respect and reason.
However, I do not understand your judgemental and confrontional attitude in this post.
On another note - progressive moslems know the game of the extremist moslems very well. The extremists want to take away rights and go back to the shariah as they know it! This is what frightens me more than any generalization a westerner can construe about Islam in general. The extremists look at fundamentalism as their way. I advocate strong Freedom of Expression. They don't. I advocate secular laws and Islamic family values. They want it all. That is the issue that I try to bring to everyones attention.
Seko, as I read your post here with increasing disbelief, and it still baffles me what made you write like you did.
I agreed on most of what you said, gave you credit for it, and just asked you to elaborate a few things. On the other hand, I'm glad you apparently got som frustration out.
Some of your comments seems like they were prewritten - without actually taking the meaning of my words into account.
I will comment each section, unveiled.
None of my comments were rehearsed. Pretty much thoughts coming out of my head.
Originally posted by Seko
Originally posted by Northman
@Seko
In reference to your last post - good to read, balanced insight and good observations.
Let me add a few comments of my own to some of your observations.
"It seems that this multi-faceted issue could go on and on till the chickens come home to roost. Then it still won't be enough time to settle any differences." IMO, we do not necessarily need to settle differences, but a dialog is essential to acheive a better understanding of the other side - and to lessen tension. Someone once said, "We fear what we don't understand."
This is not a way to understand the other side. This topic started out as an attack on those who hypocritically throw accusations around, generalize and so on. I would suggest another new thread if people want to sincerely discuss differences in religion. That way defending against an accusation is not the premise.
Are you to judge whether I think people have to agree on everything or not? I can easily accept a difference of opinions.
Wrong - This topic started as an attack on Danes - through cartoons a newspaper published and cartoons they didn't publish. I see no hypocrital accusations from my side what so ever, but a comparison of two different events.
Then you switch to mention differences in religion in reference to what was said above. Where did that come from? You didn't mention religion in your statement, nor did I in my response, so how does that relate? Are you talking about something else?
OK, if dialogue is the end result than I agree. This topic is by Mughaal and his criticism. However, it then got turned into FOS versus Islam with some finger pointing thrown in. I mentioned religion since this is pertinent to the topic as well. Otherwise dialogue in and of itself is nothing new here in the forum.
"Some FOS'ers would have a harder time defending freedom of speech if it were threatened by holocaust deniers instead of bearded muslims." I might be ill informed - but aren't most holocaust deniers muslims?
News to me, unless you take the official statement of Iranian leaders or other politically corrupt governments of Moslem countries. Otherwise that statement is so absurd that I can't believe you made it.
I'm glad I'm not making absurd statements, thank you - you got it right the first time around.
"Moslems don't need to be told what to think by another person higher up but need to seek information that leads to their own insight." I don't know what you mean by a person "higher up" - but many people worldwide do not have access to sufficient information/opinions to be able to reach a deeper insight. We all tend to think and believe like the group we live in and what the media locally available to us, prefer to broadcast.
That age old belief is dying out. I think the new generation of people will have access to broad media. I think open minds will be hard to squelch in the near future. That includes society waking up to the tyranny of corruption that established orthodox religions have created unabatedly in the past. 'Higher up' means anyone who you think knows more than you. My suggestion is to learn as much as them and become your own 'higher-up'. We can hope you are right here - I have no doubts though, that it will take a very long time before everyone equally can have access to information - if ever.
This is not exclusively a "Muslim World" observation. I have learned many things about societies I was clueless about, by visiting and talking to people outside my own bubble. How can people find their knowledge and insight without listening to others, different from themselves?
For the casual observer this thread may appear as some innnocent observation among two different camps. However, when one camp constantly accusses the other for not respecting FOS then it obviously turns into something else. You stated:No mainstream believer of Islam have to fear for his life because of what the Islamic "representatives" did, or for practising their religion. But when our representatives are practising their "religion" - a whole nation of FOS' and what we hold dear are at risk and under attack from Islamic "representatives". This statement is about FOS and Islamic people. Even moslems are attacked by extremist moslems btw. You also made these assumptions:
Instead of punishing the cartoonist and the newspaper, I would suggest muslims (and Islam) to look inwards and rid themselves of these criminals, who obviously think they can commit murder in the name of Allah - and thus, in ther name of every follower of Islam. Doing nothing about this, would be to condone the actions of these criminals - condoning it as an accepted form of Jihaad. Then it would be hard to claim that Islam is a peaceful Religion.
Again this is pertinent to the topic. Which is about FOS and religion. Whether I mentioned relgion in my first statement, about this being a multifaceted issue or not, is a given. The underlying implication is in your examples. By the way, who actually wrote, in this thread, that moslems do not commit murder under a religious guise? Placing moslems on the defensive is sound strategy if you want a reaction. I hope this is not a Danish habbit. I also want to believe that you speak up for moslems when they are subject to injustice. Otherwise you condone the actions of the guilty. I don't believe in this line of thinking but I can throw it back at you for making that statement.
Wouldn't it be great if we could upscale and broadcast this debate worldwide to every corner of the globe? Hey, - isn't that what we are doing.... I think it is, and that is the very core of AE - a great place, and more important than we might think.
Of course it is great to share our opinions with the world. This was going on in AE before this thread ever started. I repeat, if you and anyone else sincerely want to discuss interfaith religion fairly then we should open a new thread under no pretensions.
Religion again - out of the blue, unrelated.
Not out of the blue. What the heck have we been talking about for the past many pages then? It is a given that AE is a public forum. It is also known that we share diverse opinions. So yes...it is great what we are doing. Yet the context we are doing it includes the subject matter of this thread.
~ Northman
Sincerely, Seko
ps- I find your knowledge of Islam lacking Northman. In one of your earlier threads you made the statement that you read a couple of ayats from the Koran about the use of force. You also mentioned you got much of your Islamic knowledge from Omar. Before acting judgemental about this religion how about asking more questions. Maybe we can give you detailed answers.
PS - What did you expect? Is it required to be an expert or Islamic Scolar before I can post or air an opinion here?
Well, you made some bold statements. My suggestion is to ask those who may know if you want more info. And you very well know one does not need to be an expert to post here. Sorry for sounding too finicky.
Judgemental towards Islam?
On the contrary - despite from what I can observe, have experienced personally, found and read about Islam, I have chosen to believe Omar, saying that Islam is not a violent religion.
I didn't know this was a problem?
How is one to believe you when you say the above but on the other hand make some interesting comments like the examples presented earlier.
If you call my disgust for fanatic Muslims or fanatics in general being judgemental I can understand you.
If not - Where does this observation come from?
You clarified that well. I agree that you have such disgust with those fanatics, and only, fanatics. This became clear after many pages of dialogue.
If I have been disrespectful or judgemental towards Islam, Muslims or any other group or individual for that matter, I would like to see where so I can apologize.
No need. You are a mature person who has nothing to apologize for. If my comments sounded severe they were not meant to blame you but to present my observations.
I think the opposition in this thread has been rather judgemental towards a people and a nation - but I understand why and tried to answer with respect and reason. This is true. Denmark has been accused by fanatics (in life) and by conscientous members in this forum, as has followers of Islam been accused of taking a back seat and for not speaking out more against extremists.
However, I do not understand your judgemental and confrontional attitude in this post. It is evident that my attack against generalizations is the focus. If you happened to make some then those statements were the focus. Another generalization (to Mortaza):
What puzzles me immensely is, in comparison and contrast to this, when someone is abusing your religion and commit crimes in the name of your religion, then its fine?
You protest a cartoonist abusing Islam - But if a murderer is abusing Islam, then you don't have a problem with it???
I am disgusted every time a moslem does such things. I am sure Mortaza is too. It is not fine and I don't think anyone said that it was. Had this topic mainly focused on the sole behavior of extremist moslems then the tone of this thread would be different. However, even non extremists find fault with generalizations and would like to protest in a non- violent fashion.
On another note - progressive moslems know the game of the extremist moslems very well. The extremists want to take away rights and go back to the shariah as they know it! This is what frightens me more than any generalization a westerner can construe about Islam in general. The extremists look at fundamentalism as their way. I advocate strong Freedom of Expression. They don't. I advocate secular laws and Islamic family values. They want it all. That is the issue that I try to bring to everyones attention.
am disgusted every time a moslem does such things. I am sure Mortaza is too. It is not fine and I don't think anyone said that it was. Had this topic mainly focused on the sole behavior of extremist moslems then the tone of this thread would be different. However, even non extremists find fault with generalizations and would like to protest in a non- violent fashion.
Seco you are wasting your time with this. They are using it as a weapon. all of us know noone support violent protests or terrorist actions at AE.(So that is why I stoped to answer such accusations with nice words.)
Seko, as I read your post here with increasing disbelief, and it still baffles me what made you write like you did.
I agreed on most of what you said, gave you credit for it, and just asked you to elaborate a few things. On the other hand, I'm glad you apparently got som frustration out.
Some of your comments seems like they were prewritten - without actually taking the meaning of my words into account.
I will comment each section, unveiled.
None of my comments were rehearsed. Pretty much thoughts coming out of my head.
Originally posted by Seko
Originally posted by Northman
@Seko In reference to your last post - good to read, balanced insight and good observations.Let me add a few comments of my own to some of your observations.
"It seems that this multi-faceted issue could go on and on till the chickens come home to roost. Then it still won't be enough time to settle any differences." IMO, we do not necessarily need to settle differences, but a dialog is essential to acheive a better understanding of the other side - and to lessen tension. Someone once said, "We fear what we don't understand."
This is not a way to understand the other side. This topic started out as an attack on those who hypocritically throw accusations around, generalize and so on. I would suggest another new thread if people want to sincerely discuss differences in religion. That way defending against an accusation is not the premise.
Are you to judge whether I think people have to agree on everything or not? I can easily accept a difference of opinions.
Wrong - This topic started as an attack on Danes - through cartoons a newspaper published and cartoons they didn't publish. I see no hypocrital accusations from my side what so ever, but a comparison of two different events.
Then you switch to mention differences in religion in reference to what was said above. Where did that come from? You didn't mention religion in your statement, nor did I in my response, so how does that relate? Are you talking about something else?
OK, if dialogue is the end result than I agree. This topic is by Mughaal and his criticism. However, it then got turned into FOS versus Islam with some finger pointing thrown in. I mentioned religion since this is pertinent to the topic as well. Otherwise dialogue in and of itself is nothing new here in the forum.
It would be easier if we restricted ourselves to comment what was quoted - and not what was percieved as accusations several pages back - without reference.
...... How can people find their knowledge and insight without listening to others, different from themselves?
For the casual observer this thread may appear as some innnocent observation among two different camps. However, when one camp constantly accusses the other for not respecting FOS then it obviously turns into something else. You stated:No mainstream believer of Islam have to fear for his life because of what the Islamic "representatives" did, or for practising their religion. But when our representatives are practising their "religion" - a whole nation of FOS' and what we hold dear are at risk and under attack from Islamic "representatives". This statement is about FOS and Islamic people. Even moslems are attacked by extremist moslems
Reading my statements - Where is the accusations you talk about?
Maybe the meaning of what I said is hard to understand - then allow me to refrase:
1. No mainstream muslim are at risk from the "FOS camp", for what the radical muslims did.
2. The whole "FOS camp" are at risk from the radical muslims, for what the newspaper did.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see any accusations towards mainstream muslims here.
I'm aware that muslims are attacked and killed by other muslims - but not in relation to this topic.
Also - I didn't accuse anyone of not respecting FOS.
However, in another post, I asked es_bin whether FOS in his opinion was compatibel to Islam; maybe thats what you are aiming at. If so - you need to make up your mind - you suggest me to ask about Islam and when I do - I'm accused.
btw. You also made these assumptions:
Instead of punishing the cartoonist and the newspaper, I would suggest muslims (and Islam) to look inwards and rid themselves of these criminals, who obviously think they can commit murder in the name of Allah - and thus, in ther name of every follower of Islam. Doing nothing about this, would be to condone the actions of these criminals - condoning it as an accepted form of Jihaad. Then it would be hard to claim that Islam is a peaceful Religion.
Again this is pertinent to the topic. Which is about FOS and religion. Whether I mentioned relgion in my first statement, about this being a multifaceted issue or not, is a given. The underlying implication is in your examples. By the way, who actually wrote, in this thread, that moslems do not commit murder under a religious guise? Placing moslems on the defensive is sound strategy if you want a reaction. I hope this is not a Danish habbit. I also want to believe that you speak up for moslems when they are subject to injustice. Otherwise you condone the actions of the guilty. I don't believe in this line of thinking but I can throw it back at you for making that statement.
If anyone in my family comitted a crime in the name of the family and I was silent about it - wouldn't YOU think I thought it was ok?
You very well know I speak up for muslims in my country and more than most people, I believe.
Does that mean we cannot have a debate on principles here?
Wouldn't it be great if we could upscale and broadcast this debate worldwide to every corner of the globe? Hey, - isn't that what we are doing.... I think it is, and that is the very core of AE - a great place, and more important than we might think.
Of course it is great to share our opinions with the world. This was going on in AE before this thread ever started. I repeat, if you and anyone else sincerely want to discuss interfaith religion fairly then we should open a new thread under no pretensions.
Religion again - out of the blue, unrelated.
Not out of the blue. What the heck have we been talking about for the past many pages then? It is a given that AE is a public forum. It is also known that we share diverse opinions. So yes...it is great what we are doing. Yet the context we are doing it includes the subject matter of this thread.
Out of the blue, because the specific quote you refer to, has nothing to do with religion.
You consistently claim that this topic (hipocrisy in FOS/cartoons) involves religion, which I agree on.
Yet you seem to prefer we separate the two, and discuss religion in another thread.
That is a contradiction - accordingly to yourself, you can't have one without the other.
~ Northman
Sincerely, Seko
ps- I find your knowledge of Islam lacking Northman. In one of your earlier threads you made the statement that you read a couple of ayats from the Koran about the use of force. You also mentioned you got much of your Islamic knowledge from Omar. Before acting judgemental about this religion how about asking more questions. Maybe we can give you detailed answers.
PS - What did you expect? Is it required to be an expert or Islamic Scolar before I can post or air an opinion here?
Well, you made some bold statements. My suggestion is to ask those who may know if you want more info. And you very well know one does not need to be an expert to post here. Sorry for sounding too finicky.
Judgemental towards Islam?
On the contrary - despite from what I can observe, have experienced personally, found and read about Islam, I have chosen to believe Omar, saying that Islam is not a violent religion.
I didn't know this was a problem?
How is one to believe you when you say the above but on the other hand make some interesting comments like the examples presented earlier.
If you call my disgust for fanatic Muslims or fanatics in general being judgemental I can understand you.
If not - Where does this observation come from?
You clarified that well. I agree that you have such disgust with those fanatics, and only, fanatics. This became clear after many pages of dialogue.
Oh please give me a break....
Let me quote from my very first post in this thread - page one:
The way radical muslims (and other troublemakers with muslim background) take advantage of spreading fear in order to force western authorities to bend to their demands is appaling. I have been a strong defender of the rights of our muslims immigrants, but they make it very hard for me and others like me, to keep that up. Just a few things from the last month: Threats of murder, +100 incidents of arsen, riots etc. And maybe the worst part is - well integrated Muslims don't dare to speak up against it - they are too scared.
How can anyone doubt who I mean?
If I have been disrespectful or judgemental towards Islam, Muslims or any other group or individual for that matter, I would like to see where so I can apologize.
No need. You are a mature person who has nothing to apologize for. If my comments sounded severe they were not meant to blame you but to present my observations.
Being mature does not exclude me from correcting mistakes or apologize for what I might have done wrong.
If your observations include such incidents, I would like to see them.
I think the opposition in this thread has been rather judgemental towards a people and a nation - but I understand why and tried to answer with respect and reason. This is true. Denmark has been accused by fanatics (in life) and by conscientous members in this forum, as has followers of Islam been accused of taking a back seat and for not speaking out more against extremists.
However, I do not understand your judgemental and confrontional attitude in this post. It is evident that my attack against generalizations is the focus. If you happened to make some then those statements were the focus. Another generalization (to Mortaza):
What puzzles me immensely is, in comparison and contrast to this, when someone is abusing your religion and commit crimes in the name of your religion, then its fine?
You protest a cartoonist abusing Islam - But if a murderer is abusing Islam, then you don't have a problem with it???
I am disgusted every time a moslem does such things. I am sure Mortaza is too. It is not fine and I don't think anyone said that it was. Had this topic mainly focused on the sole behavior of extremist moslems then the tone of this thread would be different. However, even non extremists find fault with generalizations and would like to protest in a non- violent fashion.
It is not a generalization, but when you take it out of context like you do here, it might appear as one.
On another note - progressive moslems know the game of the extremist moslems very well. The extremists want to take away rights and go back to the shariah as they know it! This is what frightens me more than any generalization a westerner can construe about Islam in general. The extremists look at fundamentalism as their way. I advocate strong Freedom of Expression. They don't. I advocate secular laws and Islamic family values. They want it all. That is the issue that I try to bring to everyones attention.
Ameen
Indeed. Ameen and peace brother Northman.
~ Northman
Sincerely, Seko
As you can see, your explanations didn't help me a whole lot to understand why you came glued in a personal attack because of a few questions. It still puzzles me.
They have no right to harm you. Demonising you is not harming you. If you personally (repeat personally) can show you were physically or financially harmed then you have the right to recompense.
Offending and insulting you are not harming you.
Realy? than it is interesting how demonizing jews harmed them before. Yep. They did not suffer because nazis demonized them. No, no ethnic suffered because someone demonized them..
They didn't suffer because they were demonised. They suffered because they were starved and killed. That was of course a horrendous crime, but the demonisation of itself wasn't.
They could have been demonised as much as you like, but if they hadn't been mistreated they wouldn't have suffered.
Uh did they?
Nope. What harms Muslims and Islam itself is Muslims committing terrorist acts.
Unrelated, stupidy, powerty or a lot other things harm to muslim too but this is unrelated with cartoons.
But well, thanks for your nice approach to muslims and what harms them..
That's ridiculous. Any criminal forfeits the right to go free. To suggest that everyone must unconditionally recognise the civil rights of a murderer is incredibly naive. Removing the sanctions of law would lead to a total breakdown of society.
Causing harm to others is a crime. Penalties should not be extreme but there have to be penalties, or civilisation breaks down completely.
You cannot torture a murderer because he killed someone. You should respect his rights even you did not respect man himself. whatever you feel about murderer will not change the fact, You should respect his rights. (No need to distort my words)
Nonsense. The reason you should not torture murderers is because you shouldn't torture anyone, not because they have a 'right not to be tortured' but because to inflict unnecessary pain is evil. I feel the same about killing murderers. It's not because of their rights, but because killing people is inherently wrong.
You should put murderers in prison: how is that 'respecting his rights'? Or are you really saying murderers shouldn't be punished at all?
What does 'it may reason violence' mean? Calling someone a thief or a terrorist is of course a verbal attack. That's fine. It's not a physical attack and it does no-one any harm in and of itself.
It wont? so can you explain why there are some discrimination against muslim? may reason become this?
Discrimination against Muslims on the basis of their religion probably exists and is undoubtedly wrong. I'm not denying evil exists or that people do wrong things. But we're talking about saying or writing things against Muslims, not discriminating against them. I'm holding the position that you should be able to say or write anything about anybody. That's certainly not discrimination. You are saying that people whould not say or write anything critical about Muslims and Islam - THAT is discriminating.
why do some germans burn turks? Because, they just like fire or because someone already demonized these turks so they do not see any ethic problem to fire some turks house?
You're being silly. No-one is defending nurning anyone. In fact the only kind of defence that's been advanced in favour of burning people is that it is a 'natural reaction'. And THAT is being said by people opposed to freedom of speech, not those in favour of it.
Sorry, demonizing harms. If you did not believe this, look at past.
It is like calling a woman witch than saying I am not harming you. For your info, at past or even now at someplaces, people are killed because they are called witch.(So calling someone as terrorist absolutely harm him.)
Nonsense. CALLING someone a witch doesn't harm them. Burning them for being a witch harms them. If you say 'Burn her because she is a witch' and she is burnt because you said it, then you are guilty of murder, whether you did the burning or someone who believed you did. If you say 'she is a witch' WITHOUT saying 'burn her', and because it was a lie and she was harmed by someone who believed you, then you are guilty of defamation and should pay compensation or face punishment or whatever.
However, if you say 'she is a witch' and nothing happens to her there's no crime.
And of course you are reacting. But if you are reacting physically and violently then you are beyond the civilised pale.
Unrelated, are you answering me or someone else?
I don't know. You snipped out what I was replying to, and I can't be bothered to go look it up again.
No-one as far as I know. What on earth has that to do with what I said?
I do not want anything for muslims extra.
You mean you want members of all religions to be protected against discrimination by Muslims? You're opposed to, say, the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran? You want censorship in Syria and Jordan and Pakistan (among others) forbidding the publication of anything critical of any other people?
You seem to me to have been justifying what happens in those countries.
Maybe, I cannot explain myself, but If you force you a little more, You can understand what I mean too.
I did.
Still unrelated with cartoons.
If it's irrelevant, why ask the question? I was only answering it.
They didn't suffer because they were demonised. They suffered because they were starved and killed. That was of course a horrendous crime, but the demonisation of itself wasn't.
They could have been demonised as much as you like, but if they hadn't been mistreated they wouldn't have suffered.
So what is reason of mistreated? why did they mistreated jews but not mistreated english people?
There should be a reason.
You should put murderers in prison: how is that 'respecting his rights'? Or are you really saying murderers shouldn't be punished at all?
No, I am not saying this. do you? I explained myself already.
Discrimination against Muslims on the basis of their religion probably exists and is undoubtedly wrong. I'm not denying evil exists or that people do wrong things. But we're talking about saying or writing things against Muslims, not discriminating against them. I'm holding the position that you should be able to say or write anything about anybody. That's certainly not discrimination. You are saying that people whould not say or write anything critical about Muslims and Islam - THAT is discriminating.
Uh, I am not talking about critics, do I? I am talking about demonizing. What is the reason of discrimination? may demonazing have effect over discrimination?
Or demonizing an ethnic and discrimination against them have no correlation?
You mean you want members of all religions to be protected against discrimination by Muslims? You're opposed to, say, the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran? You want censorship in Syria and Jordan and Pakistan (among others) forbidding the publication of anything critical of any other people?
You seem to me to have been justifying what happens in those countries.
do I? I am not just aware of it. so what is my ideas about football? Maybe you can inform me about this topic too. So I can learn what is my idea about football.
By the way, why are you accusing me without any evidence?
Weren't the Jews mistreated all over Europe, and even in the US? Yet we didn't see a country turn on them like the Nazi's.
Hell, talking down on minorities still hasn't stopped in the US. The White Sumpremacy groups still publish cartoons and articles about African Americans, and the color of skin can never be changed, or chosen. In away, this is like a single news paper publishing the pictures, it will mostly go unnoticed and most probably wouldn't take it for anything after seeing it.
The problem arrose quite along time after the fact the images were published, when a few Muslim leaders tried and seems to have succeeded in inciting a reaction. This reaction, which should have been about a single newspaper, and should have protested them, had instead called for a violent means of resolving this insult. The sad part is, it wasn't put on the newspaper and the few behind it, no, the target was Denmark, a entire peoples, most of which probably didn't even see the images.
After calling for Denmarks death, the taking over the country, killing the men and taking the "Women as booty" as one man said it, it upset Westerners and made further devisions in the world.
To make matters worse, now we have Osama bin Laden threatening Europe over these images.
Westerners didn't see the moderate Muslim, and large numbers do attract media. Instead we saw large numbers attacking the idea of an nation and it's people, with vocal leaders who seemed to spread a hatred that goes beyond cartoons, and yet, they were allowed to say this despite it being said in their adopted country. Infact, I believe the UK has laws against Death Threats, but seemed to give these leaders the right to spew it.
I had to repeat this, because I think the reaction is what caused the division. And no one seems to be looking at that. Had the reaction been a protest against the paper itself, I believe you'd find support by most Europeans and other Westerners, as thats usually the type of reaction that happens here.
EDIT-
Originally posted by Mortaza
So what is reason of mistreated? why did they mistreated jews but not mistreated english people?
There should be a reason.
I'd say difference of culture is always a big factor. And I'd say the memory of WW2 has changed Europe to try and be more excepting of others. And with recent events, I'm beginning to think there is going to be more change, and for the worse...
Edited by SearchAndDestroy - 20-Mar-2008 at 14:51
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
So? What on earth has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting murder is more acceptable if it happens among gangsters and drug traffickers? Or what?
That is a risk that the traffickers are comfortable with. It comes with the territory. I do lay some responsibility with those that expose themselves to the risk of their choice. A degree of sexual predation is common to humans(especially males), someone exposing themselves to that 'risk' is their responsibility.
That's 'law of the jungle' stuff, but at least it shows where you are coming from. Most of us are well past that stage of immaturity. A criminal is solely responsible for his crime.
The law of the jungle is not that bad a reference. In fact i am glad that you made it, since It is one solely based on instincts, devoid of any morality.
And I'm glad you recognise it for what it is, though I'm surprised you admit it.
A tiger acts out of instincts and not morality. Humans however have instincts as well as morality. In our societies where instincts overlap with morality, we can live within the moral framework, but not at the expense of ignoring Instincts. We will act in accordance with our instincts when excited to them.
The point of society and civilisation is to restrain and control our instincts. Many if not most instinctual drives do not of course harm anyone, and don't need restraining. But where they do then to allow them rein, or even to accept them as an excuse, is unacceptable.
A criminal 'is' solely responsible for the crime. A careless person for his carelessness. A stupid person for his stupidity. An ingnorant for his ignorance. If immaturity saves me a broken nose, or being eaten by the tiger, then i wellcome it.
Immaturity is more likely to lead to your nose being broken. After all if your being violent to others is justified, then you have to accept that others being violent to you is also justified.
I agree a careless person is responsible for his carelessness. I definitely disagree that a stupid person is responsible for his stupidity. And for the most part the ignorant are also not responsible for their ignorance. That's why one adopts different standards for children.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
Again, so what? Do you accept that murder would be not be justified in the tax office, but it's OK elsewhere? Do you think rape is never justified, whatever the circumstances?
We live in an environment of probabilities, what i personally think is irrelevant, because it is immaterial to the existence of a particular risk. What any actor, especially one indulged in negative enterprise has to be ready for is the risk associated with his industry. Boxers should expect injury. litigation lawyers, sleepless nights. Insultive and abusive people reciprocation. Is injury justified? sleep deprivation? blah blah blah...
It's not blah blah at all. It's the very heart of the matter. You are still suggesting that murder and rape can be 'justified' if the victim lays him or herself open to the ridk. That's fallacious and morally unacceptable.
In case your moral inquisistion is complete, i guess you must be truly flattered with yourself, having acted judge, jury and executioner.
I agree I'm being judgemental. But where you get the jury and the executioner from I have no idea. That's silly hyperbole.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Boxers expect injury WITHIN THE RULES they accept. If they are fouled it isn't EVER their fault. When Tyson bit Holyfield's ear no-one with any sens of ethics would say it was Holyfield's fault for entering the ring. It was solely and entirely Tyson's fault, and was so dealt with.
Breaking the law can never be justified by the proposition that the victim laid himself open to the risk. If I'm walking across a pedestrian walkway and a speeding car ignores the lights and hits me, you would say that is my fault for walking across. No-one civilised would ever agree with you.
Albeit that the ring is a controlled environment, it is easily grasped that there is a certain link between enterprise and risk. Your example should maybe have been constructed in the following fashion: Should i walk across a walkway if a speeding truck is approaching me.(And u do have the right of way). The truck shoudln't hit you, but should you really step onto the walkway.
The more accurate analogy to what you are suggesting is that if someone says to me "If you cross that walkway I will run over you with my car" then I should pay attention to him, and it would be MY fault if he subsequently ran over me. That is not only the law of the jungle it's the law that might is right: it's the law of the Mafia and it takes us way back to the stone age. Or even before.
Here is Buzz Aldrin, you know the guy that went to the moon. Do you think he could with a bit of benevolance be deemed civilised? What was the basis for his impulse? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IhAFLmVT3w He is neither a child, or immature. Do i think it was right? well my thoughts are with MR. Aldrin. I think the antagonist brought it on himself.
For technical reasons I can't listen to that.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
You are continually ducking the important question that goes to the heart of your position.
Is murder EVER justified? Is rape EVER justified? Is deliberately blinding someone EVER justified?
I have a question of my own, does someone have the right to ruin your public space?
So you ducked it yet again. You just can't face the disgrace of admitting what you believe.
With regard to your question, I've been arguing elsewhere in this thread that anyone who physically or financially damages me should pay me compensation - and should of course be liable under what laws happen to apply in that jurisdiction. So it depends on what you mean by 'ruining' my 'public' space. As far as I'm aware I don't have any public space.
As for private space I've answered that in my other posts.
If i was disgraced to admit something i believed, Why the hell would i believe it.
Then why don't you admit you believe murder is justified if it is a natural reaction?
It is irrational. I am not so vaine to worry myself with an AE ego at the expense of an honest statement.
I took your questions at their rhetorical value.
They weren't rhetorical, they were genuine. Now that you know that, will you answer them?
In anycase i wouldn't be asking "Graham, do u think it right to push you gran from a cliff?" and be expecting a reply. It is childish. If you wish to ask something 'specific ' and in 'context', be my guest.
It was about as specific as anyone can get, and it's in context. Do you believe murder and rape can be justified if the criminal was 'provoked' verbally? Do you believe murder and rape are EVER justified?
How could that be any clearer? It only takes a yes or a no.
Your 'private' space is for example your house. A 'public' libraries, 'public' toilets are all 'public' space. Motorways are public roads, private roads are private. The whole point of having, or their being 'public' space is that you can't have it. So don't be surprised if you don't 'have' public space. Your lack of owenership doesn't mean it is not there.
I know what 'public' and 'private' spaces are. You are the one who attributed ownership of public space to me, by referring to MY public space.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
Of course there is. What I am saying is that verbal provocation NEVER justifies violence. Obviously they are related.
Why and how are they related?
Because the person committing the violence says they are. D'oh!
Then either you are commiting violence, not answering the question, or being flippant.
How can what I - or anyone - write here be in any way 'violence'? I was answering the question. The question: why and how are verbal provocation and violence related? The answer: because the person committing the violence says he is doing it because of the provocation. It's his REASON for doing it. But REASON is not an EXCUSE.
Originally posted by gcle2003
So what? My point was that some unnatural things can be justified and some natural things can be unjustified.
Since i don't recall saying anything to the contrary, i frankly don't know what to make of that statement.
Then why did you object to it? What you said was that violence could be justified if it was a natural reaction. It's the causal link in there thar is the issue. Naturalness doesn't justify, any more than unnaturalness disqualifies. That was my point: naturalness and justification have nothing to do with one another.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
That it is 'natural' doesn't justify it. Unnatural behaviour is quite often justifiable ('turning the other cheek' for instance), while natural behavious is quite often unjustifiable.
Although all natural things are not on the same footing, neither are the unnatural. Eating sand instead of bananas is more unnatural than cannabilism.
So what? My point was that some unnatural things can be justified and some natural things can be unjustified. Once again you're skipping around the issue because you don't want to reveal what you really think. Does something being 'natural' justify doing it? I bet you don't answer.
SKIPPY THE KANGAROO: If morality is to be discussed it can not be done out of context. What reply do you want to your question? What is being discussed here.
Since you are asking, which I suppose means you have forgotten, I'll remind you that we are discussing reactions to the Danish cartoons and their justification. You are claiming that some violent reactions would be justified because they would be a natural response, and that therefore the cartoonists should have refrained from drawing the cartoons.
In other words you are claiming that people should not be allowed to do things if other people threaten violence to stop them.
I mean humans, bears
rabbits, are all natural. Substituting for 'natural', what kind of reply can anyone possibly construct.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
The reason you won't discuss morals is because your position is morally completely untenable, and you realise it. The whooe issue here is a moral one.
Sadly you are failing at mind reading. The issue 'could' be discussed through the 'moral' lense, and i already told you what the limitation is in that regard. I will repeat for the last time. MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE.
True. So is the perception of people's rights. The original issue here was about hypocrisy. That's a moral issue purely and simply, the reasonable assumption being that hypocrisy is wrong. In fact the whole blow-up is about whether the cartoonists were right or wrong to do what they did, and whether the widely publicised reactions were right or wrong.
As in my post to S&D, my position was very clear, my perspective was amoral: "I am not talking about it from the POV of ethics or morals of FOS. I am just citing what is observed. As i have said before in this forum elsewhere, laws only act as deterrents, retrospectively. Ultimately it is the law that defines the acceptable boundaries of all interactions within a society. Incitement is not FOS or FOE. There is no physical or direct contact, but the law deems it an offense. So the general relationship is obvious."
My posts were not related to the cartoons itself. I couldn't care less what those idiots printed, and in my view they were wrong. As i stated when the whole issue first flared up in that nauseating 30 page thread that everyone remembers, but wishes to forget. The very first sentences from the first two posters were ample to end that debate itself, and both were right.
Mughaal: "How is Freedom of Speech used; well, its very subjective." Styrbiorn: "You're title is wrong; it should read "Hypocrisy of Jyllandsposten". "
You are not taking an amoral position. You are suggesting that violence is acceptable if it is a natural response to verbal provocation, and that the threat of such violence should be enough to impose censorship on those doing the provoking. (If you are not saying that, then you should say so loud and clear, not keep ducking the issue.)
That's a moral position.
Originally posted by gcle2003
Originally posted by malizai_
On the taxation bit I don't agree, but I don't see it has anything to do with anything being discussed here.
Because the choice of favorite colour, or preference in tax policy, are both subjective. On some things you will agree and on some you won't, just like you did. I may like blue, you may like pink.
Exactly. And you are saying you think murder is justified when it is natural, and that rape is true, and that indeed any crime may be the fault of the victim for laying himself open to them. That is a subjective MORAL position. And it is MORALLY wrong.
Who said it was right!
Some times victims 'do' lay themselves open to crimes and other detriments, and as such they bear personal responsibility to themselves. It does not justify the motives or the actions of the criminals.
================================================ Preempting things that you may wish to know regarding my position, i offer you the following:
1). No one has the right to violate my public space
No-one owns a public space, by definition. I thought you'd just said that yourself.
by willfully insulting me(or anyone) as it pleases him, as i/or anyone go about their own business. To say it is OK to do so is regressive, and is not civilised but brutish behaviour.(moral position)
My position is that insulting anyone should be allowable, not necessarily that it is OK. I've pointed out the admirability of self-censorship. And I have pointed out that where the insult leads to physical or financial damage it should be sueable for.
2). I disagree to place value solely on the the material and physical, while ignoring the emotional harm and all that arises from it, which may well be material.
The trouble with that attitude is that anyone can claim emotional damage about anything. The reason for restricting harm to physical and financial (material if you like) is that it is then objectively determinable. To allow anyone to censor anyone on the simple basis that it could lead to them suffering 'emotional' harm, opens the floodgates to complete censorship of anything anyone dislikes.
3). It is not 'morals' that govern freedom of speech, but laws. The state can overnight declare what is acceptable. My position: That is the way it should be, the law must always be the supreme arbitrator. It doesn't mean however that the state is always right.
In practice that is of course correct. It therefore follows that the Danish cartoonists, who were well within the law, were perfectly within their rights in publishing the cartoons, and should not face any kind of retaliation for doing so (unless it is shown that some specific individual(s) has directly suffered actual material physical or financial harm as a result, in which case they can be compensated).
4). Responding to insults with violence is not childish behaviour, neither immature. Children are least capable of measuring insults. It can be impulsive i.e natural. It should be expected!!! (amoral position)
That doesn't mean that the insults should be avoided. It means I suppose that for their own sake someone threatened with violence should take action to avoid violence, and that the police should help them with that. But not that they should give in to the threats.
That something is to be expected does not mean one should put up with it. As I already mentioned, that's the law of the Mafia. "Pay us money or your shop will burn down. You didn't pay the money? Then it's your fault your shop burned down."
It could mean it is right or wrong given a set of moral principles of the actors, the context, the gravity of the offense.
So, again, in your book murder and rape are right as long as the murderer thinks it is?
5). A person should be aware of his actions and the associated risks and should not be surprised when they materialize. This position is amplified when no benefit is to be derived from the done action. This was the original amoral position.
You've restated that many times. My answer is always the same. That's the law of the Mafia.
An observation:'People 'will' some time give precedence to their morals over the prescribed law/state. My position: They won't always be wrong to do so.
But it follows from your argument they should expect to be punished, and it's their fault when they are, no?
Thanks North, I never read up on it extensivily, I just remember reading something along the lines that Jews were looked down upon around the world at that time, or something to that extent.
I didn't see it on the map, but is Helsingor a town where the founder, Erling Kiaer came from?
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Weren't the Jews mistreated all over Europe, and even in the US? Yet we didn't see a country turn on them like the Nazi's.
Hell, talking down on minorities still hasn't stopped in the US. The White Sumpremacy groups still publish cartoons and articles about African Americans, and the color of skin can never be changed, or chosen. In away, this is like a single news paper publishing the pictures, it will mostly go unnoticed and most probably wouldn't take it for anything after seeing it.
The problem arrose quite along time after the fact the images were published, when a few Muslim leaders tried and seems to have succeeded in inciting a reaction. This reaction, which should have been about a single newspaper, and should have protested them, had instead called for a violent means of resolving this insult. The sad part is, it wasn't put on the newspaper and the few behind it, no, the target was Denmark, a entire peoples, most of which probably didn't even see the images.
After calling for Denmarks death, the taking over the country, killing the men and taking the "Women as booty" as one man said it, it upset Westerners and made further devisions in the world.
To make matters worse, now we have Osama bin Laden threatening Europe over these images.
Westerners didn't see the moderate Muslim, and large numbers do attract media. Instead we saw large numbers attacking the idea of an nation and it's people, with vocal leaders who seemed to spread a hatred that goes beyond cartoons, and yet, they were allowed to say this despite it being said in their adopted country. Infact, I believe the UK has laws against Death Threats, but seemed to give these leaders the right to spew it.
I had to repeat this, because I think the reaction is what caused the division. And no one seems to be looking at that. Had the reaction been a protest against the paper itself, I believe you'd find support by most Europeans and other Westerners, as thats usually the type of reaction that happens here.
EDIT-
Originally posted by Mortaza
So what is reason of mistreated? why did they mistreated jews but not mistreated english people?
There should be a reason.
I'd say difference of culture is always a big factor. And I'd say the memory of WW2 has changed Europe to try and be more excepting of others. And with recent events, I'm beginning to think there is going to be more change, and for the worse...
Europe and US are two different realities when it comes to accepting and incoporating immigrants, especially non-Western; hence the France riots.
We had riots to a certain extent in the late 1800s/ early 1900s by Irish and Italian immigrants due to anti-Catholic and in general anti non "Anglo-Saxon" sentiments. However, those were not as long lasting, nor widespread to every single city. The US with all its faults does a superb job at unifying Americans into a single citizen body more efficiently than other countries.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Hypocrisy of Freedom of Speech
.
