Seattle Cartoonist Molly Norris Flees Fatwa - Page 5
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 222

Thread: Seattle Cartoonist Molly Norris Flees Fatwa

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    2,522
    Thanks
    438
    Thanked 437 Times in 209 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    pps



    are you sure? Ever since they were capable of it, humans have always been entitled to their own "truth". And SOME "facts" are contemporary, one minute its true, the next day, it gets debunked as false only to be replaced by a different fact that too may eventually be debunked.

    slightly off topic.
    I don't mind you being knowingly wrong. And you're welcome to sulk or get pissed off when I criticize you for it. You just can't act out on it by killing the detractor or the critic. Some people's "facts" really need some debunking. And cartoons are as innocent a place to start - a little lighthearted critique.

    Brendan Noeth

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakselv, Norway
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    591
    Thanked 1,014 Times in 376 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    again with the unnecessary insults, is it hard to carry a conversation without trying to bring the other disagreeable person down? (Human instinct I guess.) My issue with poems is irrelevant to this thread.
    I certainly didn't intend to be unneccessarily insulting.

    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    and we'd need to both agree of how we use the term "violence", to me it is not just fists and weapons. Violence can be verbal, such as how this discussion is escalating, and such as provokingly drawing something others might find offensive.
    In this very specific context, equating violent ideas with violent actions (e.g., drawing a murder and committing a murder) makes no sense beyond the realm of sympathetic magic. If you seriously believe that physically real swords are a reasonable defense against imaginary demons, something is wrong with your ability to differentiate between levels of reality. The word "DYNAMITE" scrawled on a piece of paper doesn't constitute a viable method of breaking into safes.

    Claiming that a poorly drawn doodle is an act of violence makes as much sense as claiming that poking pins into a voodoo doll is violence.

    An image is not the thing it prepresents, the map is not the territory.

    In the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of privacy.

    Portfolio
    Sketchblog
    Facebook art page
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    762
    Thanks
    988
    Thanked 189 Times in 97 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I am not a religious person. i would like to believe in a higher power, but religious doctrines feel to constrictive to my spirtiuality.

    I feel like i understand the principle of religion and how it is benifecial to people's lives, yet i am wary of just how much religion in general has been such a fervent cause for so much wrong in the world.

    I do believe that people should be free to practise their religion but not at the expense of another's freedom.

    cowing in fear to the will of terrorists? doesnt that simply empower them?
    i dont think antagonizing them is the key.
    Are Muslims aloud to get angry for someone dipicting their prophet in a bad way/dipicting in the first place?
    well yeah....but to the point of wanting to murder the artist? really?

    To my knowledge we dont see any Rabbi trying to Destroy butchers for selling or consuming pork.



    well while typing this i lost what point i was trying to make, became kind off depressed at how cyclical this argument is and how people apparently lack the capacity to forgive each other, kind of depressing. such is life.

    In the words of Optimus Prime "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Liam Harvey For This Useful Post:


  5. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    762
    Thanks
    988
    Thanked 189 Times in 97 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    additionally...what is up with the tags for this thread?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #125
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    brisbane, australia
    Posts
    699
    Thanks
    290
    Thanked 651 Times in 210 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by OmenSpirits View Post
    Nah, I think they mean that humanity is WAY too self-important.
    An unfortunate side-effect of self-consciousness.


    Anyway, I may as well throw my hat into the ring [that is a 'saying', right?]

    Generally I agree with almost everyone in this thread, even those who seem to disagree with each other. However I think both sides are ignoring the real point of contention.

    You guys are essentially arguing over whether free speech is justifiable if its only purpose is to antagonize those who suppress free speech of those who antagonize them. See what I'm getting at? It's circular logic, and it works both ways.

    Everyone here believes in free speech and free religion. I think the real disagreement is over the acceptable extent to which your individual beliefs justify your actions; something which will vary wildly from the religious, atheist and agnostic mindsets.

    So... Ummm... Carry on.
    *makes popcorn*


    Quote Originally Posted by Liam Harvey View Post
    In the words of Optimus Prime "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings."
    What we call "freedom" is nothing more than an idyllic a state of mind man, nothing more, nothing less. Without limitations there could be no structure to the universe and we could not exist. Objective freedom is more impossible than any religious claim.

    Anyway... pop pop-culture quote battle!
    "Dak'kon: When a mind does not *know* itself, it is flawed. When a mind is flawed, the man is flawed. When a man is flawed, that which he touches is flawed. It is said that what a flawed man sees, his hands make broken. "

    Last edited by karma militia; September 21st, 2010 at 10:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Malaysia o/`
    Posts
    759
    Thanks
    976
    Thanked 1,048 Times in 277 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I cannot comment in any insightful manner on the situation over where most of you are, because I'm not familiar with it and I don't live there.

    But I must say I do not get why people feel the need to overreact to something that is harmless at its core, and extremely irritating at worst. OH NO SOMEONE MADE A DRAWING THAT MADE ME ANGRY, THEY MUST PAY WITH THEIR BLOOD.

    Something tells me that there is an issue here much deeper and much more horrible than simply one's religion, or political beliefs.

    Last edited by crossmirage; September 21st, 2010 at 11:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #127
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by karma militia View Post
    An unfortunate side-effect of self-consciousness.


    Anyway, I may as well throw my hat into the ring [that is a 'saying', right?]

    Generally I agree with almost everyone in this thread, even those who seem to disagree with each other. However I think both sides are ignoring the real point of contention.

    You guys are essentially arguing over whether free speech is justifiable if its only purpose is to antagonize those who suppress free speech of those who antagonize them. See what I'm getting at? It's circular logic, and it works both ways.

    Everyone here believes in free speech and free religion. I think the real disagreement is over the acceptable extent to which your individual beliefs justify your actions; something which will vary wildly from the religious, atheist and agnostic mindsets.

    So... Ummm... Carry on.
    *makes popcorn*
    There you go.

    Freedom is an abstract. The freedom was always there.

    The people who disagree with this just don't see the point in going out of your way to offend people. You can draw Mohammed all you want, always've been able to. When I was a little kid, my mother being the proper mother that she is, didn't approve of various things. So if I was going to sit down and draw a bunch of "W"s and "O"s, which was actually a bunch of little butts pooping, well that wouldn't have gone over too well.

    But I was still perfectly free to do it when I was sitting in my room and you can bet that I did. Like, once, but still. No harm done. I didn't run up to my mother with the little W's and O's and go "LOOK AT ME, I'M DISOBEYING YOU AND DRAWING NAUGHTY THINGS" because that would've made me a jerk. Though I do think she caught me once.

    And now that I'm older I could draw people shitting, and even have people see it and not disgust everyone. But I'd still be a jerk if I went into an elementary school and posted them on the walls.

    This has become much less "Do we have the right to do this" and much more "Is it right just because you have the right?" Which is really just another way of saying "Does it make you an asshole to do that just because you can?"

    Which is up to personal opinion.

    My personal opinion is, yes. Both the people flaunting their cartoon Muhammads, and the people threatening those people with death, they're both assholes. That's where all the bullshit comes from.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Two Listen For This Useful Post:


  10. #128
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    zwarrior, If you are standing in the dark, and you raise your arms and your hands hit a ceiling, you are not outside. If you want to keep thinking that you are indeed outside by making sure to never raise your arms... you are just fooling yourself. And no sane person will respect your claims of freedom.

    btw, I find the word "warrior" to be highly offensive and if you don't change your name from zwarrior to something else, I am going to hunt you down and kill you. I hope you appreciate that I do not like to be offended.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #129
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Kev. That comparison makes me think you hit your head on that ceiling of yours a bit too hard.

    Night and day, Kev. Night and day.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #130
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Things We've already went over and should not come up at this point:

    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    btw, I find the word "warrior" to be highly offensive and if you don't change your name from zwarrior to something else, I am going to hunt you down and kill you. I hope you appreciate that I do not like to be offended.
    I mentioned "provocative action" a number of times already. You finding something about me that is offensive to you, is not the same thing as me finding something you might be offended by, and acting on it.

    Brendan N And cartoons are as innocent a place to start - a little lighthearted critique.
    Now you're just being as hard headed and in denial as you accuse the people you're against to be, if at this point in this thread you still insist that your act is "innocent" and "light hearted".

    Last edited by nauvice; September 21st, 2010 at 01:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #131
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    squidmonk3j, I'm afraid my point went over your head, because what I have said is not the same thing as "drawing a murder and committing a murder".

    Drawing a murder is not a verbal violent speech. It's a documentary (or if it's from the imagination, it's a story-telling) speech.

    A lot of you are having a hard time equating drawing muhammed as a verbal insult, even though by now it should be obvious that it is, to the persons that insult is directed towards, i.e. Muslims. If someone called you a fag, but you're straight, you might not be offended by that verbal insult, because it is more directed to belittle gay people. Or if someone called you a n-, and you're not even black, etc. You may not see what the big deal is, but the group that insult is directed towards, have a different perspective on it.

    It depends on which context those speech are used, I can type fag, or n-----, or cunt, motherfucker, etc. they're not offensive unless they are directed towards someone. And once they are, then my intent is to insult / provoke the person I'm directing that speech against. Drawing Muhammed, and the event meant for it, is an intent to provoke. You can say "well I'm just putting it in my facebook page, Muslims have no business there". That still doesn't change what the picture is. (and makes you no different than the artists drawing swastikas and memes belittling black people on facebook)

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    2,522
    Thanks
    438
    Thanked 437 Times in 209 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    Now you're just being as hard headed and in denial as you accuse the people you're against to be, if at this point in this thread you still insist that your act is "innocent" and "light hearted".
    in denial about what?

    Brendan Noeth

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #133
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakselv, Norway
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    591
    Thanked 1,014 Times in 376 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    squidmonk3j, I'm afraid my point went over your head
    Perhaps. Don't worry about it, though...if you just make an effort to be more precise and coherent in your argumentation, I'm sure your aim will improve, eventually

    In the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of privacy.

    Portfolio
    Sketchblog
    Facebook art page
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #134
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    belittling me doesn't lead to anywhere. Plenty of other people understand what I mean, and if you did not, than the burden is on you, not me.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #135
    kev ferrara is offline Registered User Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,059
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,150 Times in 1,700 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    zwarrior, now that you know your use of that word pisses me off, please stop doing it. Or else you will be killed.

    Two Listen... thanks for your unsubstantiated declaration about my analogy being night and day. I think your post is childish, narcissistic garbage... an opinion which has equal merit without substantiation.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #136
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    in denial about what?
    about drawing Muhammed being a verbal attack, and about how damaging a verbal attack can be. By drawing him to provoke Muslims you are insulting their God and their Moral code. I am sure you wouldn't think someone saying "you're mother is a cunt" to be an innocent and light hearted critique, especially if it's unmerited.

    You can keep saying verbal attacks fall under the jurisdiction of freedom of speech, but stop acting surprised by saying no one should retort with death threats or physical attack when you should know by now, verbal attack is what can lead to a physical attack, people have committed suicide over being verbally abused, they've punched or killed others also. If your aim is to distinguish a fire, don't trow oil at it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    zwarrior, now that you know your use of that word pisses me off, please stop doing it. Or else you will be killed.
    My use of the word is not an anti-thesis to your belief, its use is not exclusive to your becoming offended.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #138
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakselv, Norway
    Posts
    2,119
    Thanks
    591
    Thanked 1,014 Times in 376 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I hereby apologize. I admit it, my last post -was- an unneccessary insult

    However, and this advice is given with sincerity, take your time when you post your thoughts. Don't take "Post Quick Reply" to literally. Some of your posts appear garbled, and this makes discussing difficult topics all the more difficult!

    Oh well, anywayz, I'm out - time to draw!

    In the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of privacy.

    Portfolio
    Sketchblog
    Facebook art page
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to squidmonk3j For This Useful Post:


  22. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    I think your post is childish, narcissistic garbage... an opinion which has equal merit without substantiation.
    ...I see what you did there.

    Oh, and just to clarify, I thought your analogy was ok. The whole being in the dark and raising your arms thing. Yeah that was alright, if there was a misunderstanding there. It was your comparison of his name offending you, comparing that to the topic that sparked this thread - that I considered night and day.

    I'm also bored at work, and meddling with this seems a decent usage of my time.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #140
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    801
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 427 Times in 168 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe View Post
    Hey Deadly Freeze, I see you have sketches of fantasy creatures and monsters in your sketchbook section.

    If told you that it is offensive to my god to see images of "demonic" creatures, and that I might have to track you down and kill you if you don't stop, would you just shrug and say "Oh well.. right and wrong doesn't matter - my rights as a free person doesn't matter, everyone knows DamnDirtyApe is a violent psychopath so I guess I better not draw anything he doesn't like."
    Actually I would, because I believe in unconditional freedom of speech.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #141
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    Buck, do you sympathize with school shooters or suicidal kids? I mean their act is stupid, but don't you think sometimes people can really push you up against a wall and you just explode... maybe you do it by just yelling or you've learned how to not let it phase you, but for others, verbal abuse is so psychologically bad, and they're already insane, that they want revenge by physical damage, either on others or themselves. I think it's a shame that the kids who provoked them act so innocent. Like that myspace mom who led a 13yr old to commit suicide. Yeah she didn't hit her or anything, but she's still a bitch isn't she. I'm sure when people provoke you, you don't think they're innocent, you might even think they're dumb for trying, instead of being respectable human beings.
    Comparing religious extremists and terrorists to bullied children isn't very accruate. Fundies weren't minding their own business when the rest of the world walked in and took their lunch money. They proactively spread their "culture" through terrorism. They are the bullies. I go to work, I talk shit on the internet, I do a little sculpting and I mind my own business. Then this group who's never met me declares that if I draw thier diety, I am subject to their punishment. Well, fuck that, if I may be blunt. They're not going to take my lunch money, I won't take the long way home from school to avoid them.

    So if you disagree with those people, instead of making that verbal attack, why not try to reach out to them like a level-headed guy, maybe they might consider your point then, and if they don't, well their loss, its not like you tried to offend them or anything.
    From the many, many, many debates I've had about evolution I can tell you that no amount of reasoning will ever "get the point across." If you could reason with fundamentalists, they wouldn't exist.

    are you sure? Ever since they were capable of it, humans have always been entitled to their own "truth". And SOME "facts" are contemporary, one minute its true, the next day, it gets debunked as false only to be replaced by a different fact that too may eventually be debunked.
    Truth and fact usually aren't the same thing.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  26. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    fact falls under truth.

    Fundies weren't minding their own business when the rest of the world walked in and took their lunch money.
    That's what they believe. Not about the rest of the world necessarily, but certainly about western powers that dictate the world. i.e. they feel bullied.

    If you could reason with fundamentalists, they wouldn't exist.
    So you rather just stoop to their level, and drag innocent people along.

    Then this group who's never met me declares that if I draw thier diety, I am subject to their punishment.
    if this is how you still see it, we are back to square one, and continuing this discussion any further would just go on an endless loop.

    Last edited by nauvice; September 21st, 2010 at 07:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #143
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    If this is how you still see it, we are back to square one, and continuing this discussion any further would just go on an endless loop.
    This is how most of us feel with this discussion and with your pots. Because:


    So you rather just stoop to their level, and drag innocent people along.
    Once again, you're equating drawing a picture or speaking out against religion with terrorism.



    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  29. #144
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckWeisel View Post
    I go to work, I talk shit on the internet, I do a little sculpting and I mind my own business. Then this group who's never met me declares that if I draw thier diety, I am subject to their punishment. Well, fuck that, if I may be blunt. They're not going to take my lunch money, I won't take the long way home from school to avoid them.
    But see, this isn't accurate. You, following your basic lifestyle as you've described it, could at this moment draw a picture of Muhammad, and could've ten years ago, and been no worse off as a result.

    The freedom has always been there.

    Nobody would've threatened to kill you. Why in the hell would they? The extremists aren't going to find you in your home minding your own business, and tell you they're subject to your punishment.

    People have been depicting Muhammad for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. One look at Muhammad's wikipedia page will yield multiple depictions. No big fucking deal, it's been happening for a long time.

    Why then, only recently, has it become a real issue?

    Because people are intentionally pissing other people off - on a large scale. Molly Norris couldn't just draw what she felt like drawing, no, she decided "Hey why don't we all get together and be assholes, because we can? What, are they going to stop us? - Better yet, lets be assholes and SHOVE IT IN EVERYONE'S FACES!" All over a fucking South Park episode, no less.

    Yeah, that's bound to yield great results.

    "Free speech", yeah, sounds pretty. It's just being an asshole. This freedom has existed forever, nobody's fighting for anything they didn't already have. Which is why there are those who call this unnecessary, childish bullshit.

    I'm not saying it's right for anyone to die over drawing a picture. Obviously that's very wrong. I'm just saying that whenever you go out of your way to offend nearly a third of the planet's population (potentially, we'll settle for a fifth or a sixth, still you know - millions of people), that it's an asshole thing to do.

    People are free to do what they want. I just don't think they should try and paint a pretty picture over it like they're doing something noble.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Two Listen For This Useful Post:


  31. #145
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Listen View Post
    But see, this isn't accurate. You, following your basic lifestyle as you've described it, could at this moment draw a picture of Muhammad, and could've ten years ago, and been no worse off as a result.

    The freedom has always been there.

    Nobody would've threatened to kill you. Why in the hell would they? The extremists aren't going to find you in your home minding your own business, and tell you they're subject to your punishment.

    People have been depicting Muhammad for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. One look at Muhammad's wikipedia page will yield multiple depictions. No big fucking deal, it's been happening for a long time.

    Why then, only recently, has it become a real issue?

    Because people are intentionally pissing other people off - on a large scale. Molly Norris couldn't just draw what she felt like drawing, no, she decided "Hey why don't we all get together and be assholes, because we can? What, are they going to stop us? - Better yet, lets be assholes and SHOVE IT IN EVERYONE'S FACES!" All over a fucking South Park episode, no less.

    Yeah, that's bound to yield great results.

    "Free speech", yeah, sounds pretty. It's just being an asshole. This freedom has existed forever, nobody's fighting for anything they didn't already have. Which is why there are those who call this unnecessary, childish bullshit.

    I'm not saying it's right for anyone to die over drawing a picture. Obviously that's very wrong. I'm just saying that whenever you go out of your way to offend nearly a third of the planet's population (potentially, we'll settle for a fifth or a sixth, still you know - millions of people), that it's an asshole thing to do.

    People are free to do what they want. I just don't think they should try and paint a pretty picture over it like they're doing something noble.

    Do you think that the NRA has meetings just to piss off anti-gun people? Do you think people buy and shoot guns for sport because they're shoving in the face of those who don't think owning or buying a is a right?

    Even if they did how does it change the right to do it? The right is there either way whether you want to draw it or not right? Why does being offensive mean that right is no longer valid?

    This forum is fairly liberal, socially speaking. So should I not criticize liberal elected leaders or liberal ideologies because it's "in bad taste?"

    Whether you're picketing a soldier's funeral or picketing an oppressive establishment, the right is still there. It's still the right to peaceful assembly. Regardless of the specific motives or message behind it.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  33. #146
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Again, I'm not arguing their right to do it. They have every right to do it.

    I'm pointing out the fact that they're supposedly doing it because they're "losing" that right. Which is completely inaccurate, and they're going about "fixing" it in the wrong way.

    Here's what I don't get.

    "Comedy Central censored an episode, and limited our free speech."

    Response:

    "Let's create a day to offend followers of Islam."

    Yeah that makes a lot of fucking sense.

    Here we have a bunch of people butt hurt because Comedy Central censored an episode. That's all well and good, because TV networks don't censor shit ALL THE FUCKING TIME. So instead of like, you know, doing something reasonable like protest that. We're going to draw Muhammad and (potentially) offend a whole shit ton of people who had nothing to do with that episode getting censored.

    I think they should've shown that episode, I think they had that right. I think people have the right to draw Muhammad.

    I just think this WHOLE fucking thing done in response, is COMPLETELY childish, unnecessary, and absolutely worthless in effectively helping anything. A TV network censored an episode, so we're going to take what that episode did and magnify it a thousand fold, just because we can.

    See, the fact that you CAN, with no change at all in the scheme of things - means that the right was ALWAYS there. So some pansy at Comedy Central felt the need to take some supposed threats seriously, why not just criticize and try and change the network's mind? Why all this extra bullshit?

    Because it's your right to do so.

    Yeah, ok, it's your right. I never once argued that.

    But it's still stupid as hell. And terribly inefficient.

    Edit: Don't worry though, Buck. You're still my homeslice.

    Last edited by Two Listen; September 21st, 2010 at 09:22 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,819
    Thanks
    1,540
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 521 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    remove "all" in "all muslims" in that last sentence, and you'd be point on, that is my argument, yes.

    what you are saying regardless of this knowledge however, is "so what", right?

    you can speak out against religion without trying to provoke those people btw.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Comedy Central didn't censor anything they said about Catholics, Jews or Christians or Scientologists. So why this? If it Comedy Central was worried about offending people, South Park would have never been aired to begin with.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. #149
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zwarrior View Post
    remove "all" in "all muslims" in that last sentence, and you'd be point on, that is my argument, yes.

    what you are saying regardless of this knowledge however, is "so what", right?

    you can speak out against religion without trying to provoke those people btw.

    The point of that image was to show you redundant and somewhat circular logic. Just say you don't think drawing Mohammad is good because it's offensive.

    Drawing a picture isn't provocation. That's asinine. Saying Catholics molest children doesn't mean Catholics have open season on people who say it. Those people didn't "have it coming."

    It's like living with cavemen. There are people who's only response to anything that match up with their world view is smashing it with a rock. "Oh no that person said I'm not right! Stone him!" It's 2010. We don't beat up people with different opinions.

    In b4 disagreement = verbal abuse and causes psychological damage.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  38. #150
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    A bunch of different places.
    Posts
    635
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 508 Times in 230 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckWeisel View Post
    Comedy Central didn't censor anything they said about Catholics, Jews or Christians or Scientologists. So why this? If it Comedy Central was worried about offending people, South Park would have never been aired to begin with.
    Exactly! Comedy Central, or some people therein, got scared because of some supposed threats for the "safety" of their employees. Big deal. If I started freaking out every time someone from hundreds of miles away said he was going to kick my ass, I'd have a lot more gray hairs by this point.

    The fault was with Comedy Central, they're the ONLY ones that limited the freedom of speech being discussed here. Regardless of whether that was supposedly because of some extremists, they still decided upon that themselves. If random citizens can - without any change in policy, law, or anything at all, draw pictures of Muhammad without getting blown to smithies - or without fearing it, extremists obviously aren't a huge problem.

    I'm not arguing anyone's right to anything, I've stuck to my point of view for the entirety of this thread. I'm just explaining my reasoning, and why I think there are better ways.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 2

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •