How does the World view America these days?

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:05 PM, chenGOD said:

Armed Arizona biker gang to draw cartoons of Mohammed outside mosque on Friday:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/28/armed-bikers-plan-to-draw-cartoons-of-mohammed-outside-a-mosque-in-arizona/

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

I mean how fucking stupid is this. You think they would just laugh if someone started pissing on their bikes and said it was "free speech"? Yeah those bikers, always known for their tolerant views on diversity. You would think with all the discrimination bikers face in society they would have some iota of fucking understanding of what it's like to be a minority.

 

Fuck's sake.

 

they are literally just drawing pictures of a person

 

fuck's sake

 

Yeah why don't you show up to that "protest" and just literally draw some pictures of bikers having sex with each other. Wearing a shirt that says "Fuck Bikers". Oh and make sure you're armed.

Get back to us on that one will you?

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:17 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:05 PM, chenGOD said:

Armed Arizona biker gang to draw cartoons of Mohammed outside mosque on Friday:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/28/armed-bikers-plan-to-draw-cartoons-of-mohammed-outside-a-mosque-in-arizona/

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

I mean how fucking stupid is this. You think they would just laugh if someone started pissing on their bikes and said it was "free speech"? Yeah those bikers, always known for their tolerant views on diversity. You would think with all the discrimination bikers face in society they would have some iota of fucking understanding of what it's like to be a minority.

 

Fuck's sake.

 

they are literally just drawing pictures of a person

 

fuck's sake

 

 

Yeah why don't you show up to that "protest" and just literally draw some pictures of bikers having sex with each other. Wearing a shirt that says "Fuck Bikers". Oh and make sure you're armed.

Get back to us on that one will you?

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I think it's important to point out that there is a pretty big difference between religion restricting their first amendment and personal attacks (like drawing pictures of bikers fucking each other).

In essence they are both just drawings but the point is that religion shouldn't restrict non participants rights, not that you can do whatever you want without consequence.

I'm sure Denny's is thrilled to be their meeting place.

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:20 PM, StephenG said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:17 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:05 PM, chenGOD said:

Armed Arizona biker gang to draw cartoons of Mohammed outside mosque on Friday:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/28/armed-bikers-plan-to-draw-cartoons-of-mohammed-outside-a-mosque-in-arizona/

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

I mean how fucking stupid is this. You think they would just laugh if someone started pissing on their bikes and said it was "free speech"? Yeah those bikers, always known for their tolerant views on diversity. You would think with all the discrimination bikers face in society they would have some iota of fucking understanding of what it's like to be a minority.

 

Fuck's sake.

 

they are literally just drawing pictures of a person

 

fuck's sake

 

 

Yeah why don't you show up to that "protest" and just literally draw some pictures of bikers having sex with each other. Wearing a shirt that says "Fuck Bikers". Oh and make sure you're armed.

Get back to us on that one will you?

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I think it's important to point out that there is a pretty big difference between religion restricting their first amendment and personal attacks (like drawing pictures of bikers fucking each other).

 

In essence they are both just drawings but the point is that religion shouldn't restrict non participants rights, not that you can do whatever you want without consequence.

 

well put

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:22 PM, Rubin Farr said:

I'm sure Denny's is thrilled to be their meeting place.

you have a strange take on the ethics of ultimatums

The dumb thing about this Muhammad pictures nonsense is that the proscription on representations of the prophet is only actually meant for Muslims, it doesn't apply to us kafirs. Having said that, deliberately provocative drawings are obviously going to upset even the non-looney fringe, not that an illustrative insult is grounds for physical violence of course, and people are getting upset over entirely non-insulting representations, which is just silly.

Guy, I really think you're missing the point of this thread, which is to discuss how awesome southeastern PA & southern NJ Italian food is.

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:20 PM, StephenG said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:17 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:05 PM, chenGOD said:

Armed Arizona biker gang to draw cartoons of Mohammed outside mosque on Friday:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/28/armed-bikers-plan-to-draw-cartoons-of-mohammed-outside-a-mosque-in-arizona/

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

I mean how fucking stupid is this. You think they would just laugh if someone started pissing on their bikes and said it was "free speech"? Yeah those bikers, always known for their tolerant views on diversity. You would think with all the discrimination bikers face in society they would have some iota of fucking understanding of what it's like to be a minority.

 

Fuck's sake.

 

they are literally just drawing pictures of a person

 

fuck's sake

 

 

Yeah why don't you show up to that "protest" and just literally draw some pictures of bikers having sex with each other. Wearing a shirt that says "Fuck Bikers". Oh and make sure you're armed.

Get back to us on that one will you?

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I think it's important to point out that there is a pretty big difference between religion restricting their first amendment and personal attacks (like drawing pictures of bikers fucking each other).

 

In essence they are both just drawings but the point is that religion shouldn't restrict non participants rights, not that you can do whatever you want without consequence.

 

Absolutely agree - religion (group think) shouldn't restrict non-participant's rights. Also agree you can't do whatever you want without consequence. Which is why it's not a good idea to draw insulting cartoons of bikers outside a known biker bar, just like it's not a good idea to draw insulting cartoons of Muhammed outside a mosque.

Look, you might not agree with muslims, or bikers, but if they're not hurting you or affecting your life in any way (and I can only assume that living in calgary, you have a higher chance of running into idiot bikers than idiot muslims, that's certainly the case in Edmonton and vancouver), then leave them the fuck alone.

By the way: just in case anyone thinks that only muslims get upset when you make mocking images of their spiritual leader:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ#Reception

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:46 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:20 PM, StephenG said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:17 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:16 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:05 PM, chenGOD said:

Armed Arizona biker gang to draw cartoons of Mohammed outside mosque on Friday:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/28/armed-bikers-plan-to-draw-cartoons-of-mohammed-outside-a-mosque-in-arizona/

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

I mean how fucking stupid is this. You think they would just laugh if someone started pissing on their bikes and said it was "free speech"? Yeah those bikers, always known for their tolerant views on diversity. You would think with all the discrimination bikers face in society they would have some iota of fucking understanding of what it's like to be a minority.

 

Fuck's sake.

 

they are literally just drawing pictures of a person

 

fuck's sake

 

 

Yeah why don't you show up to that "protest" and just literally draw some pictures of bikers having sex with each other. Wearing a shirt that says "Fuck Bikers". Oh and make sure you're armed.

Get back to us on that one will you?

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I think it's important to point out that there is a pretty big difference between religion restricting their first amendment and personal attacks (like drawing pictures of bikers fucking each other).

 

In essence they are both just drawings but the point is that religion shouldn't restrict non participants rights, not that you can do whatever you want without consequence.

 

 

Absolutely agree - religion (group think) shouldn't restrict non-participant's rights. Also agree you can't do whatever you want without consequence. Which is why it's not a good idea to draw insulting cartoons of bikers outside a known biker bar, just like it's not a good idea to draw insulting cartoons of Muhammed outside a mosque.

Look, you might not agree with muslims, or bikers, but if they're not hurting you or affecting your life in any way (and I can only assume that living in calgary, you have a higher chance of running into idiot bikers than idiot muslims, that's certainly the case in Edmonton and vancouver), then leave them the fuck alone.

 

By the way: just in case anyone thinks that only muslims get upset when you make mocking images of their spiritual leader:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ#Reception

 

so we agree: (some) Christians are also wrong about blasphemy

Sure fine, we agree - people are idiots about blasphemy.

Do you think this protest is a good idea?

  On 5/20/2015 at 6:45 AM, Ivan Ooze said:

lol

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:16 PM, chenGOD said:

Sure fine, we agree - people are idiots about blasphemy.

 

Do you think this protest is a good idea?

i think it should be

but since we live in a world where people get murdered for depicting Muhammad

on a micro scale: no it's not a good idea

but on a macro, historic scale: it is a good idea

as has been pointed out

part of the reason drawing Muhammad is dangerous

is because so few people do it

for instance after the Charlie Ebdo attack

some publications (e.g. New York Times) wouldn't publish the cartoons

or even the MET taking down all art depicting Mohammad

unfortunately this serves both to legitimize the problem

and localize the risk to those who do decide to depict Muhammad

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:16 PM, chenGOD said:

Sure fine, we agree - people are idiots about blasphemy.

 

Do you think this protest is a good idea?

 

i think it should be

but since we live in a world where people get murdered for depicting Muhammad

on a micro scale: no it's not a good idea

 

but on a macro, historic scale: it is a good idea

 

as has been pointed out

part of the reason drawing Muhammad is dangerous

is because so few people do it

for instance after the Charlie Ebdo attack

some publications (e.g. New York Times) wouldn't publish the cartoons

or even the MET taking down all art depicting Mohammad

unfortunately this serves both to legitimize the problem

and localize the risk to those who do decide to depict Muhammad

 

I really strongly disagree with you about this. Yes of course freedom of speech is important and people should be allowed to express themselves even if their opinions are extremely unpopular. Guess what though - they *are* allowed. These people drawing pictures of the prophet aren't getting locked up for doing so. The Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to picket soldier's funerals and wave placards about with 'God hates fags' daubed all over them. People are allowed to express racial, homophobic and sexist prejudice without getting locked up for it. Does that make it right for them to do those things though? Should we hold all of these examples up as shining beacons showing the world the values we stand for? I don't think so, do you? The people drawing these pictures aren't doing it because they're professional artists making profound postmodern cultural statements. They're not doing it because they're trying to make the world a better place. They're doing it because they're racist fuckwits. There's no scenario where it should be a good idea to be a racist fuckwit.

Yes well, in my idealized world, I'd be just a little bit taller.

But since we live in the real world...

Oh and btw, we might want to refer to Brandenberg v. Ohio here.

I just drew Muhammed getting a rusty trombone from Kermit the Frog. Jesus appeared in my room with a pitcher of beer and bro'd out for some chill moments of faith.

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:57 PM, Timothy Forward said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:16 PM, chenGOD said:

Sure fine, we agree - people are idiots about blasphemy.

 

Do you think this protest is a good idea?

 

i think it should be

but since we live in a world where people get murdered for depicting Muhammad

on a micro scale: no it's not a good idea

 

but on a macro, historic scale: it is a good idea

 

as has been pointed out

part of the reason drawing Muhammad is dangerous

is because so few people do it

for instance after the Charlie Ebdo attack

some publications (e.g. New York Times) wouldn't publish the cartoons

or even the MET taking down all art depicting Mohammad

unfortunately this serves both to legitimize the problem

and localize the risk to those who do decide to depict Muhammad

 

 

I really strongly disagree with you about this. Yes of course freedom of speech is important and people should be allowed to express themselves even if their opinions are extremely unpopular. Guess what though - they *are* allowed. These people drawing pictures of the prophet aren't getting locked up for doing so. The Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to picket soldier's funerals and wave placards about with 'God hates fags' daubed all over them. People are allowed to express racial, homophobic and sexist prejudice without getting locked up for it. Does that make it right for them to do those things though? Should we hold all of these examples up as shining beacons showing the world the values we stand for? I don't think so, do you? The people drawing these pictures aren't doing it because they're professional artists making profound postmodern cultural statements. They're not doing it because they're trying to make the world a better place. They're doing it because they're racist fuckwits. There's no scenario where it should be a good idea to be a racist fuckwit.

 

I agree that some of them are indeed racist fuckwits. But that is incidental.

And they are allowed to do it....sorta. They either get scorned or murdered. Freedom of speech has to protect the unsavory shit, the shit we don't like. It has to protect the Holocaust deniers and the white supremacists and the Pam Gellers of the world, otherwise it's just "freedom of uncontroversial speech."

Should the MET have taken down art that depicted Muhammad? Should Wikipedia have?

I think there are a few issues here, and we're both talking past each other a bit:

1) should people be able to draw Muhammad without fear of death? (I think we all agree that yes, they should)

2) is it wise--given the current state of affairs--to draw Muhammad? (Practically speaking, it is dangerous to do)

3) might there be some racist people involved in the drawing of Muhammad? (without a doubt)

4) do we want to live in a world where drawing Muhammad--for whatever reason--isn't dangerous? (I hope we all do)

5) When someone draws Muhammad (or writes a book about Islam, or a film, or whatever) and is murdered, is it their own fault? (I hope we all think that no, no it's not)

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:17 PM, chenGOD said:

Yes well, in my idealized world, I'd be just a little bit taller.

 

But since we live in the real world...

 

Oh and btw, we might want to refer to Brandenberg v. Ohio here.

yeah, see, here's the problem:

if I say "I will kill the next person who makes a joke about Clark being disabled"

then if someone makes a joke about Clark being disabled

they are not inciting violence

they are simply ignoring an ultimatum

p.s.

Sure I can agree with that (your list in response to Timothy Forward). But again, the problem in provoking people and creating a climate of fear around them in general is that if you expect them to take it lying down you might get surprised. Does me going up to you in a bar week in, week out and drunkenly insulting your beliefs repeatedly give you the right to punch me in the face? Not at all. Should I be surprised when you do? Not at all.

You are ignoring the imminent part of the decision. If you say that while being armed and there being a history of people getting killed for making jokes about Clark being disabled then there is an imminent chance of lawless action.

A decent column on the issue of hate speech here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

I love the idea that drawing a cartoon of muhammad is actually something that smart people would take time out of their day to put on a pedestal as an important/vital/crucial expression of freedom of speech. Actually i don't love it, its disgusting and sad

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:37 PM, chenGOD said:

Does me going up to you in a bar week in, week out and drunkenly insulting your beliefs repeatedly give you the right to punch me in the face? Not at all. Should I be surprised when you do? Not at all.

but bro we live in a secular society, anyone should be able to literally take a shit on a catholic crucifix in densely populated catholic areas of Boston while experiencing no discomfort awkwardness and definitely no violent of any kind.

MUSLIMS ARE FUCKIN EVIL DUDE

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:37 PM, chenGOD said:

Sure I can agree with that. But again, the problem in provoking people and creating a climate of fear around them in general is that if you expect them to take it lying down you might get surprised. Does me going up to you in a bar week in, week out and drunkenly insulting your beliefs repeatedly give you the right to punch me in the face? Not at all. Should I be surprised when you do? Not at all.

we agree on that

but i think we disagree on the reasonable-ness of the people being offended by a drawing

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:40 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

I love the idea that drawing a cartoon of muhammad is actually something that smart people would take time out of their day to put on a pedestal as an important/vital/crucial expression of freedom of speech. Actually i don't love it, its disgusting and sad

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:37 PM, chenGOD said:

Does me going up to you in a bar week in, week out and drunkenly insulting your beliefs repeatedly give you the right to punch me in the face? Not at all. Should I be surprised when you do? Not at all.

but bro we live in a secular society, anyone should be able to literally take a shit on a catholic crucifix in densely populated catholic areas of Boston while experiencing no discomfort awkwardness and definitely no violent of any kind.

 

MUSLIMS ARE FUCKIN EVIL DUDE

what's up with this whole passive-aggressive sarcastic streak?

can't you just express your opinions?

just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to mock each other...

(i'm plenty guilty of this myself, but i'm working on it...)

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:25 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:57 PM, Timothy Forward said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:16 PM, chenGOD said:

Sure fine, we agree - people are idiots about blasphemy.

 

Do you think this protest is a good idea?

 

i think it should be

but since we live in a world where people get murdered for depicting Muhammad

on a micro scale: no it's not a good idea

 

but on a macro, historic scale: it is a good idea

 

as has been pointed out

part of the reason drawing Muhammad is dangerous

is because so few people do it

for instance after the Charlie Ebdo attack

some publications (e.g. New York Times) wouldn't publish the cartoons

or even the MET taking down all art depicting Mohammad

unfortunately this serves both to legitimize the problem

and localize the risk to those who do decide to depict Muhammad

 

 

I really strongly disagree with you about this. Yes of course freedom of speech is important and people should be allowed to express themselves even if their opinions are extremely unpopular. Guess what though - they *are* allowed. These people drawing pictures of the prophet aren't getting locked up for doing so. The Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to picket soldier's funerals and wave placards about with 'God hates fags' daubed all over them. People are allowed to express racial, homophobic and sexist prejudice without getting locked up for it. Does that make it right for them to do those things though? Should we hold all of these examples up as shining beacons showing the world the values we stand for? I don't think so, do you? The people drawing these pictures aren't doing it because they're professional artists making profound postmodern cultural statements. They're not doing it because they're trying to make the world a better place. They're doing it because they're racist fuckwits. There's no scenario where it should be a good idea to be a racist fuckwit.

 

 

I agree that some of them are indeed racist fuckwits. But that is incidental.

 

And they are allowed to do it....sorta. They either get scorned or murdered. Freedom of speech has to protect the unsavory shit, the shit we don't like. It has to protect the Holocaust deniers and the white supremacists and the Pam Gellers of the world, otherwise it's just "freedom of uncontroversial speech."

 

 

Should the MET have taken down art that depicted Muhammad? Should Wikipedia have?

 

I think there are a few issues here, and we're both talking past each other a bit:

 

1) should people be able to draw Muhammad without fear of death? (I think we all agree that yes, they should)

 

2) is it wise--given the current state of affairs--to draw Muhammad? (Practically speaking, it is dangerous to do)

 

3) might there be some racist people involved in the drawing of Muhammad? (without a doubt)

 

4) do we want to live in a world where drawing Muhammad--for whatever reason--isn't dangerous? (I hope we all do)

 

5) When someone draws Muhammad (or writes a book about Islam, or a film, or whatever) and is murdered, is it their own fault? (I hope we all think that no, no it's not)

 

People get killed all the time for literally any reason under the sun. Suddenly this one reason is so taboo you've decided to go on some kind of crusade? If an American cartoonist had started drawing pictures of an Italian crime lord with his knob up a donkey and ended up floating face down in a canal somewhere because of it you wouldn't give a flying fuck. The perpetrators of the Charli Hebdo massacre were young, disillusioned, poor, an ethnic minority in a prejudiced country and were led astray and brainwashed into extremism. They were brainwashed by people with political motives, not religious ones. Their goal is to drive a wedge between the western world and all Muslims living in it, and by getting your knickers in a twist all you're doing is adding to the problem. Every negative thing you type on the internet can be seen by anyone who searches for the buzzwords you're talking about. Every time you go outside and look at someone wearing a burqa with an air of distrust and unease... it all adds fuel to the fire. It adds validity to the things that ISIS are saying to new recruits in order to get them to join them and turn their backs on the countries they come from. The only way towards a world where it is actually OK to draw pictures of the prophet and not need to worry about getting killed for it is to work with Muslims compassionately. Help to integrate them better into society. Not ridicule them for their beliefs or the clothes they wear. And most importantly not to antagonise. That's how we start to stem the flow of people from our countries who are making decisions to make their way to Syria and Iraq. That's how we start down the long road towards the world you want to live in. Arguing that it should be OK for a bunch of bikers to draw provocative pictures out of racially motivated hatred is not the way to go

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:55 PM, Timothy Forward said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:25 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:57 PM, Timothy Forward said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:30 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 8:16 PM, chenGOD said:

Sure fine, we agree - people are idiots about blasphemy.

 

Do you think this protest is a good idea?

 

i think it should be

but since we live in a world where people get murdered for depicting Muhammad

on a micro scale: no it's not a good idea

 

but on a macro, historic scale: it is a good idea

 

as has been pointed out

part of the reason drawing Muhammad is dangerous

is because so few people do it

for instance after the Charlie Ebdo attack

some publications (e.g. New York Times) wouldn't publish the cartoons

or even the MET taking down all art depicting Mohammad

unfortunately this serves both to legitimize the problem

and localize the risk to those who do decide to depict Muhammad

 

 

I really strongly disagree with you about this. Yes of course freedom of speech is important and people should be allowed to express themselves even if their opinions are extremely unpopular. Guess what though - they *are* allowed. These people drawing pictures of the prophet aren't getting locked up for doing so. The Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to picket soldier's funerals and wave placards about with 'God hates fags' daubed all over them. People are allowed to express racial, homophobic and sexist prejudice without getting locked up for it. Does that make it right for them to do those things though? Should we hold all of these examples up as shining beacons showing the world the values we stand for? I don't think so, do you? The people drawing these pictures aren't doing it because they're professional artists making profound postmodern cultural statements. They're not doing it because they're trying to make the world a better place. They're doing it because they're racist fuckwits. There's no scenario where it should be a good idea to be a racist fuckwit.

 

 

I agree that some of them are indeed racist fuckwits. But that is incidental.

 

And they are allowed to do it....sorta. They either get scorned or murdered. Freedom of speech has to protect the unsavory shit, the shit we don't like. It has to protect the Holocaust deniers and the white supremacists and the Pam Gellers of the world, otherwise it's just "freedom of uncontroversial speech."

 

 

Should the MET have taken down art that depicted Muhammad? Should Wikipedia have?

 

I think there are a few issues here, and we're both talking past each other a bit:

 

1) should people be able to draw Muhammad without fear of death? (I think we all agree that yes, they should)

 

2) is it wise--given the current state of affairs--to draw Muhammad? (Practically speaking, it is dangerous to do)

 

3) might there be some racist people involved in the drawing of Muhammad? (without a doubt)

 

4) do we want to live in a world where drawing Muhammad--for whatever reason--isn't dangerous? (I hope we all do)

 

5) When someone draws Muhammad (or writes a book about Islam, or a film, or whatever) and is murdered, is it their own fault? (I hope we all think that no, no it's not)

 

 

People get killed all the time for literally any reason under the sun. Suddenly this one reason is so taboo you've decided to go on some kind of crusade? If an American cartoonist had started drawing pictures of an Italian crime lord with his knob up a donkey and ended up floating face down in a canal somewhere because of it you wouldn't give a flying fuck. The perpetrators of the Charli Hebdo massacre were young, disillusioned, poor, an ethnic minority in a prejudiced country and were led astray and brainwashed into extremism. They were brainwashed by people with political motives, not religious ones. Their goal is to drive a wedge between the western world and all Muslims living in it, and by getting your knickers in a twist all you're doing is adding to the problem. Every negative thing you type on the internet can be seen by anyone who searches for the buzzwords you're talking about. Every time you go outside and look at someone wearing a burqa with an air of distrust and unease... it all adds fuel to the fire. It adds validity to the things that ISIS are saying to new recruits in order to get them to join them and turn their backs on the countries they come from. The only way towards a world where it is actually OK to draw pictures of the prophet and not need to worry about getting killed for it is to work with Muslims compassionately. Help to integrate them better into society. Not ridicule them for their beliefs or the clothes they wear. And most importantly not to antagonise. That's how we start to stem the flow of people from our countries who are making decisions to make their way to Syria and Iraq. That's how we start down the long road towards the world you want to live in. Arguing that it should be OK for a bunch of bikers to draw provocative pictures out of racially motivated hatred is not the way to go

 

If people who drew Italian-American crime lords were being shamed for inciting violence and/or being racist, then I would have some things to say about that, as well.

And if someone goes outside and looks at a person wearing a burqa with an air of distrust or unease, then that is their own idiocy at work. That is akin to saying "criticizing the US gov't adds fuel to the fire of ISIS recruitment," which I would never even think to say (And even if that happened to be empirically true, I would never in a million years suggest that the solution would be to stop criticism of the US gov't)

And I disagree that I am antagonizing people, rather than ideas and beliefs.

My mother belongs to a spiritualist church. If you know what that entails, then you probably know that it's not my cup of tea. But we are the best of friends. We don't agree about death, spirit realms, psychic healing, ESP, talking to dead people, etc. But these disagreements do not prevent us from being friends, nor does it make me see her as any less of a human being. In my eyes, her beliefs are wilder than the beliefs of the average Christian or Muslim...but again, that doesn't make me wary or uneasy or anything like that about her. Despite her goofy-ass beliefs, I would take a bullet for her.

People are people, regardless of what they believe. We should be free to criticize ideas and beliefs, and not conflate that with dehumanization of any sort. And the people who see Christians, Muslims, et all as less than people for what they believe...they are dumb and we should tell them that they're doing it wrong.

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:42 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:37 PM, chenGOD said:

Sure I can agree with that. But again, the problem in provoking people and creating a climate of fear around them in general is that if you expect them to take it lying down you might get surprised. Does me going up to you in a bar week in, week out and drunkenly insulting your beliefs repeatedly give you the right to punch me in the face? Not at all. Should I be surprised when you do? Not at all.

 

we agree on that

 

but i think we disagree on the reasonable-ness of the people being offended by a drawing

 

Where did I ever say it was reasonable to be offended by a drawing? I don't get it anymore than you do. But do unto other as you would have done unto you. I'm sure you don't appreciate people coming up to you and mocking you for whatever you happen to believe in.

  On 5/28/2015 at 10:23 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

And I disagree that I am antagonizing people, rather than ideas and beliefs.

 

 

People are people, regardless of what they believe.

 

People are what they believe. Or do you discount Popper? Ideas have physical manifestation.

  On 5/28/2015 at 11:37 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:42 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:37 PM, chenGOD said:

Sure I can agree with that. But again, the problem in provoking people and creating a climate of fear around them in general is that if you expect them to take it lying down you might get surprised. Does me going up to you in a bar week in, week out and drunkenly insulting your beliefs repeatedly give you the right to punch me in the face? Not at all. Should I be surprised when you do? Not at all.

 

we agree on that

 

but i think we disagree on the reasonable-ness of the people being offended by a drawing

 

 

Where did I ever say it was reasonable to be offended by a drawing? I don't get it anymore than you do. But do unto other as you would have done unto you. I'm sure you don't appreciate people coming up to you and mocking you for whatever you happen to believe in.

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 10:23 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

And I disagree that I am antagonizing people, rather than ideas and beliefs.

 

 

People are people, regardless of what they believe.

 

 

People are what they believe. Or do you discount Popper? Ideas have physical manifestation.

 

1) Yes, do unto others...golden rule is my boy...i find it morally disagreeable that people eat meat, but i don't for one second expect people around to not eat meat simply because it bothers me...i don't have a right not to be offended...nor does anyone else

2) my point was that you can dislike someone's beliefs without disliking them...this thread, for instance: i would hope that we could all disagree without thinking the other is a bad person or morally bankrupt or whatever...i have lots of friends and acquaintances that i disagree with on this or that matter, but that has roughly zero impact on whether i like them or not...and i have a few religious relatives, and their beliefs have no impact on whether i get on with them or not...

All well and good, but since people are (partially) made up of their ideas, when you antagonize their ideas and beliefs, you are antagonizing them.