Peter F Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 How do cartoons create a need for Muslims to "defend" themselves by deadly riots, or detonating retarded people in markets? They don't. I don't recall any riots (deadly or not) in North America or any exploding 'retarded people' in North America or anywhere else for that matter...except for the one incident in Baghdad. So your contention that the Cartoons inspire Muslims to defend themselves is very mistaken. You have taken the actions of a few (and who knows what thier inspiration is) and apply it to every Muslim on the face of this planet. Perhaps you should direct your question at those actually involved in the things you speak of. I'm sure they would supply all sorts of bullshit answers for you to rail at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Well, Friday has come and gone with no riots or other mayhem resulting from the 'shocking' program. Perhaps the viewiership was too small? Not enough advertising? Didn't get the message out, so to speak? Oh well. If at first you don't succeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Any "hot cross bun" riots? Only when my brother ate the last one. ------------------------------------------ Blood alone moves the wheels of history. ---Martin Luther Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) I agree with Kuzad. Deliberately inciting an already volitile populace is extremely sickening. But I really gotta ask... Moxie, why would you do it? Is it FUN for you to watch people become agitated? Is it FUN for you to laugh and point your finger at them? Do you get a "kick" out of hurting other people? Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, uh duuuuh..but you don't care, your pickin on the new "nigger" and you don't give a shit do you? *shaking head in disbelief icon* People. Like. You. Make. Me. Sick. Let me ask... would you personally do this (eat that cookie) in front of a Muslim at say, Tim Hortons? Pffffft. I doubt you would have the "moxie". Now run along and get your prescription, because it's obvious that you've run out of your medication. Edited February 5, 2008 by Drea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) I agree with Kuzad. Deliberately inciting an already volitile populace is extremely sickening.A "populace" too "volatile" to accept freedom is too "volatile" to be here. Maybe in residential facilities in Moosonee or Tutoyutuk (better yet Mecca or Rawalpindi) but no closer.Is it FUN for you to watch people become agitated? Is it FUN for you to laugh and point your finger at them? Sort of like Jack London's book White Fang where a cruel dog fight promoter taunted his dogs? Sorry, I thought you weren't such an anti-Muslim bigot. Edited February 5, 2008 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) A "populace" too "volatile" to accept freedom is too "volatile" to be here. Maybe in residential facilities in Moosonee or Tutoyutuk (better yet Mecca or Rawalpindi) but no closer.Sort of like Jack London's book White Fang where a cruel dog fight promoter taunted his dogs? Sorry, I thought you weren't such an anti-Muslim bigot. one could say a "populace" that thrives on intentionally inflaming other's , is to antagonistic, volatile, or destabilising, to be entitled to freedom either. Edited February 5, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) Only when my brother ate the last one. ------------------------------------------ Blood alone moves the wheels of history. ---Martin Luther could your brother not have shared? Edited February 5, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 one could say a "populace" that thrives on intentionally inflaming other's , is to unstable, volatile, or destabilising, to be entitled to freedom either.Part of freedom includes the freedom to insult and be insulted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) Part of freedom includes the freedom to insult and be insulted. actually jbg, no part of an individuals freedom could be described as , you have the freedom to be insulted or the recepient of insult or injury, as another party sees fit! are you kidding?! Are you for real? That's why we have such things as libel and slander laws.? right jbg? Edited February 5, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 actually jbg, no part of an individuals freedom could be described as , you have the freedom to be insulted or the recepient of insult or injury, as another party sees fit! are you kidding?! Are you for real? That's why we have such things as libel and slander laws.? right jbg? These people who would be so insensitive are the very same people that picked on the retarded/fat/ugly/loner/ethnic kid in school. God I hated bullies -- I beat the crap out of one of those bullies in grade 6. What a great day that was! She was picking on the smallest native girl in school and I came to her defense. (was that you Moxie?) They are a nasty bunch and I wish them all ill will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 These people who would be so insensitive are the very same people that picked on the retarded/fat/ugly/loner/ethnic kid in school. God I hated bullies -- I beat the crap out of one of those bullies in grade 6. What a great day that was! She was picking on the smallest native girl in school and I came to her defense. (was that you Moxie?) They are a nasty bunch and I wish them all ill will. what jbg fails to grasp is a right to insult or injure extends ONLY as far as anothers' right NOT to be insulted or injured. Therefore when jbg says Part of freedom includes the freedom to insult and be insulted. He is incorrect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 These people who would be so insensitive are the very same people that picked on the retarded/fat/ugly/loner/ethnic kid in school. Wow, what a sweeping statement! I don't think I'd go so far as to say that. In fact I'd postulate that these people being radio hosts are probably pretty wimpy. Perhaps they were bullied and are now using their public pulpit to inflict their own form of bullying as a form of revenge or vindication. Thats just idle musing on my behalf though, I make no claim as to actually knowing who they are or what their true motivation could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Spot the bully... --------------------------------------- Let's get out and vote! Let's make our voices heard! We've been given the right to choose between a douche and a turd It's democracy in action, put your freedom to the test, A big fat turd or a stupid douche, which do you like best? --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 That was interesting. Especially the part where the Muslim heckler was trying to say that Mr. Reid was not allowed to be in that particular community because it is Muslim. I was under the impression that it was England, guess I was wrong, not really sure what it is though. Admittedly, not all Muslims share this guys views, but all Muslims are not the problem. The guys like this clod are the problem. It really is unfortunate that they wield so much influence over others. Only a willfully blind person would deny that a major problem exists in England and much of Europe, how they will handle the problem is the million dollar question. Rationally I think it would be fare to classify this Muslim guy as a bully. Too bad that many of his contemporaries share this attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 So let me get this straight, In another thread about calling out some radical christian mother it is alright for the media to embarass her on national TV, and to take shots at them and there are some posters who are not only defending this but encouraging this. And these same posters when someone takes shots at muslims will turn around on a dime and say that we can't be taking shots at people because it is wrong hurtful and why would we want to piss off somebody? Holy hypocrisy Batman I think anybody should be able to give and receive shots equally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 So let me get this straight, In another thread about calling out some radical christian mother it is alright for the media to embarass her on national TV, and to take shots at them and there are some posters who are not only defending this but encouraging this.And these same posters when someone takes shots at muslims will turn around on a dime and say that we can't be taking shots at people because it is wrong hurtful and why would we want to piss off somebody? Holy hypocrisy Batman I think anybody should be able to give and receive shots equally. The difference is... the crazy woman did not act crazy on purpose, to incite the Christian community -- she was simply being herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 (edited) The difference is... the crazy woman did not act crazy on purpose, to incite the Christian community -- she was simply being herself. yeah , and she CHOSE, to put herself on that show, and then she CHOSE to act like a crazy person. She embarrased herself. Edited February 5, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Yes and the TV networks CHOSE to show her, the directors editors and producers CHOSE what scenes to put in the show, inciting the community and your choosing to take shots at her. These people are choosing to eat a cookie and are choosing to take shots. Are these people assholes? yes they certainly are, but that is their right and our right to call them assholes. Even in the replies you are suggesting that this woman is crazy. How about the individuals who blow themselves and others up, sounds crazy, how about the communists and their religion is poison attitude, sounds crazy, come on we can't pick and choose. From individuals saying how nutty religion is why are you only picking on Christianity???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 But they were wanting to eat the cookie in front of regular (non crazy) Muslims. This thread is not a pissing contest of whose religion is worse... it is about people deliberately inciting others to violence. Then pointing and laughing and saying "see, told you they were fanatics!". Grow the frig up already. ALL religion should be erradicated from this beautiful planet in my opinion. ALL of them. How many times do I need to repeat this.. Jeeezus Keeryst. People.. there is no such thing as a sky daddy. You are on your own, grow up and start acting like adults (only childish bullies would think inciting others to be "fun". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) what jbg fails to grasp is a right to insult or injure extends ONLY as far as anothers' right NOT to be insulted or injured. There is no such right. The circumstances under which the exercise of free speech can be considered to cause injury are clearly defined and do nothing to restrict the eating of cookies. Valuable Kimmy-Points for anybody who can demonstrate a legal precident either in Canada or the United States that shows otherwise. -k Edited February 6, 2008 by kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 (edited) It's called "common decency". Something which is sadly lacking. You have every right to tease that old bum on Main Street, but doesn't that little thing called "common decency" stop you from doing so? Sure some young people could taunt him and make him really mad... then run away laughing. Childish behaviour no matter who it is directed at. Adults who condone or do this type of thing are bullies. They were bullies as children and they are raising the next generation of bullies. So when your child's teacher calls and tells you that little Billy is pushing others around, remember where he got it from. (you're kids are watching how you treat others and learning!). Edited February 6, 2008 by Drea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 It's called "common decency".Something which is sadly lacking. You have every right to tease that old bum on Main Street, but doesn't that little thing called "common decency" stop you from doing so? Sure, but Kuzadd's message suggests he has a legal right to not be insulted. See what she wrote? "what jbg fails to grasp is a right to insult or injure extends ONLY as far as anothers' right NOT to be insulted or injured." In actuality, my right to insult another extends up to the point where it falls within the strict legal definition of libel/slander. Aside from that, I can say any damned thing I want. *my* common decency causes me to not cruelly taunt hobos, but that's an issue of my common decency, *not* any legal right of the hobo to not have his feelings hurt. Some comedians have made lucrative careers of having less common decency than most people; I can't recall any successful lawsuits or criminal proceedings against any of them. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 I didn't say it was a "right". But not doing it is the "right" thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Some comedians have made lucrative careers of having less common decency than most people; I can't recall any successful lawsuits or criminal proceedings against any of them. -k What about that Kramer dude? Wasn't he just trying to be "funny"? And that other dude, said something about Nappy something or other? I don't believe in squelching free speech at all. I believe people should have the "right" to say whatever they want (unless they tell people to kill or maim or otherwise harm a person). Just because I have the "right" to call those drunken idiots on the post office bench drunken idiots doesn't mean I am going to. What would it accomplish? Nothing. What does eating this damn cookie accomplish? Dialogue? Getting moderates "onside"? Moderates abandoning Islam? WHAT exactly besides the "fun" of seeing these people froth at the mouth from anger. SO you can get someone that angry -- does that make you proud of yourself? I just drove my 14yo son to cadets and asked him on the way -- "Do you think it's okay to tease and taunt someone until they get really mad?" "No, that would be mean." he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 What about that Kramer dude? Wasn't he just trying to be "funny"? And that other dude, said something about Nappy something or other? Was legal action taken against either of them? Charges filed? A lawsuit? Anything? Nope. Don Imus ("nappy-haired ho's") lost his job for a while because of the bad publicity his employer received. Now he's back on the radio. To re-iterate, there's no *law*. No *legal right* to not be offended. I don't believe in squelching free speech at all. I believe people should have the "right" to say whatever they want (unless they tell people to kill or maim or otherwise harm a person). Just because I have the "right" to call those drunken idiots on the post office bench drunken idiots doesn't mean I am going to. What would it accomplish? Nothing. What does eating this damn cookie accomplish? Dialogue? Getting moderates "onside"? Moderates abandoning Islam? WHAT exactly besides the "fun" of seeing these people froth at the mouth from anger. SO you can get someone that angry -- does that make you proud of yourself? Whether you or I see a point to eating the Mohammad cookies is beside the point. The guy who is performing this act believes that there's a point to it, and it's entirely up to him. Perhaps he believes he is provoking discussion on a double standard (it doesn't matter if you offend Christians, but heaven forbid you offend other religions) or perhaps it is his way of denouncing organized religion, or Muslim violence, or the status of women in Muslim nations ("get back in the kitchen and bake me some Mohammad cookies!"), or perhaps he is ridiculing the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, or maybe it's just a shameless publicity stunt. Whatever the case may be, whose business is it to decide whether there's merit in what he has decided to do? Some light reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ I just drove my 14yo son to cadets and asked him on the way -- "Do you think it's okay to tease and taunt someone until they get really mad?" "No, that would be mean." he said. When you pick him up, ask him if he believes in censorship. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.