jbg Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 And by putting it on youtube he was also exercising it in the rest of the world. With the internet, where you physically are means nothing. But if Muslim eyes in Muslim countries are offended by a video they are free not to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) But if Muslim eyes in Muslim countries are offended by a video they are free not to watch it. And I can't see that Wilber disagrees with this. But it doesn't really speak to his point. Edited September 23, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 You keep going on about rights, No one is questioning their right but some people are very good at hiding behind them to avoid the consequences of their actions. You seem very reluctant to call those people to task. I see no reason to "call them to task" as they did nothing wrong. I have said repeatedly that the attention and focus should be on the murderers; all of the condemnation should be directed at the murderers. This film maker did nothing wrong except insult Mohammad rather than Jesus or God. If Christians didn't like that, they would be the butt of people's jokes; there would be no condemnation of the film maker. The only reason you think the film maker should be taken to task is because those he insulted are violent; murderers. It's exactly as I said before - giving violent people respect, as moral, ethical people are fair game. It's ludicrous - and it's a dangerous mindset. If it was someones right in their country to burn down a US embassy and murder innocent US citizens in the street because they feel they have been insulted by someone expressing their right in the US, you should respect that. After all it is their right in their country. Right. If it's someone's "right" to do that in those countries, I have already clearly said that we should cut off all ties with said countries, as we pull out all of our government personnel and put out a strong travel advisory to anyone who would want to go to said country for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 I see no reason to "call them to task" as they did nothing wrong. I have said repeatedly that the attention and focus should be on the murderers; all of the condemnation should be directed at the murderers. This film maker did nothing wrong except insult Mohammad rather than Jesus or God. If Christians didn't like that, they would be the butt of people's jokes; there would be no condemnation of the film maker. The only reason you think the film maker should be taken to task is because those he insulted are violent; murderers. It's exactly as I said before - giving violent people respect, as moral, ethical people are fair game. It's ludicrous - and it's a dangerous mindset. So a person can do nothing wrong if what they do is within their rights. They can be irresponsible as they want as long as it is within their legal rights. If it's someone's "right" to do that in those countries, I have already clearly said that we should cut off all ties with said countries, as we pull out all of our government personnel and put out a strong travel advisory to anyone who would want to go to said country for whatever reason. That would be your right. It's interesting how you would impose your American sense of morality on determining what should be the right of someone else to do in their country while at the same time maintaining that American's rights are unassailable in theirs and shouldn't be questioned if they are broadcast to countries that don't hold the same values. That I consider a dangerous mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Care to elaborate - as you ignore the differences between the situations you posted about regarding Bush's apologies and an American citizen exercising his freedom of speech in America? No, I do not care to elaborate or play the word games that you seem to enjoy; I will leave that to the others if they have the time and inclination. I see no difference in the two situations; Bush apologized for behavior that insulted a religion, not just once but twice; Reagan apolgized for past bad behavior that limited the rights of a race of people; Obama and Clinton condemended a film that falsely represented a religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 So a person can do nothing wrong if what they do is within their rights. They can be irresponsible as they want as long as it is within their legal rights. It's your sense of "irresponsible" that I take issue with, and which you simply ignore. Either the action is irresponsible, or it's not; just as bullying is wrong, whether one directs it at someone who will become violent in response or at someone who will meekly sit by and take it. It's wrong because the ACTION is wrong, not because the bully will become violent. So either the film maker's action was wrong, in which case it's just as wrong to depict Jesus or God in a bad light, or the reaction is wrong. Clearly, since every other religion is fair game, it's the reaction that's wrong. So why would I take a film maker to task for insulting Mohammad but not take another film maker to task for insulting God or Jesus? According to your mindset, no one needs to be taken to task for that because no one gets violent in response. Perhaps everyone should get violent. Then everyone could garner respect. Is that it? Or perhaps we should put the focus and blame squarely where it belongs - on those who act violently. That would be your right. Yes, it would - and I wouldn't expect to be taken to task for it. It's interesting how you would impose your American sense of morality on determining what should be the right of someone else to do in their country Where did I impose my American sense of morality on what should be the right of someone else to do in their country? Answer: I didn't. Furthermore, it's American law I've been referring to, not my "American sense of morality." And it's American law in regards to what goes on within the U.S. while at the same time maintaining that American's rights are unassailable in theirs They are unassailable in the U.S. if they don't break the law and are applied to everyone equally. and shouldn't be questioned if they are broadcast to countries that don't hold the same values. As I already said, the other countries in question can control what is broadcast in their countries. They can ban the internet. Ban YouTube. Do whatever they feel they must do to prevent something that goes against their values from being broadcast/viewed in their nation. What they cannot do is impose their values on us within our nation. What if Muslims objected to the guilty verdict, and the judge's comments in sentencing, of a husband/father who committed an honor killing in Canada - which they found out about on the internet - and rioted and killed as a result? Would you expect Canada to no longer find such people guilty? Would you expect Canadian judges to no longer be able to speak their minds? Would you take the Canadian courts to task? Or would you say 'this is what we do in our country and will continue to do in our country?' That I consider a dangerous mindset. Then you personally can kowtow down to the violent, and only the violent. As for me, I will continue to argue for freedom of speech within my country concerning all, not just freedom of speech directed at non-violent people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 No, I do not care to elaborate or play the word games that you seem to enjoy; .... Yes, pointing out the distinct differences between the situations is "playing word games," and asking for clarification is also playing word games. No need to "elaborate" on what you brought up, eh? Way to avoid addressing it - as it tells me without a doubt that you can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Then you personally can kowtow down to the violent, and only the violent. As for me, I will continue to argue for freedom of speech within my country concerning all, not just freedom of speech directed at non-violent people. Not going out of your way to antagonize the violent is not the same as kowtowing to them. You seem unable to understand the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Not going out of your way to antagonize the violent is not the same as kowtowing to them. You seem unable to understand the difference. How is it "going out of one's way??" As I have pointed out repeatedly, God and Jesus are routinely depicted in disrespectful ways. It's not doing anything that hasn't been done many, many times. The only difference is the reaction. Again. There is no difference in the action, only the reaction. If you continue to support free speech only when it's directed at the non-violent, then it is kowtowing to them - it is most certainly giving them, and only them, the respect that they demand - and you are apparently unable to see that reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Not going out of your way to antagonize the violent is not the same as kowtowing to them. You seem unable to understand the difference. You think? (link) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Yes, pointing out the distinct differences between the situations is "playing word games," and asking for clarification is also playing word games. No need to "elaborate" on what you brought up, eh? Way to avoid addressing it - as it tells me without a doubt that you can't. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one, and you are certainly entitled to yours. That I did not explain myself to your satisfaction is of no concern to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 How is it "going out of one's way??" As I have pointed out repeatedly, God and Jesus are routinely depicted in disrespectful ways. It's not doing anything that hasn't been done many, many times. The only difference is the reaction. Again. There is no difference in the action, only the reaction. If you continue to support free speech only when it's directed at the non-violent, then it is kowtowing to them - it is most certainly giving them, and only them, the respect that they demand - and you are apparently unable to see that reality. Fair enough, you gauge the reprehensibility of an action by the reaction to it. I gauge it on the action itself. That's the difference between us and I'm not about to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Opinions are like noses, everyone has one, and you are certainly entitled to yours. That I did not explain myself to your satisfaction is of no concern to me. It's of no concern to me, either; I simply dismiss what you have to say. As strange as it might seem to you, I prefer "explanations" when someone makes a general statement without any details whatsoever. I guess I'm just funny that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 You think? (link) Because there were riots in some cases and not in others didn't make any of those actions acceptable. Have we become so clueless and insensitive that the only way we know whether a behavior is acceptable or not is whether it causes a riot or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Fair enough, you gauge the reprehensibility of an action by the reaction to it. I gauge it on the action itself. That's the difference between us and I'm not about to change. No, I don't. *YOU* are the one gauging the reprehensibility of an action by the reaction to it. I have clearly said that it's the action itself, not the reaction, that should determine the reprehensibility of an act - as you clearly find actions reprehensible based on whether or not there is a violent reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) Have we become so clueless and insensitive that the only way we know whether a behavior is acceptable or not is whether it causes a riot or not? You might want to ask that of the people who routinely disrespect God and Jesus. The only objection I've seen coming from you is in regards to insulting Mohammad because of the violence. Edited September 23, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 You might want to ask that of the people who routinely disrespect God and Jesus. The only objection I've seen coming from you is in regards to insulting Mohammad because of the violence. I do ask them. I don't see the difference. The lack of respect speaks for itself, the reaction to it is something else entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 If you continue to support free speech only when it's directed at the non-violent, then it is kowtowing to them - it is most certainly giving them, and only them, the respect that they demand - and you are apparently unable to see that reality. That's absolute crap and you know it. It's as stupid as saying that because someone will react we should poke them even harder but if they won't react, they're not worth the trouble. I don't support free speech that is used to insult people to get a reaction. Nor do I support it when it is used to insult people who won't react. I'm not in favour of removing that freedom but I sure as hell do not support it. Anyway, going away for a few weeks. Won't be able to play your semantic game for awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 That's absolute crap and you know it. It's as stupid as saying that because someone will react we should poke them even harder but if they won't react, they're not worth the trouble. What?? Maybe in Bizarro World. I don't support free speech that is used to insult people to get a reaction. Nor do I support it when it is used to insult people who won't react. I'm not in favour of removing that freedom but I sure as hell do not support it. Wonderful. Apparently I just missed all of your outrage in response to the posts/media disrespecting God and Jesus, eh? Anyway, going away for a few weeks. Won't be able to play your semantic game for awhile. Such is life - you have to take the bad with the good. I assume you're going on vacation? Enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Fair enough, you gauge the reprehensibility of an action by the reaction to it. I gauge it on the action itself. That's the difference between us and I'm not about to change. What? That's the exact opposite of what you are doing Wilber. You are confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 What? That's the exact opposite of what you are doing Wilber. You are confused. That was my take on it, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Wonderful. Apparently I just missed all of your outrage in response to the posts/media disrespecting God and Jesus, eh? Nor have you seen any support for those who do it. In that at least I am consistent. I assume you're going on vacation? Enjoy! Yes and I will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 (edited) If we don't support freedom of expression for views with which we disagree, then we don't support it at all. Sure, it sounds a little like a platitude. But I think it's crucial. Edited September 23, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 If we don't support freedom of expression for views with which we disagree, then we don't support it at all. Sure, it sounds a little like a platitude. But I think it's crucial. Supporting a freedom is not the same as supporting its abuse. Anyway. Gotta go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Supporting a freedom is not the same as supporting its abuse. No, but often the abuse is an unfortunate side-effect, distinctly secondary (or less) to the overriding principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.