msj Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Posted January 17, 2015 And I disagree. Call my mother whatever you want. It reflects poorly on you if you call her names. She's a big woman and I'm a big son so we can take it. As for religious ideas being beyond reproach: nonsense. If someone, in particular a non-Muslim, wants to do up a movie and portray Mohammed, whether the movie is pro-Islam or anti-Islam, then that person should have a right to do it. If a Muslim wants to shoot a movie (presumably pro-Islam but who knows, maybe to criticize elements of Islam) then he/she should be able to do so too. The actor portraying Mohammed should not have to fear for his life. Yet we both know he would have to. All because some Allah/God nut job feels "insulted" and "there is a limit." Yes, there is a limit to our tolerance of religious/ideological nut jobs and the millions of people who enable them. If you feel offended by something then speak up about it or ignore it (which is likely more effective). No need for violence. Not even a punch. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Big Guy Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 I do not disagree. If a person wants to insult another they have that right - except I assume that it is slander or libel - and accept the consequences of the act. In our society, there are limits to the form of consequences. Violence is frowned upon and killing is unacceptable. I do not disagree with anything you stated - except for the enabling part. People have the right to publish that kind of literature for reasons that they find valid. People have the right not publish that kind of literature - for reasons that they find valid. Now perhaps you can answer my questions: What do you think that the Star and other national and international publications should have published? Why? What do you think the result of that publication would be? If you have any more questions of me then please forward them. I am not trying to bait or antagonize you. I am interested in finding out why you feel that it is cowardice that prevented other publications from publishing what you thought they should have. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
msj Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Posted January 17, 2015 Of course the G&M and Star have the right to not publish the images. I have already agreed to that on the first page. I have the right to no longer consume their publications. I have also already answered your question re: what they should have published. They should have shown the most recent cover of CH as linked to in my first post. It clearly was news worthy to report so why not show the image? They should do a breakdown of some of the cartoons to explain them to people who do not understand French and may not understand some of the references used in the images (see post 36 for an interesting link). They should discuss whether or not it is reasonable for anyone to claim that images of such and such should not be allowed because, Allaha (or Jesus, or Yahew etc). That is, to challenge this notion that images of the Prophet are inherently offensive which is plainly ridiculous. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Big Guy Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Thank you for your civil and interesting reply. My last question is what do you think the result (reaction) in Canada would have been if the Globe and Mail and the Star and the CBC and CTV and other Canadian publications would have done what you suggest - including reproducing that cartoon of Mohammed? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
msj Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Posted January 17, 2015 Likely nothing. The cartoon is not remotely offensive. Sure, a few Allah nut jobs may get upset and threaten violence. A few Liberal nut jobs may get upset and write letters to the editor. Most people would find it is much ado about nothing since most people think an image is just an image even if it is critical in a "bad" way or an "intelligent" way or even if it "punches up" or "punches down." That is most people know freedom of expression is a right that has specific contextual limits which can only be understood when one views the full context in the first place. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Big Guy Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Thank you for the reply - you have made your position perfectly clear. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) So Charlie Hebdo published their response to the murders. It did have some repercussions; http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_CHARLIE_HEBDO_FALLOUT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-17-17-34-23 Did it have the intended effect? Was it worth the publishing? Edited January 18, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
msj Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Are you blaming CH for "causing" violence? Do you blame gays for being thrown off of buildings? Do you blame the pigeons or the pigeon handlers for breeding pigeons? Really? Images of the Prophet, being gay, breeding pigeons all "cause" violence by Allah nut jobs but it has nothing to do with the Allah nut jobs or Islam, or their enablers in the Muslim world ( not to mention the enablers in the western Liberal world).... Of course not. "We" must "restrain" ourselves and not do whatever the Allah nut jobs don't want us to do because, Allah! https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/isis-executes-men-and-boys-for-breeding-pigeons-throws-gay-men-off-buildings/ Edited January 18, 2015 by msj Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Was it worth the publishing? I guess it depends whether you see their actions as provocation, or making a statement in the face of threats. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
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.