Attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

[Blitz24]

Wasn't implying Murder or even violence, and certianly don't condone it or think it is remotely justifed.

The Social Consequence alone can be brutal.

The Person should understand and be accountable for any Lawfull Backlash they may cause from their actions.

Any ISIS response won't be lawful in the US if there is an attack because they have effectively called for her head on a pike.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Wasn't implying Murder or even violence, and certianly don't condone it or think it is remotely justifed.

The Social Consequence alone can be brutal.

The Person should understand and be accountable for any Lawfull Backlash they may cause from their actions.

What do you mean "lawful backlash"? Can you give some examples?

 

[mustafur]

What do you mean "lawful backlash"? Can you give some examples?

Being sacked from your job, media Backlash etc.

 

[Scaff]

They also claim broad representation in the U.S.:

If they are trained to the same standard as the two this week then they have a very different understanding of that word to me.

 

[Blitz24]

Being sacked from your job, media Backlash etc.

If her employer held that position on his or her own then it would be fair. She's getting media backlash already from ISIS and other radical groups.

 

[Carbonox]

You are taking a mighty big risk by drawing and circulating to the world such an offensive depiction. Of course, we will (briefly) mourn your loss should you be taken from us. But what about the loss of Jordan and Egypt from the diminishing stable of client dictatorships we are pleased to call our allies? Is the celebration of one man's rights worth the loss of millions of friends and allies? Does your liberal's intent to "do good" justify any and all disasters that may accrue from your actions? Is there a qualitative difference between the lives of just a few innocents, and the loss of thousands or millions? Are you rashly putting your own pleasures and privileges ahead of those of an entire nation whose fate is tied up with positive and productive relations with superstitious religionists? You certainly have the right to throw yourself under the bus, and maybe the right to jeopardize the future of your like-minded friends, family and countrymen. However, as one who lives in a peaceful and stable community including Muslims, I am respectfully requesting that you remove your offensive avatar because I disagree that you have the right to endanger myself and my community who do not necessarily hold the same philosophy as you that do-gooder motives justify horrible unintended consequences.

I'm not really sure if this is serious.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If her employer held that position on his or her own then it would be fair. She's getting media backlash already from ISIS and other radical groups.

Pam works for her own organization that's devoted to exposing the dangers of political Islam, radical Islam and "creeping Sharia" in the U.S. I think her job is secure

 

[TenEightyOne]

You are taking a mighty big risk by drawing and circulating to the world such an offensive depiction. Of course, we will (briefly) mourn your loss should you be taken from us. But what about the loss of Jordan and Egypt from the diminishing stable of client dictatorships we are pleased to call our allies? Is the celebration of one man's rights worth the loss of millions of friends and allies? Does your liberal's intent to "do good" justify any and all disasters that may accrue from your actions? Is there a qualitative difference between the lives of just a few innocents, and the loss of thousands or millions? Are you rashly putting your own pleasures and privileges ahead of those of an entire nation whose fate is tied up with positive and productive relations with superstitious religionists? You certainly have the right to throw yourself under the bus, and maybe the right to jeopardize the future of your like-minded friends, family and countrymen. However, as one who lives in a peaceful and stable community including Muslims, I am respectfully requesting that you remove your offensive avatar because I disagree that you have the right to endanger myself and my community who do not necessarily hold the same philosophy as you that do-gooder motives justify horrible unintended consequences.

I take on board all you say. My intent was really the experiment I mentioned elsewhere; if a reader who would find a depiction of Mohammed offensive didn't know that my avatar was That Picture then is it still offensive?

I don't intend to breach the AUP and don't think I've done so. However, should the moderation or administration team (for example @Scaff and @Famine have been quite involved in these threads) ask me to alter it then I will do so gladly.

I'm never quite sure how often your posts are tongue-in-cheek...

 

[Spurgy 777]

I take on board all you say. My intent was really the experiment I mentioned elsewhere; if a reader who would find a depiction of Mohammed offensive didn't know that my avatar was That Picture then is it still offensive?

I don't intend to breach the AUP and don't think I've done so. However, should the moderation or administration team (for example @Scaff and @Famine have been quite involved in these threads) ask me to alter it then I will do so gladly.

I'm never quite sure how often your posts are tongue-in-cheek...

I'd be very offended if you removed your avatar, what now?

 

[squadops]

I thought it was this guy and said to myself, "hey, he doesn't deserve a bomb on his head" lol

 

[KSaiyu]

But I am sure that they will quickly regain relevance - and then some - the moment you feel slighted by them.

No they wouldn't. I've been called far worse than an "Islamophobe" to my face and have never met my ex girlfriend's father because my dad's Jamaican.

Almost three decades in and I haven't used an equality law yet.

Go on though, assume away. It seems the original point was lost: "equality laws" are an ironic oxymoron.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Almost three decades in and I haven't used an equality law yet.

Which is my point - you don't see the benefit of them because you have never needed them, and so you're happy to sacrifice them. But if ever they were repealed, and you found yourself in need of them, you will be the first in line to advocate for their return.

 

[squadops]

Do you advocate and ask for more laws @KSaiyu, you point out a bunch of stuff you don't like but that doesn't mean you are seeking a nanny state unless you come out and say it. Go on now, I know you are a closet big gov guy

I wonder how you would feel about a completely private medical system, insurance included?

 

[McLaren]

http://hosted2.ap.org/txdam/633c954... Shooting/id-10b0575b7de7429f859cce752a8ce1d7

Following the IS claim of responsibility, IS members and followers celebrated online with postings on IS-affiliated militant websites.
"How are you (Americans) going to live when we create our lone wolves to be nuclear bombs ... by God, you can't match us and in the heart of your homes you will see,"

Celebrating 2 men with rifles & body armor who only managed to achieve shooting a security guard in the ankle, whilst a traffic cop took them out in 15 seconds.

For a terrorist organization, maybe should have passed on claiming this one. Just saying.

 

[Dotini]

Meet your heroine, friend and ally, Pam Geller,

...she decided to organize Sunday’s “Muhammad Art Exhibit & Contest,” which would award a $10,000 prize to the “winning cartoon” depicting the prophet Muhammad.

“We decided to have a cartoon contest to show we would not kowtow to violent intimidation and allow the freedom of speech to be overwhelmed by thugs and bullies,” she told The Washington Post in an e-mail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...organized-a-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-contest/

Perhaps US and UK embassies all over the world should sponsor such contests? Perhaps we should start in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hero?

She's a bigot. She's disgusting. She represents everything that is wrong with the world because she can't cope with the idea that someone is different to her. So she feels justified in offending and belittling them so long as she can come out on top. Geller is nothing more than a thug and a bully herself.

The world is not a better place because of her. The world will be a better place despite her, and there is a certain justice in that. Because somewhere along the line, we lost our way. We don't want universal love - we want to be loved alone; we want it all to ourselves, to the exclusion of anyone else.

 

[ECGadget]

I think the issue here is not contests and image drawings etc, it is
1) Respect
2) Extreme reactions to incidents


IS are dangerous, that much is for sure. They terrorise within their taken territories and terrorise across the world. Everyone here I am sure will agree with that. And they are effective at doing so, taking anyone who doesn't support them and their way of life to be enemies. That includes Muslims, people of other faiths and indeed people of no faiths. Across the world people look at each other differently because they have tattoos, or a beard, or long hair, or dress differently, or are "too tall" or "too short". And when someone like these people does something bad, it is in our terrible nature to immediately feel as though there is some connection. For example in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s there were people known as the National Front; often associated with bald heads and steel toecapped boots. They terrorised anyone who was not white and were generally very violent people. To this day some people feel an apprehension if they see a bald man with boots on, because our mind immediately links them to the NF. So if an asian person were to see a person matching this appearance they would feel a need to back away or be anxious. In reality this person may have been recovering from cancer and returning to a building site where he once worked. Perfectly logical explanation for having a bald head and steel toecapped boots.


How does this relate to this situation with the horrible shootings (in which I am glad more were not injured and the gunmen were stopped)? Well we always argue our right to freedom. We are free to say what we want, when we want. No argument there. So now I am going to pick a very fragile topic: rights of black people in the USA. We know they have the same rights as every other person BUT it seems they make the news more, the police shoot them more etc etc. Does that mean that every black person carries a weapon or is dealing with illegal goods? Heck no. But why do people see that? A cop shoots an individual for no reason. Does that mean we "**** the PoPo"? No. Yet people see that. If we respect these people, we can do away with the bad individuals and what we are left with is a universally loving society, in which we embrace the similarities and accept the differences with calm and educational debates.

Does a person have the right to draw a man with a turban on with a bomb on his head. Yes.
Does a person have the right to call him Muhammad? Yes.
Would a person who has respect for other cultures, creeds and religions do this? No.
Would a person who has respect of the above mentioned organise a competition like this? No.

Muslims do not like people dipicting their Prophet. We all know this. So why do we do it? Is it to defy them and say "we can do what we want?" or is is because we are saying they are not deserving of our respect? In that case go on a draw a bunch of black people killing a bunch of white people and then put some insult on it. Not something we would do right? Why? Because we have respect. It isn't out of fear that we don't do things, or out of cowardice. We avoid certain things because we respect people. This lady here has shown us what lack of respect is and exactly what is wrong with all of us in one way or another. I am as guilty as she is, but I am trying to do something about it. I look at a person with lots of tattos and think "Danger". And I am wrong to think that. So everytime I look at a person who is tattooed I tell myself "He/she is not a bad person. I don't like tattoos but he/she do and they are not harming me or anyone else."

The same applies for the way we think about anyone else. I have vegetarian friends. When I am with them I will not eat meat out of respect for them. I could just eat it and offend them but I don't. I am free to eat meat, but not eating it for respect does not curtail my rights to freedom.


Until we remind ourselves what respect is, we will never be able to focus on the real dangers around the world, which include but are not limited to IS, Child Abuse, Rape, Murder, Hunger, Illness and addiction to GTPlanet

 

[Carbonox]

Hero?

She's a bigot. She's disgusting. She represents everything that is wrong with the world because she can't cope with the idea that someone is different to her. So she feels justified in offending and belittling them so long as she can come out on top. Geller is nothing more than a thug and a bully herself.

The world is not a better place because of her. The world will be a better place despite her, and there is a certain justice in that. Because somewhere along the line, we lost our way. We don't want universal love - we want to be loved alone; we want it all to ourselves, to the exclusion of anyone else.

She's actually got some balls to continue standing up to Islamofascism despite the constant death threats - just like similarly minded fellows in Europe by the names Lars Vilks or Geert Wilders... But I guess it takes less effort to act as a keyboard warrior and call them out for imaginary 'bigotry' than support freedom of speech in all of its forms.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Hero?

She's a bigot. She's disgusting. She represents everything that is wrong with the world because she can't cope with the idea that someone is different to her. So she feels justified in offending and belittling them so long as she can come out on top. Geller is nothing more than a thug and a bully herself.

The world is not a better place because of her. The world will be a better place despite her, and there is a certain justice in that. Because somewhere along the line, we lost our way. We don't want universal love - we want to be loved alone; we want it all to ourselves, to the exclusion of anyone else.

I'm a bit sorry for playing the ball here, but need I remind you that Pam still lives in the US of A, where we abide by the Constitution and not by Sharia law? Also do I need to remind you that a known Muslim Brotherhood terrorist hosted a "gathering" inside that very building where ALL press had to vacate the premises after 20 minutes (just long enough to say the pledge and sing the national anthem)?

EDIT: Forgot one more thing. Also, need I remind you that, ironically enough, that the first Sharia court being established in America is right here in my neck of the woods in Irving? The same Sharia court that is being investigated by our new Attorney General and Governor.

It is not that much of a stretch to see precisely why Geller and Spenser were barred from entering Britain again...

 

[squadops]

Hero?

She's a bigot. She's disgusting. She represents everything that is wrong with the world because she can't cope with the idea that someone is different to her. So she feels justified in offending and belittling them so long as she can come out on top. Geller is nothing more than a thug and a bully herself.

I'm sure there are many many people that feel the exact same way about Larry Flynt but that does not change the fact we should exercise our freedoms in the face of terrorism.

Larry Flynt Speaks Out on 'Charlie Hebdo' and Free Speech

Freedom is not free! We pay a price for everything, and the price we pay to live in a free society is toleration. That means we have to tolerate the things we don't like, not just the ones we do.

If you're not going to offend anyone, you don't need protection of the First Amendment.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell is considered a landmark case in the U.S. regarding free speech. While Muhammad may not be a public figure, the parody is similar to the cartoons in question.

EDIT: oops the parody has some language issues so I'll just link it. Mild cursing...
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/falwell/campariL.jpg

 

[Dotini]

Does a person have the right to draw a man with a turban on with a bomb on his head. Yes.
Does a person have the right to call him Muhammad? Yes.
Would a person who has respect for other cultures, creeds and religions do this? No.
Would a person who has respect of the above mentioned organise a competition like this? No.

Repeated for emphasis.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Repeated for emphasis.

So, if you had an ancient religious law since 300 AD that told you that you can't have any pictures of someone, you would follow it even though it goes into direct conflict with the local custom?

The apt saying, "give an inch, take a mile" would greatly apply here. The first recognized Christian church split, ironically enough, was over pictures of Christ, or rather Icons. The splitting Church would eventually form the Greek Orthodox Church. They didn't kill anyone in the Roman Catholic Church over them.

 

[Omnis]

The same applies for the way we think about anyone else. I have vegetarian friends. When I am with them I will not eat meat out of respect for them. I could just eat it and offend them but I don't. I am free to eat meat, but not eating it for respect does not curtail my rights to freedom.

I have vegetarian friends. I never eat with them, because they have terrible taste and go to the worst places. When I am with them, I can have a nice conversation, eat whatever I want, and we can be friends. Why? Because they're not going to kill me for being an omnivore. It's not a big deal.

 

[Scaff]

I think the issue here is not contests and image drawings etc, it is
1) Respect
2) Extreme reactions to incidents


IS are dangerous, that much is for sure. They terrorise within their taken territories and terrorise across the world. Everyone here I am sure will agree with that. And they are effective at doing so, taking anyone who doesn't support them and their way of life to be enemies. That includes Muslims, people of other faiths and indeed people of no faiths. Across the world people look at each other differently because they have tattoos, or a beard, or long hair, or dress differently, or are "too tall" or "too short". And when someone like these people does something bad, it is in our terrible nature to immediately feel as though there is some connection. For example in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s there were people known as the National Front; often associated with bald heads and steel toecapped boots. They terrorised anyone who was not white and were generally very violent people. To this day some people feel an apprehension if they see a bald man with boots on, because our mind immediately links them to the NF. So if an asian person were to see a person matching this appearance they would feel a need to back away or be anxious. In reality this person may have been recovering from cancer and returning to a building site where he once worked. Perfectly logical explanation for having a bald head and steel toecapped boots.


How does this relate to this situation with the horrible shootings (in which I am glad more were not injured and the gunmen were stopped)? Well we always argue our right to freedom. We are free to say what we want, when we want. No argument there. So now I am going to pick a very fragile topic: rights of black people in the USA. We know they have the same rights as every other person BUT it seems they make the news more, the police shoot them more etc etc. Does that mean that every black person carries a weapon or is dealing with illegal goods? Heck no. But why do people see that? A cop shoots an individual for no reason. Does that mean we "**** the PoPo"? No. Yet people see that. If we respect these people, we can do away with the bad individuals and what we are left with is a universally loving society, in which we embrace the similarities and accept the differences with calm and educational debates.

Does a person have the right to draw a man with a turban on with a bomb on his head. Yes.
Does a person have the right to call him Muhammad? Yes.
Would a person who has respect for other cultures, creeds and religions do this? No.
Would a person who has respect of the above mentioned organise a competition like this? No.

Muslims do not like people dipicting their Prophet. We all know this. So why do we do it? Is it to defy them and say "we can do what we want?" or is is because we are saying they are not deserving of our respect? In that case go on a draw a bunch of black people killing a bunch of white people and then put some insult on it. Not something we would do right? Why? Because we have respect. It isn't out of fear that we don't do things, or out of cowardice. We avoid certain things because we respect people. This lady here has shown us what lack of respect is and exactly what is wrong with all of us in one way or another. I am as guilty as she is, but I am trying to do something about it. I look at a person with lots of tattos and think "Danger". And I am wrong to think that. So everytime I look at a person who is tattooed I tell myself "He/she is not a bad person. I don't like tattoos but he/she do and they are not harming me or anyone else."

The same applies for the way we think about anyone else. I have vegetarian friends. When I am with them I will not eat meat out of respect for them. I could just eat it and offend them but I don't. I am free to eat meat, but not eating it for respect does not curtail my rights to freedom.


Until we remind ourselves what respect is, we will never be able to focus on the real dangers around the world, which include but are not limited to IS, Child Abuse, Rape, Murder, Hunger, Illness and addiction to GTPlanet

This goes both ways and you have only presented one side of it.

Why should Islam not respect my right to draw what I would like?
Why should a Vegetarian not respect my right to eat meat?

Why is it not valid to ask why Islam as a religion was totally fine with drawings and paintings of Muhammad for over a thousand years and is not prohibited in the Koran at all?
Source: http://facesofmohammed.ip0.eu/

Respect goes both ways and while I have no truck with Pam Geller at all (and my post history shows this) what you are advocating is respect in a single direction.

 

[ECGadget]

I have vegetarian friends. I never eat with them, because they have terrible taste and go to the worst places. When I am with them, I can have a nice conversation, eat whatever I want, and we can be friends. Why? Because they're not going to kill me for being an omnivore. It's not a big deal.

But that is beside the point. If you knew that they would take offense to you eating meat in front of them, would you still do it? And I would hope you wouldn't be killed for being an omnivore! But what may be a small deal to one person may be a big deal to another. A childs toy for example; one may keep it through adulthood. To outsiders or those who do not know the full significance it is a useless relic. To the person in question it may be the most important thing in their life. Who are we to say what is a big or small deal compared to our own lives? The best we can do is accomodate them by respect. Sure if a vegetarian says "thanks but I don't mind" then I would eat meat because I have extended my respect and they have extended a message of 'no big'. At least that is the way in which I see it...

 

[Scaff]

The first recognized Christian church split, ironically enough, was over pictures of Christ, or rather Icons. The splitting Church would eventually form the Greek Orthodox Church. They didn't kill anyone in the Roman Catholic Church over them.

Oh yes they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Thessalonica_(1185)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(1204)

In the tens of thousands.

 

[ECGadget]

This goes both ways and you have only presented one side of it.

Why should Islam not respect my right to draw what I would like?
Why should a Vegetarian not respect my right to eat meat?

Why is it not valid to ask why Islam as a religion was totally fine with drawings and paintings of Muhammad for over a thousand years and is not prohibited in the Koran at all?
Source: http://facesofmohammed.ip0.eu/

Respect goes both ways and while I have no truck with Pam Geller at all (and my post history shows this) what you are advocating is respect in a single direction.

You are 100% right yes, and it should swing in both directions. But at the end of it there is always a stronger feeling for things that seem "different" to the majority. Similarly I feel that in say a country where they were primarily vegetarian, they should respect someone who eats meat. Etc etc.
When it comes to beliefs and ways of life and cultures, we often tend to think in a very narrow band. And all these narrow bands tend to run alongside each other, each in their own little tunnel until they cross. If we widened the tunnel to have all the bands in one tunnel then maybe we would see a little more of what we should be trying to do as humans.

My argument should have been more balanced, and thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Omnis]

But that is beside the point. If you knew that they would take offense to you eating meat in front of them, would you still do it? And I would hope you wouldn't be killed for being an omnivore! But what may be a small deal to one person may be a big deal to another. A childs toy for example; one may keep it through adulthood. To outsiders or those who do not know the full significance it is a useless relic. To the person in question it may be the most important thing in their life. Who are we to say what is a big or small deal compared to our own lives? The best we can do is accomodate them by respect. Sure if a vegetarian says "thanks but I don't mind" then I would eat meat because I have extended my respect and they have extended a message of 'no big'. At least that is the way in which I see it...

It's called forgiveness. I forgive them for having terrible taste. They forgive me for being part of the market for meat (without which these animals wouldn't even exist, but that's another point).

Running with the example: these people came to my house for my meal, and intended to kill everyone because meat was on the menu.

Geller and these "inflammatory" events test the grace of Islam. These fundamentalists are, literally, disgraceful.

 

[Scaff]

It's called forgiveness. I forgive them for having terrible taste. They forgive me for being part of the market for meat (without which these animals wouldn't even exist, but that's another point).

Running with the example: these people came to my house for my meal, and intended to kill everyone because meat was on the menu.

Geller and these "inflammatory" events test the grace of Islam. These fundamentalists are, literally, disgraceful.

Exactly, and the moderates stayed away and let Geller and co have a nice rant and moan with some pictures.

 

[ECGadget]

It's called forgiveness. I forgive them for having terrible taste. They forgive me for being part of the market for meat (without which these animals wouldn't even exist, but that's another point).

Running with the example: these people came to my house for my meal, and intended to kill everyone because meat was on the menu.

Geller and these "inflammatory" events test the grace of Islam. These fundamentalists are, literally, disgraceful.

Without a doubt I agree with the fact that the fundamentalists are disgraceful, on both sides.