Which is something completely different.
One might suggest that a response to a personal insult is in some way understandable (a violent one not so much), but a response to an insult directed at someone or something else?Last I checked, drawings are pictures.
"Ridiculing drawings" are pretty much satire and there are people in newspapers who've made careers worth way more than $10,000 out of doing so - dating back centuries. Gerald Scarfe, Chris Riddell - here, check out this one by Peter Brookes:
So if these pictures don't look like any of the prophets - and without knowing what they looked like, the chances of drawing a picture at random and getting Mohammed's actual face are quite slim - what's the problem?What makes you say that? What evidence do you have to bring that "a lot" of people will physically confront you if you offend them?Wait... now you're suggesting that most Muslims won't physically confront people who offend them with the most offensive thing you say that can be done - but the rest of the non-Muslims will be up in your grill if you offend them?
I'd suggest that your latter set of numbers is wrong. Most people will not react physically or violently to a perceived offence, Muslim or not.
- You are right on the one's that
don't have writings indicating in any way that this is a prophet. Or the ones that have "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger" written on a bomb in Arabic.
But then there's also a problem with some of them that have a violent man wearing a turban with a beard. Nowadays only some Afghan, Pakistan, Indian Muslims wear a turban and have beards. let's not forget about Sikh's to this day have to wear a turban and grow a beard. So right there is another insult. I know this is a little out of the 'prophet insult' subject, but just to explain.
- I'm not saying me or most people will resort to violence if there was a random insult thrown while walking down the street. That's different. And some people (not you) tried to say that I will shoot someone for hurling an insult my direction. I didn't say that. If its my fault for not being a good writer then I apologize, or someone for being a bad reader then I can't help it. Or intentionally reading what they want.
But I did give examples on what I meant. As in keep getting in my family's face and/or trying to physically block them or me. Or following really closely while harassing them. In these I will resort to whatever can make them stop proportionally of course.
- As for how and why and to what extent people will resort to violence even from a look depends on the cause, people in the situation, the place and time. If you live in a hood or a Beverly Hills gated community. A slum or a palace. Educated or not. have good parents or not. All comes into play. You have parents that ground their kids when they get in a fight, especially when they are in the wrong. And parents that edge you to fight.
But even sometimes all of the above doesn't count. And you end up with rich kids shooting their parents. Or some bullied kids shooting up half the school. Or (pick any random act or violence that happened lately).
Now back to my original post where I called everyone involved in the latest shooting an idiot. I still stand by that. There should have been way better security especially after what happened at charlie hebdo. The shooters made things worse for everyone. And that's the plan for their terrorists masters to make a terrorists point. And the people involved in the childish hateful competition to prove something that is sacred to a lot of people all around the world not just the U S of A. Freedom of speech is the lifeline for the weak and less-fortunate, and shouldn't be used to spread hate or anything negative or contribute to it. Anyone can always get their point across without hate, negativity and stereotyping.