|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 22, 2010 12:21:02 GMT -5
I guess the main problem I have with this whole thing is that people think that just because they say something to the effect of "no offense", then it's not offensive and people shouldn't be offended. People say that black people shouldn't be offended by the word nigger (I'm not offended by it btw) but that doesn't mean that you should get a huge group and go around screaming it. It's just not cool. It's rude, disrespectful and ya momma taught ya betta than that!
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 22, 2010 12:37:14 GMT -5
But nobody tried to get the word banned either. I think people are fully aware that it's offensive, and so they're trying to be as inoffensive as possible, while still standing up for their rights. That's why a lot of people do the stick figures or happy/peaceful Muhammeds. That's as inoffensive as they've found a way to be while still defending their freedom of speech. I don't think saying "well, it's rude, so we should just let the death threats slide" is an acceptable option.
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 22, 2010 12:45:21 GMT -5
It's still the principle of the thing. You're not just offending the crazies, you're offending Muslims everywhere. They shouldn't say "it wasn't directed me so I'm just gonna let the blatant disrespect of my beliefs slide" should they?
Btw, I'd like to commend the Muslims that peacefully counterprotested. I saw something about Muslims going behind some of the stick figure side walk chalk and drawing boxing gloves and writing Ali after Mohammed.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 22, 2010 13:57:11 GMT -5
So I ask you the same questions, do you have a better way to protest our right to free speech, which includes the right to draw Muhammed? Do you think we should just give in to death threats if the thing that instigated the threat is "offensive?"
|
|
|
Post by low on May 22, 2010 14:00:30 GMT -5
Jews hold a very strong belief that it's blasphemous to claim Jesus is god or the son of god. We'd best not allow anybody to express their Christian beliefs in public now! Well, hell, every religion could be offended by other religions' symbols; maybe we should take them all down. And frankly, I don't see how a stick man drawing at all can be considered on the scale of your quotes there. The whole point of Draw Muhammed Day is to demonstrate that we will not give up freedom of speech to threats of violence. Are you suggesting that we should rescind freedom of speech? Or are you suggesting that we merely shouldn't defend it when it's attacked? I haven't heard any better options for defending freedom of speech from these recent death threats yet. Well, one: if Viacom hadn't censored South Park in the first place, this might not have had to come about. I don't have a beef with Muslims in general, nor do I have a beef with any that find offensive Muhammed pictures offensive, but those who claim we shouldn't even be allowed to draw them? Them I have a problem with. (In fact, I find the very thought offensive; let's ban that too.) (Orthodox) Jews also don't believe that the name Yahweh or God should ever be written ("G*d" and "YHWH" show up), and also believe that it's Blasphemous to depict an image of God. Jews did not censor the Renaissance art, nor did anyone argue that because it was offensive to the Jews that it should not be done. The aftermath is that it's not very offensive, anymore. It's easy for one to argue that Draw Muhammad Day is intentionally offensive. As we've already established, no it's not (though of course there are trolls in for it), but even if it were, are there different forms of "offensive"? And even still, would it matter if it were offensive? Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote Submission to say that Islam promotes subjugation and violence towards women. That's pretty offensive, right? Well it's damn worth saying! Nakor, you won the thread. People who are against Draw Muhammad Day are not making good arguments. I don't think there are any, either. It also seems very apparent that people don't know what hate-speech/defamation actually is: When you attack black people,they call it Racism. When you attack Jewish people,they call it Anti-semetism. When you attack women, they call it Sexism. When you attack homosexuality,they call it Intolerance. When you attack your country,they call it Treason. When you attack a religious sect,they call it Hate speech. But when you attack the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him),they call it freedom of speech! tell me is this right?? Takerusaleh, I have to know first what you mean by "attack." If attack means violence, then you're making a bad comparison, but I think you just mean "speak out against." Provided that's what you mean, all of these groups are spoken out against all the time and in a number of different ways. Some statements are generalized, some are made for specific people, some make claims, some simply restate claims. Most of these things, hurtful or not, do not qualify as hate-speech, intolerance, treason, etc.. With "treason," you're just plain wrong and should look that up, but to the main focus.... Here's what defamation (the term generally used for "hate speech," libel if written, slander if spoken) is: the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. Now, I could say "Barack Obama is going to cost the US a trillion dollars," which fits the definition I just gave, but no one in the western world would call such a statement defamation. US Law, for example, ensures that, in order to be defamation, the statement is: untrue (or obtained through an illegal invasion of privacy) not already public knowledge or reputation not "debatable" (you have more freedom to defame a government or religion than a person) injurious to the plaintiff probably known to be untrue by the person who said it not something in obvious jest OR a direct call to violence against a person or group Hate speech is not something you say to offend people, but rather it's something you say to ruin a person's (or group's) financial situation, safety, or personal life or reputation. If you start a rumor that a neighbor killed someone, that's hate speech. If you start a rumor that a bakery uses human feces in their food, that's hate speech. If you make a direct call to violence against a person or group of people, that's hate speech. We still don't prosecute most of it in the US, anyway. It's very difficult to prosecute and for the most part, no one bothers trying. Statements about Muhammad do not qualify as hate speech.
|
|
|
Post by takerusaleh on May 22, 2010 15:43:07 GMT -5
OK, low, thanks for the response before I continue you should know that I am a Muslim, and I am NOT offended by the comics them selves, but the disrespect all of those people that participated in the "draw Mohamed day" showed us. For us Muslims he is a very important figure, a person everybody looks up to. Someone who showed us "what we believe" is the right way, who taught us how to live peacefully together and show your respect to Allah. when I asked if this was right, I didn't mean is it right to offend the Islamic religion, nor the extremists. I meant if it is correct to offend a person that has such a huge importance for every body? to make him look bad in front of the whole world? and to hurt so many people that love their prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) and offend their feelings?
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 22, 2010 16:12:28 GMT -5
So I ask you the same questions, do you have a better way to protest our right to free speech, which includes the right to draw Muhammed? Do you think we should just give in to death threats if the thing that instigated the threat is "offensive?" I don't. But lack of a "better idea" doesn't mean that this is the answer. You of all people would know this, right? And no we shouldn't "give in" but we shouldn't SHIRT on other people's beliefs in the process. Like I said before, I don't have all the answers. But just because I don't have the right answer doesn't mean that there isn't someone else out there that does. My original position still stands.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 22, 2010 16:35:30 GMT -5
So I ask you the same questions, do you have a better way to protest our right to free speech, which includes the right to draw Muhammed? Do you think we should just give in to death threats if the thing that instigated the threat is "offensive?" You do not preach rights by being spiteful and deliberately opposing those who do not agree with you. That is where many "activists" turn into the annoying people who everyone hates. Shoving this "we can draw mohammed" down Muslims throats will not solve anything, it will bring more violence, more hatred. You want to give right to free speech? Ignore any form of censorship.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 22, 2010 17:41:33 GMT -5
Shoving this "we can draw mohammed" down Muslims throats will not solve anything, it will bring more violence, more hatred. You want to give right to free speech? Ignore any form of censorship. The idea of draw Muhammad day is not to convert any Muslims, but to send a message to the extremists that we will not be intimidated by their threats. They can believe and say whatever they want and I will support them under the banner of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but the problem is that they are actively against this banner that allows me to support them. I am certainly willing to acknowledge that it is offensive and I am genuinely sorry to any moderate muslims who are offended, but the need to defend freedom of speech is more important. Of course the idea is not to convert muslims that is exactly my point. Such a day promoted hard-headed ness on both ends. I myself am not Muslim and do have my own dislikes of the Semitic and Muslim world - but that does not mean that I would promote deliberately spiting such intolerance. Fighting fire with fire is not a wise option when it comes to tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by swan on May 22, 2010 17:42:33 GMT -5
Shoving this "we can draw mohammed" down Muslims throats will not solve anything, it will bring more violence, more hatred. You want to give right to free speech? Ignore any form of censorship. The idea of draw Muhammad day is not to convert any Muslims, but to send a message to the extremists that we will not be intimidated by their threats. They can believe and say whatever they want and I will support them under the banner of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but the problem is that they are actively against this banner that allows me to support them. I am certainly willing to acknowledge that it is offensive and I am genuinely sorry to any moderate muslims who are offended, but the need to defend freedom of speech is more important. EDIT: Alright I wanted to edit my original post so I deleted it so that no one could respond to my post before it was edited, but then I decided i didn't want to edit it anyways so I reposted it as it was. TheIslander responded before I was able to delete the original post, which is why the posting order is a little weird now.
|
|
|
Post by swan on May 22, 2010 18:41:17 GMT -5
Of course the idea is not to convert muslims that is exactly my point. Such a day promoted hard-headed ness on both ends. I myself am not Muslim and do have my own dislikes of the Semitic and Muslim world - but that does not mean that I would promote deliberately spiting such intolerance. Fighting fire with fire is not a wise option when it comes to tolerance. Ignoring the people who drew offensive images for the sake of being offensive or racist (which is genuine intolerance), I'd say the rest of the people who drew images were not simply being intolerant, but instead they were being intolerant of intolerance. Freedom of speech promotes tolerance and by trying to impose their views on the outside world, the Muslim extremists are attacking freedom of speech and consequently tolerance. Simply critiquing a religion is not intolerance, and that was what Theo Van Gogh and the Danish cartoonists were trying to do, yet they were killed. Draw Muhammad day originated as a response to these type of actions, and I would argue that simply drawing Muhammad is not an act of intolerance, at least in this context. I mean sure we could display tolerance of Muslim beliefs by simply rolling over and not standing up to the extremists, but let's not forget that we have beliefs too and tolerance is a two-way street. Certainly depicting Muhammad is not a central tenet to our beliefs, but it is the principle that's at stake here, we cannot let the muslim extremists bully us into submission. If DMD was directed at Moderate Muslims, I would agree that it is simply trolling a religion and not a display of freedom of speech but of intolerance, but that isn't the case. It is directed at a group of people who cannot handle simple criticism and have to resort to terroristic methods and claims of intolerance to defend themselves. DMD is a group of believe who are displaying their rights and announcing that they will not be bullied. I understand how they could both be seen as intolerance, but I do not believe they are fighting fire with fire.
|
|
|
Post by low on May 22, 2010 18:59:25 GMT -5
OK, low, thanks for the response before I continue you should know that I am a Muslim, and I am NOT offended by the comics them selves, but the disrespect all of those people that participated in the "draw Mohamed day" showed us. For us Muslims he is a very important figure, a person everybody looks up to. Someone who showed us "what we believe" is the right way, who taught us how to live peacefully together and show your respect to Allah. when I asked if this was right, I didn't mean is it right to offend the Islamic religion, nor the extremists. I meant if it is correct to offend a person that has such a huge importance for every body? to make him look bad in front of the whole world? and to hurt so many people that love their prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) and offend their feelings? The reputation of Islam is extremely negative in the west. We know of Sharia dehumanizing people and of radical Islam's terror over the world. However, sharia does not belong in the west, no matter who thinks it does. Muslims in America seem to have had a very positive response to this, as AronRa's video that I linked earlier in this discussion shows. Unfortunately, not an extremely large number of people participated, but, if more and more people had done so, extremists would have no clue who to target and their terror over freedom of speech would become useless. Average Muslims in America who reacted to it peacefully (and publicly, for that matter) are helping to give Islam a better reputation. I'm not a Muslim, but I can't see an opportunity like this as bad for American (and possibly European) Muslims who just want to be accepted in the mainstream.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 22, 2010 19:31:01 GMT -5
I don't. But lack of a "better idea" doesn't mean that this is the answer. You of all people would know this, right? And no we shouldn't "give in" but we shouldn't SHIRT on other people's beliefs in the process. Like I said before, I don't have all the answers. But just because I don't have the right answer doesn't mean that there isn't someone else out there that does. My original position still stands. I agree that sometimes the best option we have isn't always better than doing nothing, but we still have to choose between that best option or being passive. In this case, in the absence of better ideas, we had to choose between Draw Muhammed Day or letting the censorship slide. I think that doing the day is a better choice than not. If we do not have a better idea, we go with the best one we have. Sometimes the best idea is to do nothing until a better idea comes along, but it's not always the case, and it wasn't the case here. Being passive is a choice just as taking an action is. In this case I argue that being passive is the wrong choice, because it sends the message that threatening violence will successfully censor things you don't want to see. And I never encouraged anyone to "SHIRT on other people's beliefs." Drawing a stick-man with the name Muhammed under it somewhere a Muslim might see it does not do that. Neither does spelling the whole word "God" where a Jew might read it, as was pointed out above. I'm not encouraging the bomb-head or other insulting drawings. They only find it offensive because we are not following their sharia law that says they are not allowed to draw him. A law that only exists to ensure his image is not idolized as a god! You do not preach rights by being spiteful and deliberately opposing those who do not agree with you. That is where many "activists" turn into the annoying people who everyone hates. Shoving this "we can draw mohammed" down Muslims throats will not solve anything, it will bring more violence, more hatred. You want to give right to free speech? Ignore any form of censorship. Ignore censorship...? Do you mean ignore that it happens as in, "we should protect free speech by letting it be censored when people censor it" or ignore the people trying to censor it as in, "pretend like it never happened and don't censor it when told?" Neither makes sense, because it was censored, we don't have control over Viacom giving into the censorship, and it certainly isn't maintaining free speech. When Viacom responded to the threat by self-censoring, the threat was made successful, and to protest and counter that we had Draw Muhammed Day. Ultimately it would have been better if Viacom had not self-censored, but we don't have control over that. Again, a stick man with the word Muhammed under it is not spiteful, except perhaps against those who made the threats. If I were spiteful I would go around posting bomb-head Muhammed or Muhammed and Aisha. If you can find a better way to reject the censorship of the Muslim extremists, and not just "oh let them censor it because it's offensive anyway," then I'm all ears. Until then, this is the best we have, and yes, it's a better option than doing nothing at all about it; I, for one, do not intend to let terrorists censor us with threats.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on May 23, 2010 0:12:11 GMT -5
i voted yes. it is offensive, but who gives a .SHIRT offend away!!!
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 23, 2010 1:23:15 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone said that before me, I'm not going to read all of the comments.
There is nothing wrong with drawing muhammed. The Koran said that YOU should not depict muhammed, that does not mean that other people can't do it, and most people in the muslim world understand that.
|
|
|
Post by mashuga31 on May 23, 2010 2:10:26 GMT -5
People shouldn't care. Most of the people drawing Muhammad aren't Muslim. It's not okay to burn a cross if you're christian, but if your not, who the fuck cares, you need firewood.
|
|
|
Post by redkneehighsocks on May 23, 2010 6:15:08 GMT -5
i think that we should respect peoples beleifs no matter how silly we may think they are we shouldn't anger people over what they believe. I find it offensive. very offensive
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 23, 2010 7:47:36 GMT -5
I agree that sometimes the best option we have isn't always better than doing nothing, but we still have to choose between that best option or being passive. In this case, in the absence of better ideas, we had to choose between Draw Muhammed Day or letting the censorship slide. I think that doing the day is a better choice than not. If we do not have a better idea, we go with the best one we have. Sometimes the best idea is to do nothing until a better idea comes along, but it's not always the case, and it wasn't the case here. Being passive is a choice just as taking an action is. In this case I argue that being passive is the wrong choice, because it sends the message that threatening violence will successfully censor things you don't want to see. And I disagree with this philosophy. I hear where you're coming from but I still disagree. It just all seems so hasty and immature, not well thought out at all. To me it's like trying to fight fire with fire and little bublasaurs are caught in the middle. When a better idea comes along, perhaps I'll back it, but I can't agree with this course of action.
|
|
|
Post by binini on May 23, 2010 8:17:26 GMT -5
[glow=blue,2,300]A Question I would like followers of this debate to answer: [/glow]
Where do you think the line should be drawn between freedom of speech and disrespecting others (be this racism, bullying, hatred e.t.c.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 23, 2010 11:12:31 GMT -5
I voted yes, it is offensive (not to me but to many Muslims). People seem to be approaching this like the question is "Should we be allowed to draw Muhammed?". Yes, we have the right to draw Muhammed if we want, but we have the responsibility to respect people's religions.
|
|