Caricatures AGAIN Was it really free speech?

[russ_watters]

Have you paid any attention to a word I wrote Russ? I said insults to Prophet Muhammad. Perhaps you should go back and read my post #63 and dispense with the word twisting.

Insults, yes - you aren't disagreeing with me.

In fact, let's go back a little...

In Islamic culture, this cartoon is a nuclear bomb set off by the west.

Don't you see the absurdity of that statement? Surely Islamic culture would react differently if an actual nuclear bomb were set off in, say, Iran.

Perhaps you have missed the last few state of the union addresses by the president. He said that this was not acceptable, and he went to war. This was not the only reason for going to war, but it was part of the reasons. So you might want to reconsider your position Russ.

What!? The US went to war with Al Jazeera? Cyrus, maybe you want to go over this conversation again tomorrow - I don't think you are following it.

Russ, are those cartoons of Jesus, or Moses?

If you look, you can find such cartoons, but regardless, why would that matter? People are free to be offended by whatever they want to be offended by, right?

 

[Cyrus]

Wow. You are an American, right? You live in Maryland. I am just floored by the depth of your misunderstanding of the concept of freedom. A democratic government apologizing for the free speech of its citizens makes as little sense as me apologizing for the weather.

I have no misunderstanding of the concept of freedom. As I have stated before, and you have failed to properly read, it was within their right to post the cartoon. Yes, the government of Denmark is not obliged to apologize. This is true, but I have never said they are obliged. For the matter of civilized diplomacy and peace, a simple apology for the insensitive actions of the newspaper, or a public apology of the newspaper itself in conjunction with a speech by the president of Denmark, would serve the greatest good to everyone.

 

[russ_watters]

The word "obliged" does not apply here, Cyrus. An apology by government for the exercised free speech of its citizens is meaningless. The government has no control or responsibility for the speech, so it is logically equivalent to apologizing for the weather.

Lets try the opposite approach: what, exactly, do you think such an apology says and could accomplish?

 

[Cyrus]

The purpose of the speech, which could include an apology, would serve to show the Middle East that the cartoon does not reflect the values of the Danish people, nor does it show the feelings that the Danish people have on Islam or the prophet Muhammad. Something along these lines would have been an effective tool to show disgust and distaste for such appalling actions by its populace.

If you look, you can find such cartoons, but regardless, why would that matter? People are free to be offended by whatever they want to be offended by, right?

Maybe there are, so you find me some. I don't have to look, you're the one making that claim.

Don't you see the absurdity of that statement? Surely Islamic culture would react differently if an actual nuclear bomb were set off in, say, Iran.

It’s called exaggeration Russ, thanks for pointing the obvious out. The importance is that you get the implied severity of such actions towards the Islamic community. Stop picking and choosing trivial words from my discussion and start looking at the larger picture I have presented to you.

 

[russ_watters]

The purpose of the speech, which could include an apology, would serve to show the Middle East that the cartoon does not reflect the values of the Danish people, nor does it show the feelings that the Danish people have on Islam or the prophet Muhammad. Something along these lines would have been an effective tool to show disgust and distaste for such appalling actions by its populace.

What gives the Danish government the right to say what the values/feelings of the Danish people are? That's kinda the entire point of the existence of freedom of speech. Wow, again.

I may just need to start repeating this over and over: You are saying that the Danish government should apologize for its people exercising the freedoms that the Danish government exists to protect. You don't see the absurdity - the paradox - in that?

It’s called exaggeration Russ, thanks for pointing the obvious out. The importance is that you get the implied severity of such actions towards the Islamic community. Stop picking and choosing trivial words from my discussion and start looking at the larger picture I have presented to you.

Hey, you said it. Stop with the hyperbole and start making reasonable arguments. I believe we just had a long discussion about the quality of the postings in this forum...

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe there are, so you find me some. I don't have to look, you're the one making that claim.

A two-for-one sale! Jesus and Bush in the same cartoon!

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushvsjesus.htm

Cyrus, it is in extremely poor taste to ask for proof of obvious facts. I cannot believe that you wouldn't know that such cartoons exist both in the US and the ME.

 

[Cyrus]

I will assume this implies that you do not place any blame on anyone else then. Thank you -- I feel better knowing that I really am responding to what I think I'm responding to.

Of course. The blame clearly falls square on the shoulders of the people who ran the cartoon. However, when you do choose to publish such a cartoon that insults another country, you do run the very real and very serious risk, of giving your own country a black eye. It’s not fair to the people of Denmark, but that’s the way the world works. Sometimes you have to do things you want to, to ensure peace and stability.

(2) Of course, we must also consider that freedom of expression deserves defending. I think we agree that it's a bad thing that artists and journalists are being held accountable with their very lives. What do you think is a good way of doing that, since you do not seem to think defying those who intimidate as acceptable.

I am not clear on your question, can you please elaborate?

It's entirely within their rights to boycott Iran in response to the Danish cartoons too! Just because they have the right to do it doesn't mean it was an appropriate response.

In their eyes, it is appropriate. It is nonviolent, and I think that was the high road for them to take, and for that I applaud them in that regard.

I find it difficult to see how there could be a healthy and respectful relationship if the Middle East demands suppression of free speech in the Western world.

Again, I have to tell you go to back and read what I wrote. You have missed what I have explicitly stated. It is not a demand on suppression of free speech. It is the simple request of restraint on insulting prophet Muhammad. This is the last time I am going to say this, so pay attention everyone. They have the right to publish anything they wish. But when they choose to publish against the prophet Muhammad, the Islamic society is not going to sit idly by. There will be demonstrations and there will be protests.

Russ, was that made by the Middle East?

I believe we just had a long discussion about the quality of the postings in this forum...

Why don’t you present your material in one nice post and stop flooding this thread with all your ranting Russ. This is getting to be annoying on your part, please stop. I was having a nice discussion with Hurkyl until you came in here.

 

[Moonbear]

Okay folks, this thread wasn't supposed to just continue the old, locked discussion, but to bring new evidence to light and discuss a different perspective. Since there are now several pages rehashing the same old discussion that was already locked, I'm simply locking this one too.