Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Naked Muhammad (now there's a catchy title)

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso View Post
And in their eyes we'd be uncivilized. So we're resorting to moral relativism then? We can take this discussion that way, but that's a very slippery slope.
Morals are relative; you're thinking of ethics. Also: it would be easier to take your arguments seriously if you could spell "mosque" correctly. Mosk refers to an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso
As a matter of fact, Mormons are generally known for being hard working and having relatively low crime rates.
Proof please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso
We must accept that the muslim world, as it is now, is a threat to our civil rights and liberties. This means we have to make a choice between being "nice" and forfeiting out civil liberties for the sake of people that aren't even part of our social contract or make clear that we will not bend the knee to them and defend the rights our forefathers in all Western nations have fought and died for.
How are we forfeiting our civil rights? We're having a discussion about them right now, but in no way have we limited our civil rights (except the right to privacy. See: Patriot Act) as a response to actions in the Muslim world (which extends far beyond the Middle East). In fact, both Obama and Bush have been quite firm about not regulating free speech in the US in response to Middle Eastern protests.

Also: "being nice" and "maintaining civil liberties" are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
Morals are relative; you're thinking of ethics. Also: it would be easier to take your arguments seriously if you could spell "mosque" correctly. Mosk refers to an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court.
Ach! I suspected it was mosque but I saw Silverthorne spell it as Mosk and assumed it was correct because English isn't my first language (It's Moskee in Dutch). Thanks for correcting me.

Quote:
Proof please.
I thought it was a generally accepted view (or stereotype, if you please), but I think this should qualify. Utah, where over 60% of the population identifies as Mormon, has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, demonstrating that they're very likely less prone to crime than the average American.

Quote:
How are we forfeiting our civil rights? We're having a discussion about them right now, but in no way have we limited our civil rights (except the right to privacy. See: Patriot Act) as a response to actions in the Muslim world (which extends far beyond the Middle East). In fact, both Obama and Bush have been quite firm about not regulating free speech in the US in response to Middle Eastern protests.
We aren't. I'm merely stating that those here who claim that those here who claim that publishers of critical articles about Islam, cartoons about Islam etc. were in the wrong and should have "expected" the bursts of violence and thus bear responsibility for them are basically for a system where the media must apply self-censorship. If that were to happen, we would be in a situation where our civil rights would indeed be forfeited. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky this hasn't happened and hope this will never happen.

Quote:
Also: "being nice" and "maintaining civil liberties" are not mutually exclusive.
I believe they are. As I said before, the right to free speech isn't needed to protect those who only say nice things, because nobody wants to shut them up. It is exactly there to protect those others want to silence as soon as possible. Nobody will assassinate somebody that only says good things about Islam, but those who are critical of Islam face a very real threat. I can name two prominent figures from my country who were killed for their criticism of Islam (Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh) and two that run a real risk of being assassinated (Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirshi Ali). If people like these wish to express their opinions without getting slaughtered for it (sometimes litterally, Van Gogh was killed by having his throat cut in the same way cattle is slaughtered in Islam) then we must accept that some people don't say nice things, and these 'unnice' statements must be protected. Even if we assume these people are completely and utterly wrong, they must be proven wrong by other people that exert their right to free speech, not people who believe they can rob others from their right to life due to religious commandments that are in no way respected in a secular nation.

On a tongue in cheek other side of this- I have recently written a book for the kindle (The Unabsolved) which some people may find offensive. If enough people are wanting to burn the book I would be happy to go through a self publisher or find a publisher to print up copies to sell you to burn...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso View Post
Ach! I suspected it was mosque but I saw Silverthorne spell it as Mosk and assumed it was correct because English isn't my first language (It's Moskee in Dutch). Thanks for correcting me.
Not a problem. Also: google is your friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso
I thought it was a generally accepted view (or stereotype, if you please), but I think this should qualify. Utah, where over 60% of the population identifies as Mormon, has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, demonstrating that they're very likely less prone to crime than the average American.
Many popularly held stereotypes are incorrect (children raised in gay families are more likely to be troubled youth, for example). In fact, from your own numbers, while Utah has a lower-than-national-average violent crime rate (225.6 vs. 467.2), it has a higher property crime rate (3395.3 vs 3248.0). That said, there is still a lower overall crime rate; of course, that's true of many other states (by definition, approximately half of them, with skew dependent on outliers). Additionally, even if Utah does have a significantly lower crime rate than the US average, it still doesn't show that Mormon's are, by virtue of being Mormon, less likely to commit crimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaeso
We aren't. I'm merely stating that those here who claim that those here who claim that publishers of critical articles about Islam, cartoons about Islam etc. were in the wrong and should have "expected" the bursts of violence and thus bear responsibility for them are basically for a system where the media must apply self-censorship. If that were to happen, we would be in a situation where our civil rights would indeed be forfeited. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky this hasn't happened and hope this will never happen.

I believe they are. As I said before, the right to free speech isn't needed to protect those who only say nice things, because nobody wants to shut them up. It is exactly there to protect those others want to silence as soon as possible. Nobody will assassinate somebody that only says good things about Islam, but those who are critical of Islam face a very real threat. I can name two prominent figures from my country who were killed for their criticism of Islam (Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh) and two that run a real risk of being assassinated (Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirshi Ali). If people like these wish to express their opinions without getting slaughtered for it (sometimes litterally, Van Gogh was killed by having his throat cut in the same way cattle is slaughtered in Islam) then we must accept that some people don't say nice things, and these 'unnice' statements must be protected. Even if we assume these people are completely and utterly wrong, they must be proven wrong by other people that exert their right to free speech, not people who believe they can rob others from their right to life due to religious commandments that are in no way respected in a secular nation.
Did I say we can't protect "unnice" things? We can, but that doesn't mean that we stop trying to be unnice ourselves. I see no problem in saying to the Muslim world "we're sorry one of our citizens said something offensive. We're not taking them to court, because according to our laws we can't, but neither do we condone their actions."

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
We did that. Then Romney attacked Obama for appologizing.
Some men just want to watch the world burn...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
The point of a killer bees reference... if you know doing something is going to piss people off, and you go and do it for the sole purpose of pissing those people off... what kind of person does that make you? Is it so hard to stop and say, "You know, if I post these pictures, I'll upset a lot of people, which might lead to violence. Maybe I should use my head."
I think you should stop and say, "You know, if I post these pictures, I'll upset a lot of people. Maybe I should use my head." If the only reason you're not posting the pictures is because violence might ensue, then you're just capitulating to whoever is threatening you. As opposed to actually caring about them. Otherwise you're just saying that every group should take up arms since it's a good method of making people not make fun of you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
Did I say we can't protect "unnice" things? We can, but that doesn't mean that we stop trying to be unnice ourselves. I see no problem in saying to the Muslim world "we're sorry one of our citizens said something offensive. We're not taking them to court, because according to our laws we can't, but neither do we condone their actions."
I'm not really sure our country (through the President or other agency except an ambassador explaining how the United States does not control what people say) should be apologizing for anything a random citizen says. The opinions of a single citizen do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the country, and if we apologized to every group that gets offended by something some American did, we'd never be able to stop. What's makes Muslims so special that we need to apologize to them? Nothing, that's what. Also, do you really think that the President apologizing is going to stop groups from attacking us if they've already decided to do so? If the country wants to apologize for actions it endorsed, then by all means go ahead, but otherwise the responsibility is to protect our citizens' rights and not waste time with what is ultimately a futile gesture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
We did that. Then Romney attacked Obama for appologizing.
Romney has little sense of politeness then. One of the many reasons I won't vote for him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VampireBunBun View Post
I'm not really sure our country (through the President or other agency except an ambassador explaining how the United States does not control what people say) should be apologizing for anything a random citizen says.
I agree, and in fact the President should be attacking the government of those countries (in speech) because they have deliberately mis-educated their citizens as to the nature of the film, and the US stance on it.

i don't think a regime which has sprung up in teh last year can really be held responsible for how it's citizens were educated...




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status