Cartoons upset Danish Muslims

[Flashpoint]

When the right to verbally offend is not allowed, when politicians give lawyers, bureaucrats, prosecutors, and human rights tribunals and others the right to pronounce on what constitutes acceptable speech, they've made a judgment call from the present against both the past and the future.

After thousands of years of prophets, politicians, and thinkers as diverse as Plato, Confucius, Karl Marx and Christ, human beings have starkly different views on every conceivable subject, plenty of which are controversial. We all have limited lifespans and limited understandings. The last thing any citizen should do is to give one or several minor minds the inflated notion that they, a mere speck in the history of the planet, have the right to criminally judge others on matters of thought and speech, especially given the reality that such issues are intellectually, philosophically, religiously and culturally charged.

http://www.howestreet.com/articles/i...rticle_id=5697

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

If violence erupts because these guys print these comics again, will the editors be responsible? For that matter will I be responsible when Eric Goddard punches me in the face. Well, seeing as both of those are reasonably expected reactions to our use of our freedom of speach, I'd say neither me, nor the editors printing these cartoons should be considered 100% innocent.

Why would they be responsible? The people conducting the violence are the ones responsible. Your entire posts goes to illustrate how western society is affraid to stand up for there beliefs for fear of insulting someone else.

[Shawnski]

Me thinkst BBS missed Photon's link where this "republishing" was triggered as there were several men arrested for plotting to kill one of the cartoonists.

Had they not done that, the pictures would not have been republished.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Holy crap was my first post full of gramatical errors, sorry about that folks, didn't proof read it before I posted. Should be better now.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Me thinkst BBS missed Photon's link where this "republishing" was triggered as there were several men arrested for plotting to kill one of the cartoonists.

Had they not done that, the pictures would not have been republished.

No, I saw that, and that's why I think it's a bit of a stupid move.
The issue has been resolved, so why bring it up again, knowing full well that violence is a likely consequence of doing so, especially when the optics of it look like they are doing it to rub it in a bit.
Whether that's what they are doing or not, that is how it will be preceived, and that is what will cause issues. Issues that could easily be prevented if the editors just showed a little bit of restraint or common sense.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Why would they be responsible? The people conducting the violence are the ones responsible. Your entire posts goes to illustrate how western society is affraid to stand up for there beliefs for fear of insulting someone else.

Are they legally responsible? Probably not, but I'd say that they are at least partially responsible in a moral and ethical sense.

If ther are going to willingly publish something that they know will likely cause riots, then they should be willing to accept some responsibility for that. True, they aren't the ones throwing rocks and breaking stuff, but they are the ones inciting it by printing something that they know will cause this.

I realize this isn't the same level as something like spouting a bunch of hate speach, but that type of thing is illegal for these exact reasons.
Sure I'm not the one to go burn down Mosques, but if I'm spouting to a bunch of people to do so, I can be held responsible.

I don't want to see this type of thing banned, because the outrage that it causes is completely irrational (at least to us in the western world), but at the same time it is predicable and preventable.

They printed them once and they caused a ruckus. Fine, I totally agree that the reacation that these caused wasn't predicatable, but now it is, and I'd say it's not unreasonable to say it could be worse due to the perception that it is being done as a slap in the face to those who reacted so intensley in the first place.

Do they have the right to print it?
Of course they do.

Should they print it?
I'd say no, wny add fuel to the fire?

It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of logic and common sense.
If you hate your buddy's girlfriend do you tell him? Probably not (unless your a dick). Why don't you tell him, because you're affraid he might kick your ass? Maybe, but probably more because you can reason through it and conclude that it won't change a thing, and will only make things difficult between you, so you're better off to keep your mouth shut.

Common Sense != Fear

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Are they legally responsible? Probably not, but I'd say that they are at least partially responsible in a moral and ethical sense.

If ther are going to willingly publish something that they know will likely cause riots, then they should be willing to accept some responsibility for that. True, they aren't the ones throwing rocks and breaking stuff, but they are the ones inciting it by printing something that they know will cause this.

I realize this isn't the same level as something like spouting a bunch of hate speach, but that type of thing is illegal for these exact reasons.
Sure I'm not the one to go burn down Mosques, but if I'm spouting to a bunch of people to do so, I can be held responsible.

I don't want to see this type of thing banned, because the outrage that it causes is completely irrational (at least to us in the western world), but at the same time it is predicable and preventable.

They printed them once and they caused a ruckus. Fine, I totally agree that the reacation that these caused wasn't predicatable, but now it is, and I'd say it's not unreasonable to say it could be worse due to the perception that it is being done as a slap in the face to those who reacted so intensley in the first place.

Do they have the right to print it?
Of course they do.

Should they print it?
I'd say no, wny add fuel to the fire?

It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of logic and common sense.
If you hate your buddy's girlfriend do you tell him? Probably not (unless your a dick). Why don't you tell him, because you're affraid he might kick your ass? Maybe, but probably more because you can reason through it and conclude that it won't change a thing, and will only make things difficult between you, so you're better off to keep your mouth shut.

Common Sense != Fear

What? If you are a true friend you would be able to tell him anything. If the girl is a B**ch I am going to tell him if he is my real friend and a real friend wouldn't be mad. Lieing to people is what causes a lot of problems.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What? If you are a true friend you would be able to tell him anything. If the girl is a B**ch I am going to tell him if he is my real friend and a real friend wouldn't be mad. Lieing to people is what what causes a lot of problems.

Well I beg to differ, but friend analogy aside, I stand by my assertation that the guys that are republishing these cartoons are at least somewhat morraly and ethically responsible for the consequences that they can very reasonbly expect to come from this.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well I beg to differ, but friend analogy aside, I stand by my assertation that the guys that are republishing these cartoons are at least somewhat morraly and ethically responsible for the consequences that they can very reasonbly expect to come from this.

I know what your saying BBS but it is not reasonable to expect death and destruction because of a cartoon publishment.

[photon]

Everytime I read this thread I think of that scene where Bart says "I'm going to swing my arms like this" and Lisa says "I'm going to kick the air like this".

By republishing it maybe they want to see if the reaction is any better this time, to see if things have improved?

[jolinar of malkshor]

What the extremists are, are a bunch of bullies. You do something they don't like they act out. What is the best way to deal with a bully? Stand up for yourself.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by fotze

So maybe they said "wait a minute, fata you if you want to burn a car over a cartoon, if you expect to see nothing disagreable in our newsprint, then fata off".

And good for them if they did.

I don't buy the explanation that this is any noble gesture on the part of the publishers and I think it's kind of a cynical and cheap way to make some noise, but oh well. it's not illegal to be cynical or cheap. Some people will just have to learn to live with it.

Hopefully those who take offense will take a deep breath and say "wait a minute, let's not act like a bunch of ######s this time".

Maybe running the stupid cartoons every week would be good in the long run.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I know what your saying BBS but it is not reasonable to expect death and destruction because of a cartoon publishment.

The first time it was published I 100% agree with you, but after seeing the reaction to the last time they were published, do you honestly say it isn't reasonable to expect violence if they are publised again.

If I pet a poodle, I don't think it's gonna bite me. But if it does, then I think it's totally reasonable to expect it to bite me the next time I pet it too.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The first time it was published I 100% agree with you, but after seeing the reaction to the last time they were published, do you honestly say it isn't reasonable to expect violence if they are publised again.

If I pet a poodle, I don't think it's gonna bite me. But if it does, then I think it's totally reasonable to expect it to bite me the next time I pet it too.

So you let the little poodle dictate how you run your life?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by fotze

I agree but do you not see why they would bring it back up?

There was a cartoon printed year or two go and it caused violence. There is already resentment in the country because people who have paid vast sums in taxes their whole life are getting shortchanged in their retirement to pay for a very generous social system combined with a very liberal immigration policy. The danes are a mostly peaceful place but extremely liberal and bent over backwards (and some would say forwards) when they printed a couple cartoons and tried to stem the violence.

There has to be a large part of the population (that is peace loving and hippy like) who said "wait a minute, 10 years ago a cartoon like this would have not caused a stir and if it was against catholics it would have been laughed at like the rest of the catholic humor is in the country". So maybe they said "wait a minute, fata you if you want to burn a car over a cartoon, if you expect to see nothing disagreable in our newsprint, then fata off".

Of course they expected some reaction, hopefully all sides react like civilized human beings.

Yeah, and hope and $7 will get you a cup of Starbucks.
To expect people who rioted over this last time, to see them again and say "Well maybe we should just let it go this time" seems a bit of a pipe dream.

Are the rioters acting like reasonable people should react, of course not, but that's why sometimes people have to make smart/hard decions to protect the greater good. In this case it's showing a little bit of restraint with thier freedom of speach and just letting the issue die like it should.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So you let the little poodle dictate how you run your life?

My whole life no, but when it comes to my desire to pet poodles, I'd guess the poodle would be the one dictating the terms.

The point is to know when to pick your battles. Is printing these cartoons really that important? They were cartoons depicting muslims as violent, and in reaction a small group of muslims became violent. POINT TAKEN! Why bring it up again, if it's just going to cause issues, it's a great example of beating a dead horse, we all know that there are groups of crazy muslims that react violently to just about anything they find mildly offensive, and we found out that these cartoons are in that category, so why test the theory again, what good can come of it?

I guess my point is the risk reward issue involved in printing this.

Risks: Widespread violence
Rewards: ?????? A sense of smuggness? A chance to thumb your nose at the guys who tried to kill you? Hell even if it's just to prove that you're not intimidated by potential violence, that's a bit of a dangerous game to play to prove a point.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

My whole life no, but when it comes to my desire to pet poodles, I'd guess the poodle would be the one dictating the terms.

The point is to know when to pick your battles. Is printing these cartoons really that important? They were cartoons depicting muslims as violent, and in reaction a small group of muslims became violent. POINT TAKEN! Why bring it up again, if it's just going to cause issues, it's a great example of beating a dead horse, we all know that there are groups of crazy muslims that react violently to just about anything they find mildly offensive, and we found out that these cartoons are in that category, so why test the theory again, what good can come of it?

I guess my point is the risk reward issue involved in printing this.

Risks: Widespread violence
Rewards: ?????? A sense of smuggness? A chance to thumb your nose at the guys who tried to kill you? Hell even if it's just to prove that you're not intimidated by potential violence, that's a bit of a dangerous game to play to prove a point.

Reward: Showing them that we will stand up for our values and beliefs.

If western societies become scared to practice one of our main tenants then they have succeeded. Do you not see that?

Going back to your example with the poodle. If it bit me, I would give it a good whack and try it again. If it bit me again, I would give it a good whack and it will eventually realize not to bite.

[Lucky boy]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Going back to your example with the poodle. If it bit me, I would give it a good whack and try it again. If it bit me again, I would give it a good whack and it will eventually realize not to bite.

You do realize that the crazy muslims are thinking the exact same way, dont you? I mean you are trying to impose your way of thinking on the poodle as the poodle is trying to impose her way of thinking on you ... right?

But of course when you do it, it is right. I mean you live in first world country, you can't be a poodle. You must be right.


I think everyone here knows that unlimited freedom of expression can never exist. Lets face it, the world is full of different races, and no one group will be able to force their way of thinking on everyone else. Pictures and words can hurt just as much as a punch to the face.

I am with the group that think the publishers are not as noble in their intentions.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lucky boy

You do realize that the crazy muslims are thinking the exact same way, dont you? I mean you are trying to impose your way of thinking on the poodle as the poodle is trying to impose her way of thinking on you ... right?

But of course when you do it, it is right. I mean you live in first world country, you can't be a poodle. You must be right.


I think everyone here knows that unlimited freedom of expression can never exist. Lets face it, the world is full of different races, and no one group will be able to force their way of thinking on everyone else. Pictures and words can hurt just as much as a punch to the face.

I am with the group that think the publishers are not as noble in their intentions.

WHAT? Freedom of belief, religion and expression is something that is forced? It is a human right. These people came to that country with the knowledge of that. There is no force what so ever being applied. That is the beauty of freedoms, you can do what you please. OMG.

[Lucky boy]

I was hopeful, but I really didn't expect for you to get my point. I have no one to blame but myself.