Computer Science Canada

Cartoons
Author:  Boo-chan [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Cartoons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669210.stm

You can find the cartoons in question in this article.... it was rather hard to find them I must say.

I can understand why some people would find these cartoons offensive, although they are rather mild compared to some political cartoons I have seen. Compared to the reaction to them they seem positively harmless.

People may not like the picture of Islam that these cartoons paint, but they should be asking themselves why other people see their religion in this light.

Quote:
The paper published the cartoons last September after a Danish author had complained that he could not find an artist to illustrate a (respectful) book about Muhammad. According to Islam it is blasphemy to depict the prophet. To test to what extent freedom of expression had been affected in Denmark the paper put out a call to some forty illustrators to send them pictures of Muhammad. Only twelve dared to send them drawings, which were subsequently published in the paper to illustrate an article on censorship and freedom of speech. The cartoons were pretty mild by Western standards. We have seen worse, and are quite certain this would never have been published by Jyllands-Posten. Nevertheless the publication of the cartoons led to rioting and death threats were directed at the paper and some of the cartoonists.
Author:  Dan [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think you are worng, disrimation agisted relgion, any relgion, is wrong. Poelop thinking one way or another about it dose not justify such cartoons or views. At one time alot of peoleop in to U.S. thought that peleop with difrent colored skin should be salves, dose that justify the atack? Whould you say " they should be asking themselves why other people see their [them] in this light." in such a case? Do you think they whont peoleop to see them in that light? There are just a few peoleop of the same relgion that do thess things and yet they all get discrimated agisted. If we did that with other relgions the chatloic church whould be gone by now.
Author:  Amailer [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think printing the cartoon was hell wrong, and re-printing it on other EU papers just made things even worse....

But I don't support violent protests either, but they do have the right to protest against thi.
Author:  Boo-chan [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Protesting what you don't like is perfectly all right. Not buying products from certain countries is perfectly all right. However, death threats and burning embassies is certainly not all right.

I fail to see how the cartoons themselves are offensive, other than the fact that the Islamic religion does not allow images of Muhamed to be published. However, I don't see any reason why this should apply to non-believers. The cartoons depict things which the Islamic religion can be easily be perceived as. When people are afraid to produce illustrations for a book because of being killed by the believers that they will offend then that is a far worse problem than offending people by publishing cartoons.
Author:  Delos [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Boo-chan wrote:
I fail to see how the cartoons themselves are offensive, other than the fact that the Islamic religion does not allow images of Muhamed to be published. However, I don't see any reason why this should apply to non-believers. The cartoons depict things which the Islamic religion can be easily be perceived as. When people are afraid to produce illustrations for a book because of being killed by the believers that they will offend then that is a far worse problem than offending people by publishing cartoons.


From what I've read on this topic, a major argument being presented is the cartoonist's "Right to blaspheme". You know, something like freedom of speech or thereabouts.
This is all well and good, and having rights is just down right awsome. But before we get too giddy and start doing the "We-Have-Rights!" dance, let's take a step back and read the fineprint. Ok, so technically we're stepping forward...
Anyhow, the point being that every Right comes with a Responsibility. So while drawing such cartoons was completely legit - why would one be so insensitive. Islam has their reasons for prohibiting the depiction of their Prophets, and perhaps it is an unreasonable thing to ask of people - but we're not really in a position to judge that now are we?
So, despite many non-believers find several ounces (aye, mayhaps a pound!) of humour in these satirical caraicatures, they still do so at the expense of others who have quite clearly expressed their wish to the contrary.
As for your point on 'Islam being easily perceived thusly', I know you already know this but I'll just mention that the popular portrayal that we get is that of extremists who have taking the Qu'ran and have focused their entire mental energy on a set of lines that may or may not have been translated correctly. For instance, there is nothing in the Qu'ran that talks about women having to be subserviant to men - this is a cultural creation that has solidified through the ages.
This doubles with the whole 'people being killed for drawing cartoons'. If they are going to be targetted, it is by these rather manic extremists who are giving an otherwise beautiful religion quite the tarnished reputation.

So, in summary: Cartoons good, rights good, responsibilites are not negligible. Everything you need to know you learnt in kindergarden - play nice, share, and always wash your hands.

Disclaimer: This was opinion. Don't quote me on any of the comments I've made, some may be somewhat erroneous in their factual basis. Though I try to maintain some level of accuracy, memories are not trustworthy - no matter what those infomercialists tell you.
Additionally, my last comment was in no way an attempt to summarize and reduce all that one learns in kindergarden into a single statement.
Author:  Dan [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Once again i disagree (to boo). I think that perdusime is far worse then death threats. Tho i am not justify the death threts they are still wrong and i in no way sport them.

The news paper had no buisness printing thos catroons and should repsect there views if they do not whont an image of him printed. It is not like it is hurting the paper to not print them.

Also just becuse peoleop think somthing of a relgion or gorup and some members of that gorup do atack that way dose not justify labing the gorup.

Edit to repsond to Delos post: Althougth freespeah is good we (at least in canada) do not have the right to hate speah. We most be talrent of others based on relgion, disblaity, sex, ect. This is in the human rights chaters and not even free speash can overide it.

Also on freespeash. Yes we have the right to our own options and to say them but this is difrent form publishingment in a news papaer. News papers for the most part are spsotied to be unbasied and not invale relgion, disblity, sex, ect.
Author:  Boo-chan [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Its not the death threats that is particularly worrying. Its the fact that in the past some of those threats have been followed through which is.

Globe and Mail wrote:
For dialogue and debate to flourish, citizens must be allowed the maximum freedom to say what is on their minds, even if it is provocative, insulting, inflammatory, or, yes, blasphemous," it said.


That pretty much covers it, free speech with limits is not free speech and that is why I disagree with certain aspects of the hate laws. Once you start putting limits on what you can and can not say then you can no longer claim to have free speech.

By the way, all newspapers are biased, that is why there is usually more than one in each city. That is why I like Google News because it allows you to see the same story through multiple biases Very Happy
Author:  Dan [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Simpley you can not have the free speah you talk of and human rights conexisting. So it comes down to this: what is more impornt, ones right to publish hate materals or ones right to be able to exits freely with out disrmataion based on racie, relgion, disbaility, sex, ect. Obvesbly the canadian goverment as well as many others and the U.N. picked then 2nd.
Author:  Naveg [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
To me, this is just another example of a problem that wouldn't happen if religion did not exist. It seems that the problem that is religion is only growing everyday.

However, since that problem will likely never be dealt with, I will contribute my stance on this issue.

The cartoons are of a satirical nature, much of the kind you see drawn about politicians and other figures. They represent an opinion and nothing more. Is there something wrong with that? No there isn't. This is an issue of free speech. I am aware that religious zealots do not believe in free speech, but frankly, I do. And good for the papers that do as well.

Secondly, if the muslims don't like seeing drawings of their prophet, then they shouldn't read the papers it's published in.

Thirdly, the muslims are guilty of the most heinous hypocrisy possible on many counts, this is simply a single example. They are up in arms about these cartoons, and yet do they hesitate to defile Jewish or American figures in such a manner? Of course not. In fact, muslims are the most hateful people on earth when it comes to issues like this. All you need to do is take a look at the reaction to this whole business to see that. Burning danish flags because of the acts of a single danish paper? Unheard of. These muslims are uncivilized savages. They kill for the sake of killing. Some even say they kill to prove that muslims are not violent. LOL

I'm sick of hearing muslims whine about racism against islam when all they do is call for the complete destruction of the Jews, Israel, and America, and the values those groups represent.

[mod:f579625de5="Hacker Dan"]
Please do not make staments about relgiones or minorniy gorups as a hole on this site. Your are intiled to your rasims and perdiumes (apprently) but you are not initeled to clasify a minoty gorup as being "the most hatefull people on earth" or that they "kill for the sake of killing" on this site as long as i am an admin.
[/mod:f579625de5]
Author:  Dan [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
This type of issues whould still exists if relgion did not. Poeleop discrimate agisted other things then relgion. Just look at slaviry.

Whould you saying this is so good if it was the KKK writining articals agisted peoleop of color or making cartoons as such? The "satirical nature" dose not chage the fact that they are discrimatiing agisted an gourp of peoleop.

That view that "if you don't like it don't read it" is so wrong. Every one should be able to read a public papaer with out being offended or being discrimated agisted.

This issues (freespeah vs humanrights) is geting a lot more light thess days and it can even been seen at my uni, lakehead, where the student uinon's borad of directs have taken acuaction agisted the enginering socity for writing a newpaper that had exteramly sexist content as well as anti-homsexual content. Of corse the engierners aruge that they should be able to print what ever they whont to and that peoleop do not have to read it if they don't whont to even tho the news paper is handed out all over the campus. This issues is so heated at this univiesry that there has been many applies to the jewsial review cominity and lawyers invaled.

My point by this is that it is not quite a black or white area but a gray one. We all like free speah but should it over ride human rights? Both are exteramly imporent to a free socity and one with out ether one is not turely free. But what do we do when they overlap?
Author:  Naveg [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
Whould you saying this is so good if it was the KKK writining articals agisted peoleop of color or making cartoons as such? The "satirical nature" dose not chage the fact that they are discrimatiing agisted an gourp of peoleop.


Of course it's discrimination. But when the Toronto Star publishes risque cartoons about Israeli figures, does the Jewish community in Toronto start burning canadian flags in the streets, and start killing Torontonians just because? Didn't think so.

The issue is not about the discrimination. That happens everywhere, and against everyone. It's the nature of media and of life. Most people are able to accept that discrimination will always exist.

The issue here is the inappropriate, uncivilised reaction. Instead of writing letters to the editors of the papers politely asking for an apology, these people go into the streets, burn flags, and kill people. And then they wonder why newspapers depict Mohammed with a bomb for a brain. That cartoonist was simply depicting in ink what these people are depicting in actions.
Author:  Naveg [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
you are not initeled to clasify a minoty gorup as being "the most hatefull people on earth" or that they "kill for the sake of killing" on this site as long as i am an admin.


Tell me, if not for the sake of killing, and if not because they are the most hateful people, then why do they kill? I'm sorry if you find my comments to extreme, but this is the nature of the world. These muslim extremists are the only people who would kill over an issue like this.

Let me clarify for all: I am referring here solely to muslim extremists. I know, as much as any of you, that there are millions of muslims out there who do not share the views of these people.
Author:  Delos [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Naveg wrote:
Let me clarify for all: I am referring here solely to muslim extremists. I know, as much as any of you, that there are millions of muslims out there who do not share the views of these people.


[peeks out]
Perhaps you ought to stop referring to these nihilists as 'Muslim extremists'. Putting the 'Muslim' in there suggests that they are somehow doing what they do in the name of religion. And don't get started on Jihad, that is something completely different.
The Qu'ran, in fact, condemns the killing of innocent people - which is exactly what terrorism does. It so happens that the Western media has taken several verses out of it and misquoted them to seem as though it promotes violence. This is utterly ridiculous. Why would the holy scriptures of an entire civilization encourage people to go about painting the streets an off-haeme colour?
So the extremists are just that, obsessive people with twisted beliefs that attempt to express their lunatic desires through wanton violence.

On a side note, is there not a distinction between Jewish and Zionists? (In reference to the Israel comment). Just curious.
Author:  Boo-chan [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Well the people we are talking about are not nihilists, but they can be refered to as Muslim extremists. The pertinent detail is that they feel that they themselves are muslims and what they are doing is justified by their religion.

Hacker Dan I think you are forgetting that any position can be seen as descrimatory if viewed from the proper viewpoint. If you published a satyrical cartoon about same-sex marriage you can be seen as being descrimatory against homosexuals. However, if you publish a cartoon that presents same-sex marriage as positive, you just managed to commit blasphemy in several different religions.

The important thing about freedom of speech is that people should be allowed to state anything they want. If it offends you, there is always a number of ways to peacefully make your displeasure known. Also no one forces you to listen to something you disagree with(unless its in school which is a slightly different matter).

But as soon as you declare something is outside the realm of free speech that begins to cause problems. Ok, since its against a certain religion to show pictures of their religious leader you don't do that. So then how long does it take before you decide you shouldn't write articles about why the teachings of that religion are wrong?
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
Whould you saying this is so good if it was the KKK writining articals agisted peoleop of color or making cartoons as such? The "satirical nature" dose not chage the fact that they are discrimatiing agisted an gourp of peoleop.


I completely think that the KKK should be allowed to publish whatever they want. I am a firm believer of freedom of speech. As long as the KKK's actions to not hurt the freedoms of other people, they should be completely free to do as they please.

That's what freedom is all about. I don't agree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it. We should strive for a lack of discrimination through education, not through censorship. Taboos are always a bad thing.

Some cartoonist drew a slightly offensive comic. Who cares? It doesn't matter, and it's certainly not worth killing people over. Killing people is censorship, and that's something that I am strongly opposed to - when the guy with the biggest gun gets to decide what people are allowed to think, it's a big step backwards.
Author:  Amailer [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:16 am ]
Post subject: 
As you guys debate here, you might want to read this too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4678264.stm
Gives some views of people around the world.

Oh and *sigh, why* Danish embassy in Beirut torched
Author:  Naveg [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Delos wrote:
It so happens that the Western media has taken several verses out of it and misquoted them to seem as though it promotes violence. This is utterly ridiculous. Why would the holy scriptures of an entire civilization encourage people to go about painting the streets an off-haeme colour?
So the extremists are just that, obsessive people with twisted beliefs that attempt to express their lunatic desires through wanton violence.

On a side note, is there not a distinction between Jewish and Zionists? (In reference to the Israel comment). Just curious.


You're right, the extremists twist Islamic views, but they DO say that what they do is in the name of religion. And so yes, they are not only extremists, but Muslim extremists.

But of course, that's why we say extremists, because there are muslims out there who do not share the same views. My question for them is this: why do you not speak out against your brothers who put you to shame on the world stage? Muslim extremists have given Islam in general a bad name.

As for the Judaism and Zionism question, they are two separate things, that often go together. Judaism entails a spiritual love for the physical body of land where the history of the Jews took shape. Zionism entails support of the political entity that now stands there, Israel. Indeed, there are some fierce anti-Zionists who live in Israel because of their spiritual love of the land, but who disagree wholeheartedly with Israel's actions.

Most Jews today recognize that in order to fulfill a spritual love of the land, a political body must be in place as the "Jewish" homeland. For this reason, most Jews today are Zionist as well.

But let me stress my point again: this is not about the cartoons, it's about the reaction. If the New York Times published a cartoon depicting Moses in a manner such as this, the NY Jewish community would write polite letters to the editor, asking for an apology. If the problem persisted, they may hold a rally, as Toronto Jews did many times in 2004 when anti-semitism raged there. But never would you hear of a person killed in the name of defense of Judaism. It just doesn't happen. Muslim extremists on the other hand, take any challenge to their religion as an excuse to murder, and they do.
Author:  Dan [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Boo-chan wrote:

Hacker Dan I think you are forgetting that any position can be seen as descrimatory if viewed from the proper viewpoint. If you published a satyrical cartoon about same-sex marriage you can be seen as being descrimatory against homosexuals. However, if you publish a cartoon that presents same-sex marriage as positive, you just managed to commit blasphemy in several different religions.


There is a huge difrence between acdently disrimating agisted some and initenatly publishing cartoons that are balntey steroy typeing a relgion and blately offendeing them.


Boo-chan wrote:

The important thing about freedom of speech is that people should be allowed to state anything they want. If it offends you, there is always a number of ways to peacefully make your displeasure known. Also no one forces you to listen to something you disagree with(unless its in school which is a slightly different matter).


This is such a bad view on freespeah. It is not allways about wthere peoleop see it are offended but that it is promioting thess views to socity. I mean if we let the KKK play adds every 10 mins saying peoleop of color are less then whites and other progoated it will start to effect some peoleops views. Quite simpley in public publications that are not sposted to be directly realted to reglione, race, ect, like a noraml newspaper there should be almost no memetion of relgion, race, sex, disbilty, ect. It is inaporite and unehtical for there to be. Maybe in a prefickt world ture freespeah whould be posiable b/c peoleop whould not abouse it but this is not a perficit world and is why canada has hate speah laws and proteching for poeleop of minority gorups in our chater of humman rights.

Boo-chan wrote:

But as soon as you declare something is outside the realm of free speech that begins to cause problems. Ok, since its against a certain religion to show pictures of their religious leader you don't do that. So then how long does it take before you decide you shouldn't write articles about why the teachings of that religion are wrong?


You shounlt be writing articles about why that relgion is wrong in a public newpapre or in a public sorce that is not spficely about relgion.


Martin wrote:

I completely think that the KKK should be allowed to publish whatever they want. I am a firm believer of freedom of speech. As long as the KKK's actions to not hurt the freedoms of other people, they should be completely free to do as they please.


You can hurt peoleop with out doing any phsyical actations to them. Thess cartoons do hurt peoleop and even worse as i was saying above have infucen in socity to make thess seteroy types go futher. No gorup that is based on discrmation should be alowed to exists. And yes i know this could conflitc with some relgions but they do not need to be discrmitiory nor are they soley based on being discrimtory on some gorup like the KKK is.

Martin wrote:

That's what freedom is all about. I don't agree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it. We should strive for a lack of discrimination through education, not through censorship. Taboos are always a bad thing.


Freedom is also about being able to turn on the t.v., radio, or read the newspapere with out fealing like you are being discrimated agisted.

Martin wrote:

Some cartoonist drew a slightly offensive comic. Who cares? It doesn't matter, and it's certainly not worth killing people over. Killing people is censorship, and that's something that I am strongly opposed to - when the guy with the biggest gun gets to decide what people are allowed to think, it's a big step backwards.


I care for one and it dose matter as i have side above. I also side i do not suport the rash acations such as death threthests ect. And no where did i say one should be killed for pushing somthing like that. This is not about dicatorship or the guy with the bigest gun. Tho if u think about it with freeshapsh the way u whont it it whould become the guy with the most money gets to set what is right or worng and gets to say who is better then who. What canada and other conotrys with hate laws are trying to do is aucatly provied more and better freedom to all poleope not just the white ones whith money.[/quote]
Author:  1of42 [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Naveg wrote:
Delos wrote:
It so happens that the Western media has taken several verses out of it and misquoted them to seem as though it promotes violence. This is utterly ridiculous. Why would the holy scriptures of an entire civilization encourage people to go about painting the streets an off-haeme colour?
So the extremists are just that, obsessive people with twisted beliefs that attempt to express their lunatic desires through wanton violence.

On a side note, is there not a distinction between Jewish and Zionists? (In reference to the Israel comment). Just curious.


You're right, the extremists twist Islamic views, but they DO say that what they do is in the name of religion. And so yes, they are not only extremists, but Muslim extremists.

But of course, that's why we say extremists, because there are muslims out there who do not share the same views. My question for them is this: why do you not speak out against your brothers who put you to shame on the world stage? Muslim extremists have given Islam in general a bad name.

As for the Judaism and Zionism question, they are two separate things, that often go together. Judaism entails a spiritual love for the physical body of land where the history of the Jews took shape. Zionism entails support of the political entity that now stands there, Israel. Indeed, there are some fierce anti-Zionists who live in Israel because of their spiritual love of the land, but who disagree wholeheartedly with Israel's actions.

Most Jews today recognize that in order to fulfill a spritual love of the land, a political body must be in place as the "Jewish" homeland. For this reason, most Jews today are Zionist as well.

But let me stress my point again: this is not about the cartoons, it's about the reaction. If the New York Times published a cartoon depicting Moses in a manner such as this, the NY Jewish community would write polite letters to the editor, asking for an apology. If the problem persisted, they may hold a rally, as Toronto Jews did many times in 2004 when anti-semitism raged there. But never would you hear of a person killed in the name of defense of Judaism. It just doesn't happen. Muslim extremists on the other hand, take any challenge to their religion as an excuse to murder, and they do.


You're showing your own bias in this post.

#1: Moderate Muslims do speak out against Muslim extremism. Do your research.

#2: Your analogy about the New York Times is flawed, because if they published something about Islam, I can guarantee that there wouldn't be the kind of uprising you're seeing in the Middle East in New York. It just doesn't happen. Muslims and Jews alike, those in North America are generally very moderate, so your analogy is bad. Let me ask you: if a newspaper published derogatory anti-Semitic cartoons in Israel, what do you think would happen? I can say with fair certainty that it would be something like (if not on the scale of) what's happening now the Arabic world.

#3: You honestly need more experience before you make so many generalizations. Have you ever been to an Arab country? I've been to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan, as well as Israel, and in none of those countries did I ever feel threatened by their respective religions. The only people who let extremism give Islam a bad name are the uninformed ones.

Now, as for the general issue: Martin, people should have the right to say whatever they want - but does that mean that they should say it? Honestly, I think the answer is no. And in this particular case, I think they were abusing their right to free speech. As you said, I'll defend their right to do what they did, but in no way will I defend what they actually did.
Author:  Naveg [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
1of42 wrote:
#2: Your analogy about the New York Times is flawed, because if they published something about Islam, I can guarantee that there wouldn't be the kind of uprising you're seeing in the Middle East in New York. It just doesn't happen. Muslims and Jews alike, those in North America are generally very moderate, so your analogy is bad. Let me ask you: if a newspaper published derogatory anti-Semitic cartoons in Israel, what do you think would happen? I can say with fair certainty that it would be something like (if not on the scale of) what's happening now the Arabic world.


That is absolutely ridiculous. Israelis would not burn the flags of countries whose newspapers published anti-Semitic cartoons. Nor would Catholics in Rome, or Hindus in India if it happened to them.

This reaction is unique to Islam, and we have witnessed it many times before. These people are savages. They promote the use of terror in the name of their religion. They take every opportunity they get to kill those who represent peaceful Western values. Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, you name it, do not.

It's that simple.

[mod:c605e20acc="Hacker Dan"]
Once again i most ask you to refrain from such remarks. Not all the peoleop of islam are "savages" and i whould say that very few are. Also there are peoleop of there relgion that do not use terror of any kind in the name of there relionion and are pecafull. But even if they did this still dose not make them savages and i whould very much apreshate it if we did not make such genrealistions about relgions and peoleop of X nantionalit on this site. CompSci.ca should be a place where any one of any relgion, race or contory can come and be falmed equaly =p
[/mod:c605e20acc]
Author:  MyPistolsIn3D [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
So these cartoonists make cartoons about Islams being violent, and the Islams are outraged so they respond with violence? Is that what is happening here? Does that not just prove the point of these cartoons?
Author:  Dan [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
MyPistolsIn3D wrote:
So these cartoonists make cartoons about Islams being violent, and the Islams are outraged so they respond with violence? Is that what is happening here? Does that not just prove the point of these cartoons?


Try reading up a bit befor you coment, lol. The cartoons where not about violence, well at least for the most part. And the actacs of few peoleop should not be used to clafily the hole group that is what stero typing is and where discrmation starts.
Author:  1of42 [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Naveg wrote:
1of42 wrote:
#2: Your analogy about the New York Times is flawed, because if they published something about Islam, I can guarantee that there wouldn't be the kind of uprising you're seeing in the Middle East in New York. It just doesn't happen. Muslims and Jews alike, those in North America are generally very moderate, so your analogy is bad. Let me ask you: if a newspaper published derogatory anti-Semitic cartoons in Israel, what do you think would happen? I can say with fair certainty that it would be something like (if not on the scale of) what's happening now the Arabic world.


That is absolutely ridiculous. Israelis would not burn the flags of countries whose newspapers published anti-Semitic cartoons. Nor would Catholics in Rome, or Hindus in India if it happened to them.

This reaction is unique to Islam, and we have witnessed it many times before. These people are savages. They promote the use of terror in the name of their religion. They take every opportunity they get to kill those who represent peaceful Western values. Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, you name it, do not.

It's that simple.


You are wrong. There are militant sects in every faith. Of those you mentioned, Catholicism has had extremely violent sects throughout its history (though it has toned down now), Hinduism has extremely violent sects in the present day, and many of the settlers in the West Bank are perfect examples of Jewish extremists. All of these groups can, and have, reacted with violence to insults towards their religion.

Now, for you to make such a sweeping, inocrrect statement was bad enough. Your further statement absolutely awes me. Such generalizations and stereotypes regarding Muslims have no place anywhere, and serve to demonstrate your absolutely uninformed bigotry. I see you neglected to respond to my main points, so I will restate them. Have you ever been to the Middle East? Have you been to any of the countries where this is occurring? Have you met the people, experienced the culture? I am 100% sure the answers are all No. And until they aren't, you are not qualified to make statements like the ones you just made.

Please, stop with the biased bigotry.
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
But it's like this - there's always someone to be insulted. Certain religions are insulted by the existence of other religions. Islam is a big 'screw you, you're wrong' to Christianity. So to keep the peace, just ban talking about religion altogether? Then that pisses off the Christians and the Muslims. And this cycle just continues.

Who do you propose gets to choose what's taboo or not Dan? Sure, we can all agree that a somewhat tasteless insult towards a religion is a bad thing, but where does it stop? Gay marriage for example - a pro gay marriage cartoon would be offensive to people who believe in the 'traditional' definition of marriage (whatever that means), so we shouldn't have that either? Then again, anti-gay marriage ones would be insulting to proponants of gay marriage.

Point is, someone's always going to be insulted.

Some people don't think women should be allowed to have an education. Some people think that <insert racial group here> are better/worse than everyone else. Just because you're insulted doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.
Author:  1of42 [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Martin: Here's my request to you: Stop arguing abstracts, and get back to the direct topic. Do you think the cartoons were correct? Do you think that to publish caricatures of the prophet of a religion that is widely known to consider such acts blasphemy was in any way acceptable? Because peronally, I think this was a tasteless insult towards religion.

And while you're right that there is always someone to be insulted, that's not exactly relevant to the current debate. Arguing whether free speech in general is good never works - you have to take it case by case, because there are always cases to argue for both sides of the debate.
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yes, I think that the cartoonist was completely right in publishing his comic. Like I said - people should be opposed to a comic like that because of their education, not because someone's threatening to kill people. I completely think that the comic was tasteless, but that's not the point. The question is whether the cartoonist should be allowed to be tasteless, and I say definitely yes. I personally don't like people telling me what I can or can't say, under the threat of death.
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
To quote the cartoonist:

Quote:
"In America we don't apologize for opinions, that's why we have a first amendment," Marlette said. "If we can't discuss even controversial opinions in the pages of our newspapers, where are we going to do it?"

Click.
Author:  1of42 [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:
Yes, I think that the cartoonist was completely right in publishing his comic. Like I said - people should be opposed to a comic like that because of their education, not because someone's threatening to kill people. I completely think that the comic was tasteless, but that's not the point. The question is whether the cartoonist should be allowed to be tasteless, and I say definitely yes. I personally don't like people telling me what I can or can't say, under the threat of death.


I'm opposed to it because of my education. I was opposed to it the minute I saw it.

I still think you're skirting the issue. You say you think the comic was tasteless, but then say you still think he was right to publish it. Read my post again - I'm not asking whether you think he was entitled to publish it (which I agree with you in that he absolutely was), but whether he should've. Are you honestly saying that you feel he should've done what he did, for the simple reason that he has the right?
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
In his situation, I wouldn't have published the comic. Like they said in the article I linked to, it's legal to go around in the US calling black people 'niggers.' I wouldn't do it, support it or encourage it, but I definitely support people's right to do it.

The choice in whether to publish the comic should be the cartoonist's and the publisher - nobody else's. Bad call, probably. Should they be required to appologize? No.
Author:  1of42 [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
In that case, we are in agreement, because if you'll notice, I didn't say the comic publisher should be required to apologise. Smile
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
This is such a bad view on freespeah. It is not allways about wthere peoleop see it are offended but that it is promioting thess views to socity. I mean if we let the KKK play adds every 10 mins saying peoleop of color are less then whites and other progoated it will start to effect some peoleops views. Quite simpley in public publications that are not sposted to be directly realted to reglione, race, ect, like a noraml newspaper there should be almost no memetion of relgion, race, sex, disbilty, ect. It is inaporite and unehtical for there to be. Maybe in a prefickt world ture freespeah whould be posiable b/c peoleop whould not abouse it but this is not a perficit world and is why canada has hate speah laws and proteching for poeleop of minority gorups in our chater of humman rights.


Sorry, not to pass this up.

In the US, the KKK is allowed to play racist ads every 10 minutes. What stops them is that they'd both have to fund it somehow, and they'd have to get the network to approve it. Seeing the large African American population in the US, that's not very likely to happen at all. But it's still legal. Also, keep in mind that newspapers and most TV channels are private publications.

EDIT: I wouldn't watch a TV station with racist ads. Again, capitalism is king, not government censorship. 1984, no thank you.
Author:  Boo-chan [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
First, I don't think its fair/reasonable to expect people who do not follow a certain religion to follow its laws on what is or is not acceptable... ie Christians aren't supposed to work on Sundays but non-Christians are free to work on Sundays if they want to. How is publishing a drawn image of a religious figure any different. So I think most reasonable people would accept that there was nothing wrong about publishing images of Muhamed.

So then the next problem is the context in which he is presented. Obviously, in some of the cartoons it is a negative context. Is this negative context reasonable? I believe so given how the Islamic religion has been used to condone certain acts of terrorism by certain individuals. Like the KKK for example, I'm sure some of the members are merely people who, while believing that white people are superior black people, express their views in non-violent manner. But because of the KKK members that burn crosses and kill people the entire movement is seen in this light.

Abstract arguments are necessary when concerning topics like this one. First, to judge on a case by case basis requires much more information than we posses. To really judge if the people were correct in printing the cartoons you would have to know what motivated them to do so. By putting the same reasoning into different contexts it is easier to convey the information to others. As well, by changing the context it is easier to separate the biases concerning the topic from the underlying principles that are in play.

I'm fairly certain that most major religions have had at one point in time or another extremists that did... well extremely not nice things. But I thing it can be generally agreed that the Islamic religion today is the religion that has the most incidents of such extremists today. I would argue that such extremism is one by product of the manner in which religions are organized but that would be getting rather off topic.

Given the extremist elements that exist in the Islamic religion and given how widespread it is; it becomes harder and harder to argue that such extremists are merely offshoots that don't have any bearing on the core religion itself( And I am aware that there are several other factors in play) It becomes reasonable to question why the religion itself hasn't moved to stop such extremist elements. So the cartoons are understandable when seen in this light.

If you want to defend the Islamic religion you may want to explain why there are so many Islamic extremists. Stating that entire religion shouldn't be judged by the acts of the few is reasonable I guess, but the religions themselves are based on the actions of small groups of people. And the protestors are judging entire countries based on what a couple of newspapers wrote, although this is slightly understandable considering the fact that most newspapers in those countries are tightly controlled in what they can and can not write.
Author:  Delos [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Boo-chan wrote:
But I thing it can be generally agreed that the Islamic religion today is the religion that has the most incidents of such extremists today.


Now this raises the questions: Really? Let's not jump to conclusions here.
Why would some make a statement like that? Probably because they have seen time and again (and again and again) examples of extremist movements. Where did they see these? Media portrayals.
What we have here is a classic case of Overrepresentation. Our hypothetical person has been bombarded with these images over and over again for the last [insert time figure here], so it's only natural for them to consolidate those images as reliable information. It probably is.
However, for every action that is reported, think about how many other actions are not reported. Or for that matter, how many actions our hypothetical person sees but does not remember. It's a sad but true fact that we (as humans) are prone to remembering certain memories far more explicitely than others (note: not accurately, only explicitely). Perhaps our person reads of a group of women in the Middle East whose actions have garnered them some independance in their community. Our person will likely be happy and feel a sense of congradulations towards them.
But moments later they hear of a group of hooligans who have overrun a school elsewhere. Which of these two images do you think is going to cause a higher level of arousal in our person? Quite likely the second.
As such, our person will be far more likely to remember the second one than the first - and if later asked about what happened on that day, will be faster to recall the hooligans than the women.

My point being this: yes the Media (in all its varied forms) has been portraying Islam in a less than flattering light for quite some time now. But all we have is anecdotal evidence for the argument. There are undoubtedly many, many incidents that completely flaunt the idea of Muslim extremists, but these are simply less salient than others.


For anyone interested in why I qualified that those above mentioned memories would be more explicit and not accurate: memories are terribly unreliable. There is no such thing as a 'special' memory, and no memories exists that are not prone to regular degredation and distortion. So-called explicit memories are simply easily recalled memories, owing to their salience and thus fluency in recall.
Author:  Naveg [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
1of42 wrote:

Have you ever been to the Middle East? Have you been to any of the countries where this is occurring? Have you met the people, experienced the culture? I am 100% sure the answers are all No. And until they aren't, you are not qualified to make statements like the ones you just made.

Please, stop with the biased bigotry.


Yes, Yes, and Yes.

You claim to be 100% sure I haven't? Well you were wrong. I guess that means all the other things you're 100% sure about should be questioned as well.

And let me repeat that I refer to the extremists here, not the religion as a whole. Apparently you fail to understand that.

As for the extremists in other religious groups. Yes, certainly they exist. And yes, certainly they kill. But no, not over an issue like this. I'm sorry, you're just wrong.

By the way, you insulted me by calling be a biased bigot. But I won't kill you, don't worry.
Author:  Brightguy [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cartoons
I also agree with Martin. While I personally wouldn't have drawn them, I agree that the cartoonists had the right to do so.

As well, I think it's clear that they were intended as satire. With any satire there will be some people who accept it and some opposed to it. (And either side is free to voice their opinion on the matter.) As a general rule I would advise people to not take satire seriously and go crazy over it.
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh, for sure. Muslim fundamentalists are probably the worst fundamentalists in existence right now - but that'll change eventually. In the middle ages the Arabic people were inventing mathematics while the Europeans were too busy killing each other to care.

Fundamentalists of any religion are scary, and less educated people tend to be more fundamentalist than educated people. Throw in a war and you end up with a lot of extremists. Imagine that - a bunch of stupid people with guns and a feverant belief in god, combined with charismatic religious leaders with their own agendas acting as God's secretary. What could possibly go wrong?

But just keep in mind that extremists are just that - extreme examples of the religion. Most Muslim people, or people of any religion for that matter, are just normal people. They aren't going to go and start killing people because someone drew a comic.
Author:  Naveg [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Let me repeat that the issue here is not the cartoons. As Martin so eloquently put it, someone will always be insulted by the media. If not the muslims, then the Jews or the homosexuals. The fact that the media satirizes all groups at some point or another is a fact of life.

The issue here is the reaction to that satire. No other group on earth today would turn a cartoon drawing into an excuse to murder. No other group on earth today would show the disrespect for one's country that these people are showing because of a cartoon drawing.

The media was satirizing Islam's violent nature. Apparently Islam is yet to prove us wrong. The message i'm getting from Islam, to quote a friend, is "we're not violent, and we'll kill you to prove it." Did someone say irony?

EDIT: for those of you who still don't get it, i'm referring to the muslim extremists only. Can I expect not to have this post "moderated" ?
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
South Park did a great episode (I think it was the Christmas special from like five years ago) about how easily all of these groups get offended. The premise was a Christmas play that the kids were going to put on, but they had to keep cutting things out because someone was offended. In the end, the kids were left wearing green jackets and standing there saying something like "happy" over and over. Someone in the crowd pointed out that the Christmas lights had to go because they were offensive to people with epilepsy.

Is that the kind of freedom you want?
Author:  Naveg [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
1of42 wrote:
In that case, we are in agreement, because if you'll notice, I didn't say the comic publisher should be required to apologise. Smile


If the publisher shouldn't be required to apologise, then you obviously feel that the cartoons were not so outrageously offensive. Hence the issue is not the cartoons themselves, but the reaction to them.

Now justify that reaction.
Author:  Dan [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
To martin and the other who refured to me above, i awered all the points/questions you broguht up in posts befor this so i will not wast every ones times restating them and geting in to an endless deabte.

Also i whould like to know if any of the peoleop who are so decicated to total free speah have every turely been part of a minority gorup that has been hit by thes stroy types? Becuses i think you whould understand it alot more if you did. No one yet has to even brouight up my points about how thes publictions effects socitys views and the effect that has on the gorups in question. It dose hurt when every thinks thos stero types are ture and it starts to effect your job plamentes, education and life as a hole.

There is a reason why canada has hate laws and why i moderate posts that are openly disrcimatioy. It is easy to say total freeshpeah when it dose not effect you. I am glad our conotry can see that the rights of each person matter and that the magority should not be able to take away thos rights.

I think what u do not understand is that this kind of freespeah dose take away peoleops rights. It takes away there right to exists in equality to there fellow citizents and the right to be able to live in a counrty with fealing discrmated agisted when ever they turn on the t.v. or read the paper.
Author:  1of42 [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Naveg wrote:
1of42 wrote:
In that case, we are in agreement, because if you'll notice, I didn't say the comic publisher should be required to apologise. Smile


If the publisher shouldn't be required to apologise, then you obviously feel that the cartoons were not so outrageously offensive. Hence the issue is not the cartoons themselves, but the reaction to them.

Now justify that reaction.


No. You're wrong again. I do feel that they were offensive, and I feel that they shouldn't have been published, because the negative effects of their publishing far outweigh anything positive that could've come of them.

However, I think that the publisher shouldn't be forced (note the forced) to apologise because that would impinge on the right to freedom of expression. I think that they should apologise, because the comic was badly thought out, and most certainly has made the world a less harmonious, less stable place, but I do not think that anyone should be forced to.

I don't need to justify the reaction; it is absolutely uncalled-for, and in many ways far worse than the original act. However, simply the fact that I disagree with the publishing of the comics does not mean I implicitly agree with the protests. The comic writer, the publisher who published it, and the extremists who are inciting so much violence have all taken action that are wrong, in my opinion.
Author:  Martin [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
Also i whould like to know if any of the peoleop who are so decicated to total free speah have every turely been part of a minority gorup that has been hit by thes stroy types? Becuses i think you whould understand it alot more if you did. No one yet has to even brouight up my points about how thes publictions effects socitys views and the effect that has on the gorups in question. It dose hurt when every thinks thos stero types are ture and it starts to effect your job plamentes, education and life as a hole.


I'm a gaijin living in Japan. Yes, I know what it's like to be a minority that in some places isn't the most liked (most people assume that I'm American to start).

And yes publications effect society's views. That's why they should be as free as possible. A newspaper that wasn't offensive to anyone would be a blank piece of paper, and then Greenpeace would get on your ass for killing trees. Dan, have you ever seen a comic that made you think "Okay, well now that I've thought about that rationally, I'm going to go out and kill some people." Probably not.

As for censorship, CompSci censors for quality (EDIT: which every newspaper should have the right to do). Some people are probably opposed to this, but I like that we don't have to do it. I for one wouldn't want some government goons monitoring this site for 'appropriate content'

To quote Roger Waters: "What did you dream? It's alright, we told you what to dream."
Author:  Brightguy [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cartoons
Hacker Dan wrote:
It dose hurt when every thinks thos stero types are ture and it starts to effect your job plamentes, education and life as a hole.
Would you want to work for someone who makes careless decisions about important matters?

The cartoons were drawn as a satirical take on the fact that a Danish author had trouble finding someone to illustrate his book. (There was even an article accompanying the cartoons explaining this.) While of course the publishers knew that some people would be offended, it's the same with any kind of satire.

I enjoy political cartoons, even though I've seen many that some people would call offensive. (Even resulting in letters-to-the-editor in extreme cases!) In fact, I bet that for the majority of political cartoons, you could find someone who was genuinely offended by it. Does that mean we should ban all political cartoons? The point is, it's satire, it's meant to poke fun at whatever person or group.

As for stereotypes, I'll be honest and admit that I've laughed at discriminatory jokes before -- but that doesn't mean I agree with discrimination, or that I don't think it is a serious problem.
Author:  octopi [ Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I didn't bother to read past the first half of the first page so if I mention something someone has already said, I DON'T CARE.


A) It was satire.

B) When members of the religion state that they are doing it in the name of their religion, I think its pretty safe to classify the religion to represent those people. Similar to priests being child molesters (although sort of different).

C) You can't say that our religion doesn't allow people to draw pictures of mohammad, or w/e, and also say that their religion doesn't support hurting innocents, and then have followers defend their religion by defying it!

D) The people who are attacking danes, or norwegians are racists themselves, they are generalising an entire country, and targetting them based on something done by one of them. (Hmmmm, weird similarities to Al qaeda and Islam; although not all Islamic people are members of terrorist organizations, it is a known fact that some are. although not all danes are evil caracture drawing artists, its a known fact that some are.)

E) Theres a difference here, its called tolerance. The ones who are going psycho have no tolerance, the rest of us have realized we have some common sense, and we can have some tolerance.

F) The people of Islam should do more to discourage terrorism if thats truely what they believe in, they should excommunicate terrorists from Islam, or find other methods to deter this.
Author:  Dan [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Martin wrote:

I'm a gaijin living in Japan. Yes, I know what it's like to be a minority that in some places isn't the most liked (most people assume that I'm American to start).


And you think this is a good thing? Think about how it whould effect your ablity to get a job over a native jappnes person. Is that faire? Is that how a free country should be?

Martin wrote:

And yes publications effect society's views. That's why they should be as free as possible.


Thats not posible in a capistic socity, the peoleop with the money will get the press and the adds. And in case u have not noticed for the most part the peoleop with the money are not in many if any minority gorups.

Martin wrote:

A newspaper that wasn't offensive to anyone would be a blank piece of paper, and then Greenpeace would get on your ass for killing trees.


Cleary you are ingoring my points above, but for you i will restate. This is not an issue of acdently disrmating agisted some one but rather intently pusblishing that whould have know implications. Also that way it is sposted to work (at least in canada) is that you simpley do not publish things like cartoons about relgions in a paper that has nothing to do with relgion. Now that is difrent if the relgion is some how a news item since a news paper is about news, but they should report in an unbaised manner.

For some reason you think that i mean censor every thing and shoot peoleop that say somthing bad. This is not the case, i am saying that public t.v. shows, newspaperes, ect that are not about relgion or another minority gorup should not be geting inavled (ie. taking sides) on one or another or proptating staroty types. What dose this mean for some of your exmaples?

Well for the gay margire one, new papers whould only report about the sotrry realting to legal and poltical happeings and not say wethere it is good or bad. But a paper or web site suporting gay mariore could have the right to say it was good.

A better exmaple of this is that in public school you would not expected to hear the lords prayer or have christion cersomoerys. This dose not mean that the christions can not exits but that there cersonmorery should be keeped to the church or events/orgations that crealy say they are assoicted with the church.

This is in fact how canadian hate laws and humman rights work.

Martin wrote:

Dan, have you ever seen a comic that made you think "Okay, well now that I've thought about that rationally, I'm going to go out and kill some people." Probably not.


For the 1000th time i am not suporting the acations of the death thretes, ect but that the comic is wrong. If such an comic was published in canada there whould be aproite chanles to go threw i am gusing such chanles do not exists to the same extent they do in thess countrys if at all witch could be adding to the problem.

Martin wrote:

As for censorship, CompSci censors for quality (EDIT: which every newspaper should have the right to do). Some people are probably opposed to this, but I like that we don't have to do it. I for one wouldn't want some government goons monitoring this site for 'appropriate content'


Yes for quality is one reason but we allso censor so every one can read this site and not feal discrmated agisted or overly hurt. Also we censor for legal reasons but that is rare and dose not inval this case.

I whould not whont the goverment centoring websites ether but this website is alll persoanl views and not public published like a big newspaper. I do not think they should cnesor the newspapers as much as have fines for hate speash and posiable law suits for pubsing them in a public everment.

Like if M$ where to post thos cartoons around there campus or if MTV started to say anti-homsexual coments. Both orgainsations should not be pubsliing anything that evne coments on thess and will not only offended there emoplyes but there comustumers.

Edit: Freespeah is a great thing and i whould be totaly for it if it was a perfict world. But for now there are to many sutpied peoleop who whould abuses it. I mean think of what would happen to compsci.ca if we could not delete, edit or move anything.
Author:  Delos [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
I mean think of what would happen to compsci.ca if we could not delete, edit or move anything.


[Turing Help]? Laughing
Author:  Tony [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
Think about how it whould effect your ablity to get a job over a native jappnes person. Is that fair?

Well if Martin's lack of native communication will affect his job performance.. then yes, it is fair. Though Martin makes up for it with his technical skill and thus has that job. This is how open market works, it's all good.

For the rest of the points.. you're thinking of newspapers as public sources
Hacker Dan wrote:
A better exmaple of this is that in public school you would not expected to hear the lords prayer or have christion cersomoerys.

Let me explain how this works. Here in Canada children are required to attend school until the age of 16 (I think). Since our Constitution allows for freedom of religion, we have separation of Church and State, and thus no forced prayer in public schools. One could choose to attend private schools as an alternative and participate in rituals of choice.

Similarly newspapers are private media sources. One often has to pay and then choose to read any particular content. Nothing is forced on you.

Thus I think that privately owned newspapers could publish whatever they want, and if the audience disagrees - they simply stop buying the product. If it's a very offensive view, the paper will go out of business due to financial reasons.

And the point of hate laws is that one cannot promote hate. I'm pretty sure that if I was to publish something about <a group> expressing my view of how what they do is not right and such.. it will be fine as long as I don't promote others to dislike the said group.
Author:  octopi [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Tony wrote:
Hacker Dan wrote:
A better exmaple of this is that in public school you would not expected to hear the lords prayer or have christion cersomoerys.

Let me explain how this works. Here in Canada children are required to attend school until the age of 16 (I think). Since our Constitution allows for freedom of religion, we have separation of Church and State, and thus no forced prayer in public schools. One could choose to attend private schools as an alternative and participate in rituals of choice.
[/quote]

In my public school (jk-grade 8) we had a daily religious prayer along with the morning annoucements, and the singing of 'Oh, Canada', and although I consider myself now, and did back then as an atheist (although that may not be the correct name for my views, (I don't believe in god, but I won't deny it to others that their god does not exist.))

I really don't like it when a minority complains that someone is practicing a religion in schools, or whatever. It won't kill you to stand for 30 seconds while others pray. The fact is you are a minority!, why should you expect everyone else to change for you?
Author:  Boo-chan [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Delos you are missing my point. If I was asserting that the Islamic religion as a whole was worse than other religions then your reply would make sense. As well, I don't think I am qualified to make that assertion. What I am asserting is that the Islamic religion has a higher number of extremists that state they are Islamic than any other religion that I know of. This belief may be based on biased news reporting as you have mentioned, but in that case please refer me to reports of extremists in other religions(I know they exist but I don't believe that they exists in such a number as Islamic extremists)

Hacker Dan, people read newspapers for the biases in them, well most people. "People want to read about 'dog bites man' since that supports their view of the world. They do not want to read about 'man bites dog' stories since that would force them to question their world views and very few people want to do that." Newspapers are good in that the stories they write already have the biases built into them that their readers would otherwise have to do themselves. Although newspapers biases are usually based on the political spectrum, the political spectrum itself is based on a lot of issues. To state that only newspapers that are based on supporting or defeating an issue should be allowed to state a position on the matter is rather absurd. Issues such as these affect the population as a whole and therefore should be addressed by the newspapers.
Author:  Dan [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tony wrote:
Hacker Dan wrote:
Think about how it whould effect your ablity to get a job over a native jappnes person. Is that fair?

Well if Martin's lack of native communication will affect his job performance.. then yes, it is fair. Though Martin makes up for it with his technical skill and thus has that job. This is how open market works, it's all good.


If the example i gave had anything to do with langue and comincation you whould be right but clearly it dose not and you are just trying to find falws that make no scences. What i ment as you very well know is that if they did not hire him based on race. For example hring some eltes b/c they where jappnes even tho the person could speak fulent jappnes.

Tony wrote:

For the rest of the points.. you're thinking of newspapers as public sources

....

Similarly newspapers are private media sources. One often has to pay and then choose to read any particular content. Nothing is forced on you.


This is where that line "you don't have to read it if you don't whont to comes in". When u buy a paper that is no relgious based or such you excpected it to be that. The last time i checked most papers do not have big things on them saying "warning this may be offsive" so how is one to know why they buy it or read it b4 hand that it whould contain such materals? Also even if they did not see it, it still effects socitys options as i talked about above.

Tony wrote:

Thus I think that privately owned newspapers could publish whatever they want, and if the audience disagrees - they simply stop buying the product. If it's a very offensive view, the paper will go out of business due to financial reasons.


In theroy that is how it is sposted to work in captiazim but ushely thess gorups are the miniotrys how whould not have a big impact. Dose this make it right to dicrmate agisted them? No. Just b/c there are fewer then you dose not mean you have less rights or are more disvering to be disrcmated agisted.

Also papers can harldy publish anything they whont here in canada. If a paper in canada published that i am will to bet they whould be hit with law suits and face posable punshments from the goverment. This may not be ture in the u.s. for minoritys but it is for indvals, if u publish somthing agisted a person in the U.S. defaming them you could be sued for hurting there image. The difrences between canada and the u.s. is mainly that canada holds the rights of minoritys 1st in freesheap and the u.s. holds the welathly peoleop 1st in freesheap.

Tony wrote:

And the point of hate laws is that one cannot promote hate. I'm pretty sure that if I was to publish something about <a group> expressing my view of how what they do is not right and such.. it will be fine as long as I don't promote others to dislike the said group.


Ah but there is a big difrence there, thess cartoons did not have a cival debate considering the points and expersing an option. Some of them where just out right instauting and they where promoting hate. When you protoary muslumes as therioirests that is promting hate and when u protray a relgion as viloite savages that is promtiong hate. This is far dfirent from saying that you perosnaly disagrea with the acactions or blifes of a gorup. But even then the gorup whould not be the relgion but soem extermists in that relgion so it still whould be inproite for your to clasify the hole gorup for there actacions. It whould be like saying you dislike blacks b/c a small persent of peoleop of color have been invaled in gang cirmes. What you should be writing about is how you dislike gang crimes not peoleop of color.

To Delos: we do modrate turing help, if you have a problem with a post pleas contact an admin or a mod with power there.

To octopi: In the case of BDSS they aucatly we breaking some rules by playing that every day. In fact the peripale at the time aucatly lied to the parent counces about it when it was brougth up and side that they played difrent prayers every day. If i had stayed at that school longer i whould have clanged it. They tryed to make us stand for there pray. That is exteramly wrong. Shure one should repsected other relgions but one should not be forced to do it. Nor forced to hear there prayers.

No one is chaging for the minniory, a public school is a public place with poeleop are forced to go to. Forcing a minority to stand for a pray breaks all freedoms this contry stands for. Shure it may not seem like much but it is the start of an exteramly dangures path. If they can force u by law to listen and stand to a pray then what next? Maybe force you to be a realgion. Minrotys have every right the magority dose and nothing should be able to chage that and i am exteramly prowed that i live in a country that agrages with this.

To Boo-chan: see above coments to tony about papers.

To every one: If you look at this logicaly for a moement:

What do we (as a socity) have to gain from hate speash and bashing of other peleop, minrotiy gorups and being discromtoty? How is having this part of free speah aucatly goign to help us? I mean many have side above basilky "we should have it but not use it". Dose that make any sceens to you at all? There is so much to be lost by having it and so many that whould be hurt. Logicly for the greater good it whould make scens not to alowe it and not to hurt thess gorups. The only thing to be gained form hate speah is hate.....
Author:  octopi [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
To octopi: In the case of BDSS they aucatly we breaking some rules by playing that every day. In fact the peripale at the time aucatly lied to the parent counces about it when it was brougth up and side that they played difrent prayers every day. If i had stayed at that school longer i whould have clanged it. They tryed to make us stand for there pray. That is exteramly wrong. Shure one should repsected other relgions but one should not be forced to do it. Nor forced to hear there prayers.

...

If you look at this logicaly for a moement:

What do we (as a socity) have to gain from hate speash and bashing of other peleop, minrotiy gorups and being discromtoty? How is having this part of free speah aucatly goign to help us? I mean many have side above basilky "we should have it but not use it". Dose that make any sceens to you at all? There is so much to be lost by having it and so many that whould be hurt. Logicly for the greater good it whould make scens not to alowe it and not to hurt thess gorups. The only thing to be gained form hate speah is hate.....


I was originally talking about elementary school, however at BDSS, we were never forced to stand, and there were days of the week where there was no prayer (I believe it was every other day), this was out of respect for other religions.

The problem isn't racism, its learning how to deal with it. Everyone at some point of their lives has to go threw some form of something. But everyone deals with it, its those who can't tolerate it who are the real problems. Think Columbine. I'm sick of everyone who complains and bitches that everyone's out to get them, poor them, learn to realize everyones out to get everyone else, everyone has an enemy. If everyone was more passive, there would be no problems.
Perhaps, its possible that Islam doesn't teach tolerance as well as other religions?


*side note* - I just noticed that we can't even say 'female dog' on here, even the MPAA (who developed the PG13 rating) allows a movie to use words like 'f word for sex', and 'female dog' in movies between 1-3 times, and up to 9 in some cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG13
Author:  Dan [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
octopi wrote:

I was originally talking about elementary school, however at BDSS, we were never forced to stand, and there were days of the week where there was no prayer (I believe it was every other day), this was out of respect for other religions.


When i was there (from what i rember) it was everyday, and even then i still find it inaportie.

octopi wrote:

The problem isn't racism, its learning how to deal with it. Everyone at some point of their lives has to go threw some form of something. But everyone deals with it, its those who can't tolerate it who are the real problems. Think Columbine. I'm sick of everyone who complains and *****es that everyone's out to get them, poor them, learn to realize everyones out to get everyone else, everyone has an enemy. If everyone was more passive, there would be no problems.


So you are saying the probelm is not racism but peoleop that are not white christions that keep compain about it? wow, just wow.
Author:  octopi [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:

So you are saying the probelm is not racism but peoleop that are not white christions that keep compain about it? wow, just wow.


No, not at all.
You acctually kind of supported my point, my point is people like you who have that point of view. "people that are not white christians" It doesn't matter what your religion, race, gender, nothing, when you break it down eventually there will be something someone can discriminate against, its the view that if your "white, and christian" then you have no problems, which is acctually the problem.
This whole thing is all about blame, black people blame the white people, non christians blame the christians. The sad thing is the majority of minorities DO blame they're opposites for they're problems instead of taking responsibility for themselves, and like I've been saying, instead of being tolerant towards others. I do recognise in the past there was a true problem between black people and white people, but now I believe that the problem itself is being reempasised by black people, we are moving away from racism the best we can, but do black people really want to move away from it? Or are they using it as an excuse?

Don't take my above comments, and assume I'm a racist, truthfully, I don't care what colour you are, as long as your honest with me. I have no oppinion as to whether or not black people are using it as an excuse, however there is that question in the back of my mind, but it also applies to everyone, and everything, not just black people.

Whats the real motive behind peoples actions? (Blaming people for racism, or reacting unjustly to religious things) Thats what you really need to think about.
Author:  Martin [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hacker Dan wrote:
What do we (as a socity) have to gain from hate speash and bashing of other peleop, minrotiy gorups and being discromtoty? How is having this part of free speah aucatly goign to help us? I mean many have side above basilky "we should have it but not use it". Dose that make any sceens to you at all? There is so much to be lost by having it and so many that whould be hurt. Logicly for the greater good it whould make scens not to alowe it and not to hurt thess gorups. The only thing to be gained form hate speah is hate.....


What we have to gain from it is a critical point of view. What I don't trust is who gets to decide what counts as hateful, and what is just critical analysis. There's no way to do that except on a case by case basis. You can back up every statement in the world with 'facts' so it can't be just on a basis of evidence. So now we have a unit of people, let's call them the Ministry of Truth (or Minitru), which is responsible for deciding what is allowed to be published. At first, only the most blatant racist remarks get removed. This is a good thing, I think we can all agree. Gay marriage offends a lot of people, so we'll just not talk about it. Most people are Christians, so let's just ban talking about Islam or Judaism, because they are touchy subjects. And of course we can't talk about the government - that pisses everyone off.

And newspapers aren't meant to be encyclopedias. The bias in newspapers is intentional - they are providing a point of view on world events. Agree with it, disagree with it, that's what they're there for. That's why we have so many different newspapers - so we can not only get an idea about what is happening, but also why it is happening and what people think about it. Take gay marriage for example - a lot of people think it's a bad thing by default. What if people weren't allowed to talk about gay marriage beyond "So, gay people want to get married, eh?" Of course, we wouldn't be allowed to have an article about the benefits of gay marriage, or just an analysis of homosexuality, because of course that would be biased. And without it, people are left without thinking about it, and left thinking that it's a bad thing simply because they were never told any differently.

Racism is bad, I could live without racism. That's an educated choice though, not because of censorship. I think that if everything racist was censored, I would probably be more racist than I am simply because I wouldn't have had the chance to think critically about it. As for the Japan thing, yeah it sucks to be discriminated against, but I'd prefer that people came to the conclusion that discrimination was bad because that's what they thought, not because their government told them what to think.

EDIT: To add - as much as I dislike their government, the United States has probably the most liberal free speach laws in the world.
Author:  Martin [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dear Muslim Complaint Box - No Women - No Infidels -

I like cowboys and I think that means I have to cut my hands off. That kind of sucks.
Author:  Brightguy [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cartoons
Hacker Dan wrote:
Ah but there is a big difrence there, thess cartoons did not have a cival debate considering the points and expersing an option.
They were accompanied by an article as well which explained the point that the cartoons were trying to make: extremist Muslims are causing censorship. There was almost nobody who would illustrate a children's book, because of concern over attacks!

Now, someone at a Danish newspaper had seen this kind of self-censorship happen more than once, and so he wanted to make a statement criticising it, and he choose to do it through satire. The cartoons were not drawn to promote hate against Muslims.
Author:  codemage [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
As for the extremists in other religious groups. Yes, certainly they exist. And yes, certainly they kill.


I'm reminded of the instances of fanatical Christians shooting abortion clinic doctors. Does that make Christianity a violent, intolerant religion? Certainly not. What we have is a small segment, a religious sect, if you will, that has trodden over the religion's core beliefs in order to enforce said beliefs.

Fanatical muslims come from a similar background. Almost all Islamic terrorism comes from the Shi'ite sect, which represents less than 10% of the religion. I have several muslim friends (one of whom is the daughter of an Imam); and they despise the Shi'ites for misrepresenting Allah, and the religion in general.

It doesn't necessarily matter what figures of so-called authority say. Pat Robertson is a Christian figurehead, but most Christians wordwide think he's a complete nutjob. (And shouldn't be allowed to talk in public... or private.)

Leaders are all open to satire. I've had my views satirized at times by shows like the Simpsons / South Park; sometimes I agree with those statements, and sometimes I don't. I still recognize it as satire, and often the cruel jabs promote thought, and dialogue. Even when I disagree, I recognize the point that's being made, and that a basis exists for it.

Quote:
Thus I think that privately owned newspapers could publish whatever they want, and if the audience disagrees - they simply stop buying the product. If it's a very offensive view, the paper will go out of business due to financial reasons.


I disagree. Some level of censorship is necessary (without getting to the Mintruth extreme.) A lot of violence begins in the middle east when private corporations are permitted to print materials that revise history in order to make racist claims into facts. Anything that is outright hateful or encourages illegal activities is within the bounds of legitimate censorship.
Author:  Dan [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:14 am ]
Post subject: 
codemage wrote:

I disagree. Some level of censorship is necessary (without getting to the Mintruth extreme.) A lot of violence begins in the middle east when private corporations are permitted to print materials that revise history in order to make racist claims into facts. Anything that is outright hateful or encourages illegal activities is within the bounds of legitimate censorship.


That is what i have been trying to say for the last few pages, lol.

To martin: Curently we do have hate laws witch do cnesore things, and i do not see thougth police running around or big brouther any where but in the u.s. =p

Also i whould disagrea about the u.s. having the most libbra freeshapce. As i side it is just difretnet what the censor. They cnesor more poltical things then minority/hate things.

To Brightguy: If what you say is ture, that almost makes it worse. They where being censorced so they did somthing they knew whould be wrong to make satrie? And satrie can be hatefull and even if the cartoons where not ment to be hatefull they where at least put in knowing they whould be offsive.

To octopi: I used that exmaplie b/c it is what the magoiry is here not to impley anything. Since you side that the minority should go along with the magority. Also i do not think you are a rasists but just ingornit.

If it was just a bunch of peoleop saying unkind things with no futher effect on peoleop or soccity i whould probly aragea with you guys but it is much more then that. It effects thess peoleops every day lifes. It effects the job opretiotes, it effects how they are treated by the public and alot more.

Also when u say it is just a buch of peoleop wineing about things, i blive you are only consdiering a very limited gorup of visable minroitys. There are also miniroty such as disabled peoleop who are direcrtly handlycaped by there disbality and all they whont is to be treated equaly the same as any other gorup. No one whonts (or should at least) to be more then the magority just to be equal to it. The probelm with rasicm and discrmation is not just a buch of peoleop wineing that peoleop do not like them. And if you see it as such you need to take a good loook at the real world.

Any how this debate is sucking up alot of my time and i have midterms, so to pervents this from going in loops and wasting space on our server i am going to give up on this deabte unless some one whonts to ask me somthing directly.
Author:  Brightguy [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cartoons
Hacker Dan wrote:
They where being censorced so they did somthing they knew whould be wrong to make satrie?
Well, "wrong" is relative - clearly some people will think that it is wrong and some will not. The point is, they were trying to raise awareness on the censorship.

The underlying question is: if you have reason to believe that if you publish something, a group of people will be violent over it, should you publish it? If you don't publish because you fear attacks, then this is self-censorship, and you are letting the extremists control what is being censored.

Dan, I think what you're arguing is that it should have been illegal to publish those cartoons, because a group of people would be offended by it. But what if (and I don't consider this a very far stretch) they were offended to the same level every time that Muhammad was mentioned in a negative light. By your rules it's illegal to publish such material?

These cartoons were not promoting hate. They knew they would offend some people, yes, but there is always a group who will be offended by anything you publish.
Author:  codemage [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Even if it is legal, and moral, is it responsible?

Because of some offshoot paper, Denmark stands to lose a minimum of $250M in annual trade. That's other businesses that have everything invested in Danish-Arab commerce, and nothing to blame for in the incident.
Author:  Brightguy [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cartoons
Well, I think that after everyone calms down most Muslims will have the sense to realise that boycotting their products is pointless because they don't all share the same views. And no, I never said it was responsible, but I really don't think they expected people would be killed over it.

Like I said, I personally wouldn't have published them, but I think they had a good point, and a few of the cartoons fit in well with the article and don't seem so offensive. (e.g., the schoolboy in front of a chalkboard, the illustrator looking over his shoulder, and the author holding a picture of a stick figure with the "PR STUNT" orange.)

By the way, I agree with the hate speech laws.
Author:  Naveg [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
codemage wrote:
Even if it is legal, and moral, is it responsible?

Because of some offshoot paper, Denmark stands to lose a minimum of $250M in annual trade. That's other businesses that have everything invested in Danish-Arab commerce, and nothing to blame for in the incident.


Ah yes, the glory of seeing things in retrospect. Now see things rationally. Do you honestly think that Danish paper would have foreseen this reaction? I doubt it.

It's easy to look back on it and blame the paper for costing the Danish trade business, but who could have expected such profound developments to this scenario?
Author:  Martin [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's the strangest thing about this.

You could run a blatantly racist, full page comic on the front page of the Detroit Free Press saying "Haha, black people aren't people" and all that would happen would be some newspaper machines would get emptied by people (you know, buy one take all of the papers).

No hostages, no buildings burnt down. The Detroit Free Press' business would probably be severely hurt, but that's it.
Author:  1of42 [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
codemage wrote:
Even if it is legal, and moral, is it responsible?

Because of some offshoot paper, Denmark stands to lose a minimum of $250M in annual trade. That's other businesses that have everything invested in Danish-Arab commerce, and nothing to blame for in the incident.


Which is Martin's point. The Muslim world is effectively censoring the free perss in other countries, which is bad.
Author:  Martin [ Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Exactly.

Censorship should be happening in the form of "Wow, drawing this comic would be immature and tasteless, so I'm not going to do it. There are better ways to get my message across" not "If I draw this slightly offensive comic, people are going to start burning down buildings, taking hostages and boycotting trade with my country."
Author:  codemage [ Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Naveg wrote:
It's easy to look back on it and blame the paper for costing the Danish trade business, but who could have expected such profound developments to this scenario?


Not I. But the issue is ongoing. It's easy for a paper editor to stand by his journalistic principles of free speech, riding on a wave of controversy that costs him nothing - while completely uninvolved people are being killed around the world for a stance they didn't take.

If I was in that position, I'd apologize. I wouldn't mean it, but Danish travellers & business people deserve at least an insincere word or two to stop the madness.
Author:  Brightguy [ Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cartoons
codemage wrote:
Not I. But the issue is ongoing. It's easy for a paper editor to stand by his journalistic principles of free speech, riding on a wave of controversy that costs him nothing - while completely uninvolved people are being killed around the world for a stance they didn't take.

If I was in that position, I'd apologize. I wouldn't mean it, but Danish travellers & business people deserve at least an insincere word or two to stop the madness.
But the paper and the editor did already apologize, "for hurting the feelings of Islamic society". This was on Jan 30, before things really started to go out of control.

And in my opinion, if you apologize for something, then you definitely should mean it.

By the way, an exerpt from Wikipedia:
Quote:
A number of Muslim organizations submitted complaints to the Danish police claiming that Jyllands-Posten had committed an offence under section 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code.

Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion. Danish police began their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005.

On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg decided to discontinue the investigation as he found no basis for concluding that the cartoons constituted a criminal offence.
Author:  Martin [ Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
In response, some Iranian newspaper is running a contest for offensive Holocaust comics. And what's going to annoy them more than anything is that there aren't going to be protests, or burnt down buildings or death threats. All that's going to happen is Iran will have revoked its right to legitimately complain.

Stupid people.

:


You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy