French cartoon sparks protests
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2025 15:43
VIEWED: 11178
PAGE 3 of 11
Quote:
I wonder how different the western world would be now if no one ever challenged christianity?
Newsflash: maybe this isn't the way to challenge Islam. Or get them to listen to us about social issues and civil rights. Like at all. Maybe lewd drawings of Mohammed are really pointless and actually say nothing, and if we want to help the women over there or end the violence, there might be better methods.
Or maybe atheists back in the 1800s drew a metic ton of Jesus screwing a donkey cartoons. That really got us the respect and tolerance of the christians.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You call yourself an Anarchist and you condemn free speech in this way??? Tell me I'm misunderstanding you, please, 'cause so far as I can see you and Niki are way off the rails on this one.
I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"
Not so much a moral assessment as a logical one, or at least that's how it seems to me.
Oh, and in regards to being told what the Quaran contains versus reading it themselves, that is where and why I wholeheartedly support RAWA's attempt to spread literacy... although I am not sure it will make the difference they seem to think it will, cause Christians do not have the excuse of illiteracy and few enough of them have read the Bible.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CHRISISALL:
We need more cartoons. Many more. If these j**koffs go ballistic over a few caricatures, maybe they'll commit mass suicide if we inundate the media with it( btw, why are they looking at cartoons anyway? They're supposed to be praying when not working, right?).
Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured 'toons
There's something to be said for that. Inundate 'em with it, and when they see that their world didn't come to a screeching halt, maybe they'll realize that their religion, like any other, can be criticized or made fun of.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OMG, you found some kind of serious point in what I posted jokingly? *falls off chair*
Originally posted by Kwicko:
There's something to be said for that. Inundate 'em with it, and when they see that their world didn't come to a screeching halt, maybe they'll realize that their religion, like any other, can be criticized or made fun of.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Frem, really? Byte is explicitely equating the drawing of tasteless cartoons and murder:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You call yourself an Anarchist and you condemn free speech in this way??? Tell me I'm misunderstanding you, please, 'cause so far as I can see you and Niki are way off the rails on this one.
I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"
Not so much a moral assessment as a logical one, or at least that's how it seems to me.
"Takes two to tango. We kill them, they kill us, we make shitty content with little to no artistic value about their religious figures, they kill us, and on it goes."
(Incidentally, I have never heard "takes two to tango" used except as a justification for abuse. It's kinda like that whole "for the greater good" thing.) Byte's hatred for the, I'm sorry, TRULY INNOCUOUS content of the cartoons has blinded her to the real issue here; which is the wholly incompatible values of a free society and a totalitarian society. In her estimation, these two "sides" are both at fault for murder.
Free speech means there is no wrong way to do free speech. Free speech is an end in itself. And free speech has never killed a single human being in the history of the world.
"Gee, that was kinda stupid?" Like Treyvon Martin wearing a hoodie stupid or rape victim dressing slutty stupid?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter wheTrere you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.
I think that people should consider consequences betfore doing anything, yes. But there should never be any restriction on their right to make art, no matter what anyone think of it.
Oh eat your hat. When did I ever say they shouldn't be allowed to make their stupid awful garbage?
Them being artists and free speech, and their art still sucks. They aren't victims. Trolls are trolls, and both sides are beyond ridiculous here.
Okay, if I misinterpreted you, I appologize. I think we are perhaps a bit closer in views on this than I had thought.
I don't really consider the maker of the film in question an artist, for what that's worth. He was not trying to create art - he was trying to piss people off. Which, granted, is often the purpose of art, but this was something else, I feel.
But I also tend to agree with Chris - we should all be wearing tee-shirts with cartoon Mohammed on them - it should become so commonplace it becomes irrelevant.
And I've never been a hat guy, though, so I have none upon which to munch.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK: Stop calling the artists victims. They are trolls. I never once said they should stop trolling. I did compare what they did to murder, because, um, it kinda resulted in murder. Kinda like my paying taxes for the right to stay in this country and use free speech resulted in murder.
I don't think I argued that I'm going to stop speaking or paying taxes though. Though I only do the later because the long arm of the law will bust my ass if I tried it.
Oh hey! But would you like me to stop talking? Because I'm kinda tired of it anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Okay, if I misinterpreted you, I appologize. I think we are perhaps a bit closer in views on this than I had thought
That's... Huh. I actually didn't expect anyone to apologize. I was on a major bitch rant there.
But, yeah, I didn't ever say that the artists should stop doing their thing, only that I thought this particular thing was kinda dumb and tasteless with a sprinkling of reckless.
But then, I'm kinda dumb and tasteless, with a sprinkling of reckless... Eh. Whatevs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people.... This is playground bullshit....I more didn't understand why it was a point that needed to be made.
I agree with some of what Byte said.Quote:
I think that people should consider consequences before doing anything, yes.
Was the ENTIRE point I was making. Not censorship: disapproval. A wish that people had the sense to realize that what they did, just 'cuz they could do it, would bring about the deaths of other INNOCENT people.
The idea that the "movie" maker did to STOP Muslims from killing is as insane and stupid as his supposed "movie" is in the first place. Not only does the "movie" make no such point or even attempt to make any sense at all (which causes me to doubt the reason he gave for making it in the first place), but the cartoons are idiotic and make no point; they're just childish "neener neener"s.
If freedom of speech is available to everyone (including Byte and I), then fine: I DECRY THE IDIOCY OF DOING SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL FOR NO GOOD REASON, especially something which will cause the deaths of people who had no choice in the matter.
It's interesting how disapproval of what these people did is immediately called "kowtowing" to Muslims. There are legitimate things that need challenging, and legitimate ways to do it. I don't see either of these things as ANY attempt to "challenge" Islam, just, essentially, to treat it like shit. Quote:
Who ever challenged Christianity? I don't recall ever hearing of anyone challenging it...some had a different view of it and made their own "versions", but "challenged"? Not that I know of. Aside from which, this isn't "challenging" Islam; the "movie" (if there really is one) "disparaged" it (kindest term I can come up with), the cartoon "mocked" it...no challenges there.
I wonder how different the western world would be now if no one ever challenged christianity? Quote:
Newsflash: maybe this isn't the way to challenge Islam. Or get them to listen to us about social issues and civil rights. Like at all. Maybe lewd drawings of Mohammed are really pointless and actually say nothing, and if we want to help the women over there or end the violence, there might be better methods.
You go get 'em, girl; that's akin to the point I was making, but more direct. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but with those I quoted, I do.Quote:
I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"
Thank you, Frem. Seems any statement negative to something is immediately considered "censorship" or "condemnation of free speech". Interesting, that.
Cav, if you truly consider those cartoons truly innocuous, then your view is different from mine. I found them tasteless at best, gross to be more realistic. I think a few million other people would find some of them gross and offensive, no matter what their religion.
I seem to remember a few movies about Christ and/or the Christian religion raising quite a furor. They didn't lead to violence, as far as I know, but I'm sure it never occurred to anyone that if we didn't have the rule of law and we lived in a country where violence is an everyday occurrence, those movies might well have caused violence. There's your basic difference. In Afghanistan, the punishment for stealing (when I was there) was the loss of the hand that allowed one to eat from the communal bowl--ergo, death. It was an accepted punishment. We wouldn't dream of such a thing. But we USED to kill people who were suspected of being witches. Remember the Inquisition? (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition--sorry, couldn't resist) We've evo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Oh hey! But would you like me to stop talking?
Not ever. Not even when we're on opposite sides of an issue. Once talking stops, so does any hope of reaching an understanding.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME